Aikido - the organizational context

Chapter 33

In a chain of events the board of Dutch Aikido without consulting its members has decided to terminate my membership and to force the organization I am member of to terminate my membership as well. All of this is based on the claims that my blog is slanderous and damaging to the federation. In consequence this would remove me from every formal relationship to Aikido without any due process.

While it is challenging to respond to this extreme measure with equal aggression, I have consulted many friends on the matter. Much to my surprise there are many who feel that despite the chain of events I should consider removing the parts that are upsetting for Dutch Aikido. Many believe this will entice Dutch Aikido to revoke their decision.

This in fact creates a moral challenge for me. While I am convinced that everything I have written is true, and I stand by each letter, I find it difficult to retract any part of it. At the same time, if I can find no way to take a step
back in a conflict, the saying would apply: if you’re not part of the solution,
you are part of the problem.

As a consequence I have asked myself what arguments I can find to remove parts of the blog, and I have come to the following conclusions:

– While my complaint is that I have not received fair hearing by Dutch Aikido, in some sense the same applies to my accusations. No matter what my view on their actions is, the blog is not a platform where they have the opportunity to present their case. The fact that they have responded with a lawyer and termination of my membership may be unreasonable measures, but that does not change the fact a blog is not a form of fair hearing.
– In a conflict where there is no way out, one party will have to make the gesture of taking a step back. Perhaps this could be perceived as conceding to (further) intimidation but not doing anything will be perceived as unwillingness to compromise anyway. Therefore it seems better to make a positive gesture and accept the consequences of that choice.

Therefore, in the following days I will be removing parts of my blog, with the goal of creating an opportunity for parties involved to reconsider their choices. Feel free to let me know what you think of that choice.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

Chapter 26

In 2012 the NAF voted that any candidate from
the Netherlands would need the explicit permission from the NAF to stand as
candidate for the board of the IAF.

In itself this would not seem a disconcerting
decision. However, in 2014 it became clear that this decision had a background
which the members probably did not foresee.
In this year the chairman of the NAF, also
member of the DC of the IAF, went to the chairman of the IAF, and stated that
if I would stand as candidate for a position in the IAF I would be expelled as
member of the IAF.

The underlying decision by the NAF was
consequently placed on the agenda of the DC of the IAF in September 2014. It
was dismissed by the DC as having no relevance for the IAF. The statutes of the
IAF allow any member federation to present any natural person as candidate for
a position, and it could not be such that a single member could limit the
rights of any other member federation to appoint a candidate of their choice. A
letter clearly stating this was sent by the chairman of the IAF to the NAF. It
was never presented to the members of the NAF.

At the time I believed this would be the end of
it, but in August 2016 Mr Vriesman circulated the following mail to some of the
members of the IAF (quote in bold):

As a collegae member
federation of the NAF , I inform you that the NAF being a democratic platform
towards the IAF had an binding election for all the members of the NAF, to
decide which members of the NAF are allowed to be elected or re-elected as DC member
of the IAF.

The result of this
election is that only one member is allowed to be (re) elected….. having the
support of the NAF and so..will be the only one nominated by the NAF.

The elected person
is the current chairman of the NAF.

Best Regards

Wilko Vriesman

Chairman
NAF

This mail leads to a number of inevitable conclusions:
1. the chairman of the NAF brought himself in a
position where he disregarded a letter from the IAF stating that the NAF
decision could not apply to IAF members.
2. this demonstrated both a conflict of
interest, as well as willfully misleading of IAF members.

This was stated in a letter from the chairman of
the IAF to the chairman of the NAF.

After some research it also became clear that
this letter had been signed as chairman of the NAF but had not been discussed
with the members of the NAF in any way. This email must be taken as selfserving
abuse of his position as chairman of the NAF to further his personal interests.

When I received this information, I filed a
complaint with Dutch Aikikai. As I wrote in the previous post, since Mr
Vriesman is chairman of the NAF, it seemed senseless to object with the
virtually non-existent NAF. As it was further clear that AN had statutory
articles forcing the members of the Aikikai section to adhere to the
regulations and decisions of the IAF, it seemed reasonable to file the
complaint with the organization which statutes were available and made such
strong statements.

The (lack of) response was disconcerting. In
first instance the chairman of AN did not reply at all. After repeated
checking, he replied he had received the complaint and that it would be
discussed at the next board meeting. He did not mention when this would take
place.

Only after the IAF elections had taken place, did
I contact the chairman of AN about the status of my complaint. He informed me
that the board of AN had discussed the complaint, had decided nothing irregular
had taken place in the elections of a candidate and that they had dropped the
matter.

To my mind this demonstrates lack of respect for
a member who has a complaint, and bad management of a complaint:
– it would have been only decent to inform me of
the outcome of the process, but that was apparently not deemed necessary.
– it also shows bad management that the person
against who the complaint is raised, can simply state that nothing is wrong,
and this is the end of the research into complaint that included accusations of
infringement on the freedom of association, abuse of power and intimidation.
– it shows lack of management skills that the
reply did not address any of the actual complaints made, but focused on
something explicitly mentioned as not being part of the complaint.

When I raised these issues, a repetition of
positions took place. As a consequence I contacted the chairman of the NSF
(Dutch Sport Council) who replied that in such a case the general assembly of
the organization should be contacted as the ruling body.

I therefore sent my complaint again, only to
receive the same reply, now drafted by a lawyer:
– in fact it’s not a matter for AN, it’s a
matter of the NAF
– the election of a candidate in the NAF took
place democratically
– you lost the election in the IAF, so what do
you complain about

In the meantime I had however also contacted the
members of Dutch Aikikai individually, since I had little confidence in the
functioning of the board of the NAF and AN. This led to further disappointment:
– one member replied that he understood the
complaint but considered it an Aikikai matter and did not want to be involved
– one member replied he did not want to get
involved
– one member sent a confirmation of receiving
the complaint, and I heard nothing since

I was not surprised by such developments at all.
When I met Mr Vriesman in December 2016 he told me ‘the ranks were closing
against me’. That may all well be, but since we are served by these
representatives and believe we can trust them, also when situations get
complicated, I see no other option than to allow everybody to know how they are
represented.

Chapter 25

Dutch Aikikai has a complicated history, as described earlier. When the BBN was split up into Karate, Taekwondo, Judo and a Federation for Eastern Martial Arts (FOG), the NCAF was founded. This federation became member of the FOG (national level) and the IAF (international level).

But as time passed and political interventions changed the landscape, the NCAF changed its name and became the NAF. A new umbrella organization was formed and this is called AN.

The question now is: what is the relationship between the NAF, AN and the IAF.

To start off with, my hypothesis is that the remaining construction has lost its validity, and is exposed by recent incidents.

When the concept of an umbrella organization was being developed, there was a need to resolve two issues:

– the government would only accept an umbrella organization if it would be host to all forms of Aikido.

– Hombu would only accept an organization that does Aikikai Aikido.

– the IAF has a condition for new members that they must have Hombu recognition.

To resolve this conflict of interest, the following construction was established:

– AN is open to all Aikido in the Netherlands.

– the NAF continues as the organization for all Aikikai Aikido in the Netherlands.

– the NAF becomes institutional member of AN, which implies that Aikikai members of AN are also members of the NAF or vice versa.

However, over the course of time several developments took place:

– as AN became more successful the activities the NAF used to do, where transferred to AN. As a consequence the NAF does very little, other than represent the Aikikai groups in the IAF.

– AN established statutes which describe obligations for the Aikikai members: these statutes clearly state that the Aikikai member of AN must adhere to the regulations of the IAF.

– the NAF reduced its online presence to a single page that predates the formation of AN. It is clear that the NAF web-site is non-existant (www.n-a-f.nl)

– as a consequence there is no information on the NAF available on-line: no contact information, no activities, no statutes.

– on the web-site of the IAF the information on the NAF links to AN, not the NAF, and it links to the gmail account of its chairman, not an NAF account. This further demonstrates that the NAF is in fact no longer a truely functioning organization (http://www.aikido-international.org/membership-advice/hotspot#52.2114235/17.1144519/4/hotspot/2)

– the NAF has no direct income from members. Funding of activities goes through AN. To my knowledge there is no separate approved budget or financial report presented to the members of the NAF.

There is however a strong concentration of power surrounding the chairman of the NAF. For he is also the technical director of the DAF, the general secretary of AN and now the general secretary of the IAF.

So, for all practical purposes the NAF does nothing else than represent the Aikikai members of AN in the IAF. It has no other activities and exists only to circumvent the fact that the actual functioning organization is AN, which is not only Aikikai, does not have Hombu recognition and therefore could not become member of the IAF.

Chapter 21

This chapter was difficult to publish. The reason is that it involved criticizing the organizations which I belong(ed) to, and forces people who trust others to represent them to rethink that positions.

It is also difficult because I am personally involved, and this creates the inevitable risk that my view is tainted (even more than usual).

However, the chain of events is such that I believe that if this experience is not shared, the Aikido community will not learn from it and therefore the experience will be wasted.

In the most general terms the issue at hand is the following: I have filed a complaint with Dutch Aikikai (AN and NAF) about several connected issues: conflict of interest, intimidation, the infringement of my freedom of association.

Unfortunately, the people accused are the people that run these organizations. Therefore the conflict of interest.

Moreover, I have published this article because if the way my complaint has been handled: the people involved, discussed the wrong part of the complaints, agreed amongst themselves that they felt they had done nothing wrong, and decided nothing needed to be done.

Now, take the following example. If a female student complained that she had been sexually harassed by her teacher, it would not take a genius to realize that research can not be that the teacher decides what the complaint was, what has happened and then can dismiss the claim on the grounds that he has done nothing wrong.

In essence any good governance concerning complaints involves a clear and objective procedure which protects the less powerful person against the more powerful person. Good governance in general implies trying to avoid a situation where such a conflict of interest could be perceived.

In any case, due process would involve:

– Acknowledging reception of the complaint;

– Ascertaining that there is an objective procedure;

– Informing the person complaining of the procedure that will be followed and of the timeline involved;

– Appointing a group of objective people to form an objective body that researches the situation;

– A report from that body to both the person complaining as well as the persons accused;

– A ruling by the general assembly of the outcome, since this is the only body that stands above the board of an association

In my case I am not a female who was sexually intimidated. I am an active Aikidoka, who wants to contribute to the international Aikido community, and has tried to do so for almost 30 years. I have tried to be as open and democratic as possible, and step by step I believe that all of my actions meet democratic standards*. Therefore, I object to the way I was treated, but that objection has been stonewalled by the people that I have complained to, since they are the people about whom I have complained.

So, what has happened? I have been assistant general secretary of the IAF for some 20 years. In 2015 the general secretary indicated that he would definitely resign. As I was contacted by two countries whether I would stand as general secretary, I agreed to do so.

However, issues started well before that. Another Dutch Aikidoka had the ambition to stand for that position, and that should not have been an issue in any way. However, already in 2012, this individual was in a position to manipulate the process. He placed on the agenda of Dutch Aikido a proposal that the candidate from the Netherlands should be elected by Dutch Aikido. In itself this does not seem anything one would object against.

However, the intended consequence of this decision became apparent in the summer of 2014, when this individual had an informal meeting with the chairman of the IAF and informed him that I would be expelled from Dutch Aikido if I stood as candidate for a position in the IAF**.

This decision was discussed in the Directing Committee of the IAF, and the following conclusions were drawn:

– The IAF cannot object to any decision made by a member federation;

– The IAF cannot object to any member of the IAF proposing any active Aikidoka to stand for any function in the IAF;

– The IAF can certainly not give the power to one country to veto the choice of another country;

– Therefore, the decision of Dutch Aikido could neither be discussed by the IAF, nor could the IAF impose any consequences to that decision

In the DC we expected this would have resolved the matter, but it did not. And here the next issues arose.

As the mentioned individual was also member of the DC one would expect him to be bound by the statutes and rulings of the IAF. This appeared not to be the case. The ruling of the IAF was not communicated to the members of Dutch Aikido.

In fact, in 2016 the issues of electing a representative for the elections was placed on the agenda of Dutch Aikido again. No mention was made of the ruling of the IAF, but the individual involved did stand as candidate, demonstrating that the conflict of interest continued.

Now, within Dutch Aikido I did not close my eyes to what was happening. I had heard that one of the objections to my candidacy was that I did not have the support of Dutch Aikido and therefore was unacceptable as a candidate. So, I tried to show my good will towards Dutch Aikido by asking for their support to stand as a candidate. In that discussion two representatives proposed to approve both candidates. However, the meeting was immediately adjourned, the individual mentioned took his representative outside, and after the adjournment the proposal was taken off the table***.

Now, this would not have been Dutch Aikido’s finest hour, but the elections would take place at the IAF, and democracy would run its course: IAF members would choose who they wanted in office. It turned out not to be that simple.

In the weeks before the elections the individual accused decided to send an email to some members of the IAF, stating that he was the only candidate from the Netherlands allowed to stand as candidate. This can be explained in no other way than to create the false impression that my own candidacy was illegitimate****.

By this time my willingness to accept the manipulations had gone down to zero. However, I was talked to by several seniors in Aikido who raised the following point: “Even if you have a valid point, if you get into a conflict now you will damage the good reputation of the IAF and its elections, so please refrain from standing up for yourself”. As these were both my seniors and people I respect, and to some extent I share that vision, I sucked up my emotions and went to Japan with composure.

Then it became apparent that the playing field had been completely changed. The general secretary who had claimed he would resign, was now a candidate for chairman. The chairman whom I wanted to support had decided to stand down as a candidate. The new chairman had already composed a team of people with who he would work and presented a flyer with their names on it*****.

While it may not be nice to lose elections, it remains the right of the members to choose who they want, without having to justify their choice. So, I would have conceded gracefully, were it not for the final indignities.

It was reported to me that the elected general secretary was still making the public threat that I would be expelled from Dutch Aikido for having stood as candidate. When I returned home, I was informed that the elected general secretary has sent a question to the association I am member of asking them to justify how they had allowed me to stand as candidate.

So, I wrote a complaint. Which will be the issue in the next related chapter.

* I don’t object that others may see that differently, but a ruling on any such conflict of opinion would demand fair research.

** To my mind this constitutes the first demonstration of a conflict of interest (placing an issue on the agenda of Dutch Aikido with the intention of obstructing others to stand for a position in another association, when you aspire to fulfill that position yourself), and of intimidation (if you stand, I will get you expelled)

*** While perhaps technical to some, this is an infringement of civil rights: the freedom of initiative – to be able to make a proposal without being talked to, told off or forced by others to withdraw the proposal. This further constitutes intimidation (forcing another to take certain action against his free will). It further demonstrates conflict of interest (while the chairman had relinquished his chair to create a more objective discussion about his candidacy, he intervened in the procedure on exactly that issue, that it was not favorable to his chances of being elected)

**** While he was fully aware of the fact the IAF had negated that claim, this demonstrates both bad intent as well as further conflict of interest.

***** While this is in no way against the rules, the elections cannot be considered fair, if the conditions are changed in the days before the election.

Chapter 20

There are a wide range of reasons why one
organization would (need to) separate from an other organization. In Aikido
there are however multiple reasons why one should not separate. Then again,
from one perspective a separation may seem bad, from another it may not. This
chapter will try to present some of the cases that took place in the
Netherlands*.

As I have stated, I have been involved in the
organization of Aikido in the Netherlands since 1988. In the years before I
started Aikido (1985) a separation took place. Aikido-instructors left the organization they were in (the
Judo Federation) because they wanted to form an independent Aikido federation.

When I found out this had happened, I challenged
the need for this separation. The people that had organized the separation
presented a number of arguments:

Aikido had started as a new martial art with no foundation whatsoever, but had
developed to such an extent that deserved its own organization.

This was not a very strong argument. At the time
some 1000 people practiced Aikido, and about 500 were in one organization, the
same number in the other.

The government has accepted an advice from a committee of wise men which have
indicated Aikido should become member of FOG, not JBN

This was a stretch of reality. While it was true
the committee of wise men was appointed by the government and their advice was
accepted, the advice was that Karate, Taekwondo and Judo should become separate
organizations and other martial arts should become member of the FOG. However,
no specific mention of Aikido was made, so to call on their advice as a ruling
was – to my mind – stretching what was stated.

The JBN doesn’t represent Aikido properly

This argument was usually explained by pointing
to the fact that the JBN had no separate board member for Aikido, that Aikido
was a small section in a large Judo organization, etc. However, the Aikidoka
that have remained in the JBN never felt misrepresented, so this seemed like an
opportunistic argument.

The JBN does not allow for independent Aikido instructors

This turned out to be the most valid argument
available. Judo instructors had to have a black belt to join the instructors
course. Aikido was an application for Judo instructors. So the
Aikido-instructors had to get a black belt in Judo to be able to enter into the
instructors course and get recognition. This did seem like a problem that the
JBN should have solved.

In any case, these arguments were used to
justify the first separation (about which I had first-hand information).

The first split that followed was based on no
need whatsoever. An instructor figured out that if he could get a Japanese
instructor to conduct his gradings he did not need to be member of the national
organization (NCAF). In fact he used the relationship of that instructor with
the NCAF to establish his private relationship and then separated, leaving the
remaining dojos at a loss**.

A next separation happened when the technical
director and technical supervisor of the NCAF resigned. This happened at the
advice of the technical supervisor and in the interest of the NCAF. However,
his advice was not accepted by members. Some instructors followed the technical
director, others followed the technical supervisor. At the time that loyalty
seemed admirable, but it soon became apparent that opportunistic motives had
played a strong role. Any appeal we made as NCAF to maintain cooperation was
dismissed. One organization however tried to overthrow the directing committee
of the NCAF (and their actions were eventually dismissed in court). The other
organization separated again within months after being founded.

In retrospect I can only distinguish the
following motives**:

– I want to stay with my instructor regardless
of his actions and their consequences for the organization
– I will go with this instructor because it will
place me in a higher hierarchical position than remaining in the organization
– I will go with this instructor because he is
my access to his assistants
– I will go with this instructor even when I
admit his actions are wrong, because that is the hierarchy in Aikido that has
been taught to me

In the period that followed completely new
things happened. For instance, European instructors came to the Netherlands and
started their own dojos. In virtually all cases we offered these new
organizations a place in the NCAF, but time and again this was declined. In
retrospect I will assume two factors played a role:

– all the separations described above created a
very negative atmosphere, one we could not compensate for by explaining Hombu
regulations or IAF policy, government policy and international interests
– new organizations were involved with other
issues than where will I become member
– new organizations could see four or five new organizations
that could exist outside the official IAF member, so they rather copied that
strategy

What was intersting to observe, is that after a
number of years the need to cooperate became more apparent after all. When the
NCAF joined a new umbrella organization and strived for recognitionof an
instructors course, virtually all the existing organizations joined as well. By
then the need to have your own organization and be separate had become less
pertinent, whereas the need to get more formal recognition had grown. This was
a clear sign that as a sport Aikido was becoming more mature.

The strategy of separating to become more
important in your own realm did not stop however. Neither did the strategy to
do this under the cover of a foreign instructor. And as travel became cheaper,
more foreign instructors presented themselves. This went on to such an extent
that at least one new organization per year could be expected. At a certain
point I even gave up interest in getting to know all the organizations or
trying to get them to cooperate, because the dynamic was always the same:
– an appeal on Hombu regulations, international
regulations, IAF regulations, etc. was ignored
– a false pretence of all the negative politics
was presented
– gradings were organized through foreign dojos
and foreign instructors
– once sufficient time had passed the
organization would present itself for recognition of its teachers

But as stated earlier, as the number of
organizations grew, so did the general understanding that some form of
cooperation was necessary. And during the period that most organizations were
in the NCS and the cooperation with the JBN was starting to flourish a climate
of democratic cooperation could take shape.

Unfortunately that proved insufficient to stop
the strategy of empire-building. Even at the time the argument no longer could
be the bad political climate, instructors would use the proven strategy:
separate under false pretence, abuse the relationship with a foreign
instructor, and claim a position as soon as you felt strong enough.

Fortunately for me, this was the time I stepped
down as chairman of the NCAF. It was no longer my responsibility to at least
try and uphold the Hombu regulations, IAF statutes or international interests
of governments.

And therefore I rest my presentation on
separations at this point in time.

* and may be considered painful by those which
were involved
** on the other hand, this relationship has
continued until today and has not disturbed the landscape since then.
** unfortunately I can not present any positive
motives surrounding that period of separation

Chapter 8

In the previous chapters I have described some of the constituing elements for the current situation in Dutch Aikido. But the picture isn’t very transparent.

Due to a long chain of (unforeseen) events an umbrella organization was established named Aikido Nederland (AN). This organization is registred as a member of the Dutch Sport Council (NSF). In this respect the organization fulfills the requirements that governments have for sport: it’s one organization for the sport.

To allow this, a number problem had to be solved.

1. The existing Aikikai-organizations, that were the longest existing organizations, were divided into some 10 different organizations.
2. One of the largest groups was in the Judo federation (JBN) and did not want to change association.
3. The majority of these Aikikai-organizations were Hombu recognized, but only one was member of the IAF.
4. The government and NSF were only interested in an organization for all Aikido, not only for Aikikai-Aikido.
5. The condition for Hombu recognition is that the organization only practises Aikikai-Aikido.
6. The condition for the organization to be member of IAF is Hombu-recognition.

This vicious circle was broken by a smart compromise:

– if the organization that held the IAF membership would be willing to share its membership of IAF with the other Aikikai-groups, they could all become member.
– this organization – the NAF – would remain as a separate legal entity, but become an institutional member of the new umbrella organization.
– all the other styles of Aikido could become member of the new umbrella AN

As we (I was member of the NAF at the time) felt it would be in the greater interest to establish one organization for Aikido in the Netherlands, and that the NAF was intended to represent all Aikikai-Aikido anyway, we agreed to this compromise.

As a consequence, the group I was in received independent recognition from Hombu, opened the NAF to all the other Aikikai-groups, and the NAF became member of AN.

This however, led to a new and unpredictable situation, which I will address in a later chapter.