Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en

Board changes

I the text there are several affairs written non-accurately, and some written in the way that suggests another order of the activities.

I, as a then-chair, haven't asked for financial reward (and so more not for myself - what is not written here, but he usual use of the words suggests that). Firstly I have proposed that Matej (than simple Board member) would register the organisation for 2% - it would be possible if the Board would change his function to Chair or Vice-Chair. Matej have rejected that and the Board was still asking me to register. Then I have asked (as a condition) for fulfilling a activities from the Annual plan for 2017 related to capacity development of our activists. The specified amount is right. It was not a financial reward.

Another issue is the time sequence. The actual text suggests that the activities was running in the presented sequence. But that is not even possible because of required rights to do specified activities. Actually the situation was in this order: firstly we was dealing about the registration of 2%, than I resigned my position as a Chair and informed that I resign from membership from 1st January 2019. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The time sequence was indeed reversed. It is now corrected. The rest stands. The chair asked for a reward and paid it to himself on the day of his resignation.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, to ensure maximum transparency, the correction should not be implemented until after an AGM approval.--Jetam2 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, Jetam2, do not spread false and libelous information. You are the highest representant of a Wikimedia Affiliation, so as you are spreading false and libelous information, it makes untrustworthy not only you but also the Wikimedia User Group Wikimedians of Slovakia. You, of course, can consider it to be a reward, but it clearly doesn't make it reward. You opinion is still only opinion. I have paid myself nothing from WMSVK. I have reimbursed myself from costs for books for the organisation. It was not paying myself. You can look for the decision. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear KuboF Hromoslav and all. I now realize that it is necessary to come back to things and re-explain since other avenues where they were discussed are not available to those checking Meta. I apologize for a longer post but it is better than to go back and forth.

Let me start with a bit of a background. In Slovakia, those taxpayers that have income tax to pay may designate an institution/organization that will receive 2% of their income tax to be paid. Organizations wishing to receive the 2% have to submit an application to the tax authorities to make themselves available for this program. The deadline was in mid-december. With Radoslava being abroad, KuboF was the only person who could submit it. He asked the Board for a 100 EUR payment. He would not submit the application otherwise. Realizing that participation in the 2% program would result in the UG receiving more money than this payment, Radoslava and Matej (Jetam2) agreed to KuboF's demand.

As to the books that KuboF is mentioning, they are indeed a reward/gift. KuboF proposed that the UG buys a collection of books for 200 € that he had picked and saw as fit for the UG. Radoslava and Matej did not see this purchase as particularly useful for the UG, it seemed more useful to KuboF personally. However, they decided to make the purchase a reward/gift to KuboF upon his upcoming retirement from the Board provided he completes his commitments. They understood that KuboF accepted this.

KuboF resigned from the board but on the same day transferred 200 € and 100 € from the UG account to his own account. The rest of the board was neither informed of nor in agreement with this step. They asked KuboF to return the funds but that has not happened. After discussion and consideration of the circumstances, Radoslava and Matej decided to make the books (200 €) a gift since KuboF had done good work for the UG in the past and not to pursue the matter further. Whether this is called a reward or gift or any other name in the annual report is an interpretation of the UG and its AGM, an annual report can only be taken as such, no more, no less. There still remains the 100 € which KuboF transferred to himself with no reason given in the transfer protocol. While accusing us of providing misinformation, KuboF has not provided any alternative explanation for this action and neither has he returned the money to the UG as requested.

I hope this clarifies the situation. If not, I am available for further comments and clarifications. Perhaps KuboF will clarify too.--Jetam2 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clear up potential confusion: I did not mean that KuboF should correct or edit the report itself. There are other avenues, such as this discussion, an email to AffCom, at an AGM etc. Thanks!--Jetam2 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Jetam2 et all: Thanks for a gift in the form of education books for 200 € for my long servise as a Chair! It is very new information to me! Up until now I was 100% sure that the books are as agreed by the Board previously - an investment into capacity development of Wikimedia activists in Slovakia. I am not sure whether I have just missed such announcement, or Grochal and Semanová just haven't informed me about the change of the status of the books.

The another 100 € was allocated for the same purpose - to serve for capacity development of Wikimedia activists in Slovakia. I am aware that Grochal and Semanová misunderstood it from the beginning (from the time of Board discussion), declaring it to be intentional (financial) reward. Ok, their interpretation. But it is only a secondary interpretation, not the original purpose. As Grochal and Semanová was consisting 2 thirds of the Board in the time, one may argue, that Grochal and Semanová "decided to provide a reward for Matúšov". But it is not truth, that "Matúšov (me) asked for reward". While it is truth, that I genuinely enjoy progress of Wikimedia movement, it has no tradition, nor consistent usage in WMSVK (e.g. when Patrik Kunec in the same year asked WMSVK to buy a camera for 800 €, that he wanted to use - it is not mentioned in the report as "reward for Kunec") to name an investment into development of the organisation as a "reward" and it has a negative connotations.

Additionaly, as Grochal confirmed to me in private email, I have truthfully marked the purpose of the 100 € in the bank wire. And I have also provided all the receiptes for the books to WMSVK. The books costed only 80 € partly because of not clear understanding about additional costs (I have underbought) and partly because I was asked by Grochal to no more do the work, that we have agreed that I will do (and I have consider it to be right to turn part of the money to another purpose). The financial diference nearly exactly covered my super-spending on Facebook ads in the name of WMSVK, for which Grochal confirmed that WMSVK will reimburse me but never did; I have pardoned the rest of the money to WMSVK and haven't asked for it anymore. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a gift but quite the unvoluntary gift. It would have been much nicer to have an actual ceremony and present the gift to KuboF (Mr Matúšov) for his distinguished service to the UG. However, after the funds have been misappropriated, it is not quite the gift nor was the service distinguished.

The books have always been more for you than for the UG. Neither I nor my colleague Ms Semanová thought we needed these particular books. Capacity building is good, of course, but buying a dozen books (or so) that hardly anyone has time to read was not seen as particularly productive. One or two might have been a different story. Or books that were in fact more useful than what you proposed. Further, you had communicated your intention to set up a consulting business in that department and surely would have made use of those books. Remember that calling it a reward is still quite positive, there are other ways to call funds that have been taken without agreement.

It is worth pointing out the differences when it comes to the camera: the camera was bought and later reimbursed after a discussion and agreement of the Board. While Mr Kunec may have suggested it and been a proponent of it, it was not a personal gift. He does not use it anymore either. Your 100€ was a different story: your money transfer from the UG account to your own took the rest of the Board by surprise. There was no agreement that the money should be transferred and it was done on the eve of your resignation itself a strange move. The other details I will have to double check.

Perhaps it should be mentioned too that you did not in fact finish the work we had asked you to do: the closing of your office in a proper way.

Be well and healthy!--Jetam2 (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Jetam2, you may call it as you want but it changes nothing on the fact, that what I have asked for is not a "reward". I have asked for materials for capacity development. You and Semanová have misunderstood it as a gift. Ok, you have misunderstood - and again, it changes nothing on the fact, that what I have asked for is not a "reward". Therefore, the information in the report is false. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We can discuss about the another issues you have presented, but they are not relevant to the issue of "reward"...

BTW, you should check also your another statements. Like "There was no agreement that the money should be transferred" - in fact, it was a Board decision - you also agreed with it. Check it ;-)

"Perhaps it should be mentioned too that you did not in fact finish the work we had asked you to do: the closing of your office in a proper way." - Yeah, that is right. In fact, I have already in 2017 proposed to search for new capable Chair. You and Vicechair Semanová firstly agreed (voted for approval of Annual plan) but that sabotaged the process, so we never found a capable Chair, and the situation of the WUG WMSVK is consequential. Also, working on WMSVK issues showed to have no real meaning, because in that time I was the only one active Board member, so after my resignation, the WUG was on trajectory of self-anihilation (why would I put my time, effort, energy and attention to a dead project?!). Despite all of that I was still working on the administration even after my resignation - I have stopped only after you and Kunec have asked my to transfer the work to you and Kunec. Even after that I was still working to help WMSVK to live and I have significantly ceased this activity only after the rest of the Board consisting of you and Semanová persisted to follow the track of violation of its bylaw despite being many and many times warned - both privately and publicly. And even after that I am still working on helping WMSVK to flourish. Now, the biggest structural issue of WMSVK is lack of personal integrity in all of the functionaries - despite signing (in a membership application) to follow the bylaws, all current functionaries expressed that they do not care about violating them. Even after year no change is apparent - no one functionary cares. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We care and still do, KuboF, but there comes a point where it does not make sense to keep going back to the same old accusations, re-explain everything, wait three weeks for your newest post and re-explain everything. And wait a few weeks for your post and re-explain everything. And then again. If you think WMSK is dead now, well, that is your right. Others will see the results. Feel free not to work for WMSK anymore. Thanks and be well!--Jetam2 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

In terms of "sabotaged": We did not agree that your friend (whom you so vehemently pushed) be the headhunter. That is all. But I am also glad that you recognized your failure to complete your work. Perhaps you could draw some consequences from that too?--Jetam2 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Honourary members

Actually, in the time, there was 1 honourary member. More info at Radoslava. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

2%?

Slovaks understand it, but it would be beneficial for the international audience to clarify what is "2% scheme". --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)