In response to the arbitrary censorship being exercised by the new President of CI, even after he presented Rules which aim to "provide open and free communication among all CI members," I requested records that must be transmitted to any Member of CI within 10 days, according to Michigan Law (see the CI G+ Page for full documentation). In response to this request, I only received a mail from the President asking me to "consider a different course of action." He also stated that "Disagreement and discourse is a normal part of any organization." I called for an open discussion of corporate governance and the related Membership privacy concerns. However, no action was taken to address these issues, which have been unresolved for almost three years. I present below my reply.

This is from a summary mail, where I presented the Main Point:

: Impartial moderation/administration is a precondition for democracy

Management of the (CI mailing) List is in the hands of a Moderator that cannot be considered impartial, since he originated the ongoing dispute. 

Therefore, if you wish to respect democracy, you must appoint an impartial Moderator.


PS: Earlier I stated, "If you are prepared to democratize CI, then I will be happy to assist. If not, we have nothing to talk about. " This applies only to the Main Point above and other questions concerning access to records. 

PPS: To be absolutely clear, continuation of a Dictatorship is not acceptable. As GG commented (and AS supported): 
I'm a bit distressed to learn that we have CI Board members who are against having the link to his website published, and I would like to know who they are so I can consider not voting for them next time.  Do they think we are all children who need our internet use monitored?? [I don't have permission to disclose the full names of CI Members GG and AS]

This is from the complete response, which starts with my summary:

This is an important topic  - Member privacy and corporate governance - that effects all Members and which could benefit from input by them. However, there is no forum where such a discussion can take place, since you have excluded me from the List. 

It should be clear by now that your hypocritical failure to impartially enforce your own Rules for List management made it necessary for me to file the Request for Records. If those Rules were being impartially enforced, then CI would have a plausible legal basis for refusing to comply with the Request. 

Unless you are prepared to democratize CI, we have nothing to talk about. If you wish to continue discussion, then a new Moderator, or preferably an independent moderation team, must take responsibility for communications among Members. This discussion could then continue on the List, where it would be of greatest benefit. 

There will be a transition to democracy at CI, if it does not collapse in the near future. The longer democracy is suspended, the more serious the consequences will be for CI and its Leadership. If you act immediately, you may be able to avert the most disastrous of these consequences. I am certain you will not wish to hold the full responsibility for the consequences of the crimes of your predecessors. However, by continuing the Coverup, you are making that outcome inevitable. 

On 10 Nov 2012, at 9:20 PM, Dennis Kowalski wrote (K = Kowalski and S = Stodolsky below):

K) I am sorry that you feel the way you do about the democratically elected CI's leadership.

S) One place that has this type of democracy is Belarus (White Russia), the last Stalinist state in Europe. According to the recent OECD Report, the media was totally controlled by the Dictator during the election. He ensured that only his views were presented. 

You might want to look at my draft e-democracy "review" to get a better understanding of  what I mean by the term "democracy":

K) We take all member grievances seriously. However, in light of the official opinion of the attorney grievance commission that your claims against David Ettinger are unmerited, 

S) That was not the conclusion. Their suggestion was that I take my complaint to a court, since they were not in a position to establish the facts. Once the facts are established, I can resubmit my Complaint.

If there was a false statement in my Complaint, then I am sure we would have seen a libel action filed against me by this time. The Complaint was transmitted to David Ettinger by the AGC, when they decided not to proceed with the Case at this time.

K) I suggest that you reconsider your current course of action. CI has limited resources and operates largely with volunteer help.

S) Then CI should make more effective use of volunteers. Currently, you maintain a CI List Moderator who has committed copyright violations and is distrusted by many Members. There are other Members who are more technically competent and who are not involved in a Coverup of abuses, which compromises their impartiality. 

You are impeding volunteer organizing on the local level, by refusing to observe Michigan Law. 

K) Incessantly filing of grievances and complaining because you are unsatisfied with opinions that differ from your own has a negative effect.

S) My complaint is not about opinions that differ from my own. It concerns your policy of not permitting opinions that differ from yours to be expressed. 

A review of recent events shows that it is the CI Leadership that has been attacking me for holding opinions differing from theirs. First a libelous letter to voters, then censorship of the documents I uploaded for the Members, then a series of libelous notices in Long Life, then the secret censorship of the List, and finally the DMCA takedown notice. This last action got me interested in events at CI again and convinced me that legal action was necessary to stop these ongoing attacks. 

K) Limited resources of time and money are diverted to addressing your claims. You must realize that you are doing more to harm CI then help it and as such, become an organizational liability.

S) I did not ask the CI List Moderator to secretly "help" me get my message across. I did not ask Ben Best to launch a libelous hate campaign against me in order to ensure his and your election. I did not ask to be excluded from communicating with the Membership, so a Coverup could continue. I am apparently the only one willing to help the Membership stop the self-destructive policies currently in place. 

You are harming CI by condoning violations of the principles of democracy, which are a precondition for the safe keeping of those in storage. Unless, you provide me with the Records requested, you will be operating the Organization in violation of Michigan Law. This lawlessness is compounding the reputational damage CI has already sustained as a result of the counterproductive censorship policies and the use of CI's Law Firm to attack a Member who disagrees with the Leadership. 

As I have documented in "Our path to destruction", by continuing failed policies you are impeding Membership growth and thereby presiding over the decline of CI.

K) Disagreement and discourse is a normal part of any organization.

S) The conditions for discourse do not exist when one side is excluded from the conversation. 

K) I am sure you can appreciate the lines that must be drawn when considering what type of discourse can lead to productive results and which lead to negative results or harm to the organization.

S) In a democratic organization, these lines must be drawn by the Membership. I suggest you repost my comments on your new Rules to the List for discussion.
Shared publicly