Eesti ühiskond Kanadas ja Torontos on üles ehitatud sadade ja tuhandete eestlaste vabatahtliku tööjôuga ja paljude vabatahtliku majandusliku panusega siinsele eesti ühiskonnale. Paljud on seda isikliku majandusliku riskiga teinud. Tundub uskumatuna, et üks meie ühiskonna liige nüüd ahnitseb omale nende pingutuste kaudu loodud varandusest veerand miljonit dollarit! Selle kohta ei oska öelda midagi muud kui: häbi häbi ja häbi!!

Kompliment, härra Purje,
asjaliku referaadi ja sisuka kommentaari eest!

The past year has been brutal as people have been taking sides on an employment issue. Why intelligent folks would want to take sides without being apprised of the facts is puzzling? Remember here that the facts have by not been divulged by both sides. Hence, why judge? Given the confidentiality surrounding employment issues, let the employer and employee sort this out. Employment is all about doing a job, as required by an employer. It's not about Facebook pages and petition sites, which make the whole thing look tawdry. Much like a dance competition on television where viewers phone in their preferences?!?

I understand your frustration with the lack of “openess” at Ehatare, Mr. Meiusi. Having heard rumours that you seldom visit your aunt, who resides there, I attempted to get records of your visits over the last 4 years.

I expected to have these rumours overturned by examing records that might have shown you actually did visit your aunt on her birthdays and holidays.

Well, you know what, Mr. Meiusi? They don’t share that data!

A grave error that may end up costing Ehatare a lot of money was made by last year’s Eesti Abistamiskomitee EAK board of directors. A long time worker was fired against the wishes of Ehatare’s residents. This kind of decision should not be made lightly as there are government granted employee rights against unjust termination of employment. Whether you agree with these government rules or not, every competent directorship should consider them carefully before acting. More knowledgeable or more reasonable people than Ehatare’s board went to last year’s EAK general meeting to express their concerns. The directors were congratulated for their past work as it appeared that until then Ehatare life flowed smoothly but even more praise was lavished on the fired employee. The support she had from the speakers’ loved ones in Ehatare was repeatedly confirmed. The attendees encouraged the board to avoid bad feelings and legal problems and follow the expressed wishes of Ehatare residents by rethinking their poor decision. Negotiation between board and employee involving a professional mediator was strongly recommended. The board was absolutely inflexible on this issue and seemed incensed their judgment was being questioned. The head director Dr. Leesment directed those dissatisfied with his board’s decision to become members and run for director at next year’s meeting. When people took him up on it, he was clearly very angry, calling them and their supporters “enemies” of Ehatare. What a bizarre term for well meaning people with family and friends in Ehatare! Dr. Leesment apparently confuses himself and his interests with those of Ehatare but there was no enmity to either. Opposing opinions and justified criticism are not enmity.

This year’s EAK election turned out to be a farce. The board leaned on a highly paid non-Estonian-speaking lawyer present throughout to declare “Not legally required” when standard meeting procedures were requested. It transpired that the board had amassed enough proxy votes for itself (rumor had it from the Baptist congregation) that the members present at the meeting were outvoted. It was a set up. The proxy givers were misled in that they had no knowledge of an alternate slate of candidates or their qualifications that were more impressive than many of the board’s candidates because the board presented only its own desired slate except on the spot at the meeting. The election process was therefore morally skivvy. Presumably the directors received expensive legal advice on how best to retain their positions (minimal 10 day window for nominations, written notices of elections to existing members only, proxies solicited with incomplete disclosure of candidates etc.). But who paid for this legal advice that returned members to the board who may cost Ehatare up to $250,000 for their poor decision and stubbornness? That seems a large sum of money but since the fired worker was only 5 or 6 years from retirement with a stellar record, it’s a standard request, lost earnings plus $50,000 in damages. A knowledgeable and prudent board would not have risked Ehatare’s money in such a way. Let’s be clear about who created this financial problem and refused to try to solve it amicably out of court, then engineered their own return to decision-making power. Were they really the better alternative when they prevented many members from knowing there actually was an alternative?

In closing I regret having to use a pseudonym, but my relatives/friends at Ehatare are as hostages. It is conceivable that they could suffer for my words, considering the shenanigans this board of directors has already pulled. For example, is everyone aware that the entire Ööbik choir is banned from performing at Ehatare because their conductor is the above-mentioned fired employee and some of its members agreed the firing was inadvisable? That's right, they're not allowed to sing to their own loved ones in Ehatare. There was a petition with hundreds of signatures asking for reversal of the firing. Are all the signers barred from performing at Ehatare? Why the discrimination?

Viga mis võib Ehatarele kõvasti maksma minna tehti aasta tagasi Eestiabistamiskomitee EAK juhatuse poolt. Vallandati kaua aegset töölist vastu Ehatare elanikkude tahtmist. Siin maal ei tohi niisugust tegu kergemeelselt ette võtta kuna töölistel on valitsuse poolt kinnitatud õigused. Kas nõustakse valitsuse reeglitega või ei, iga kompetentne juhatus peaks nendega arvestama. Teadlikumad vöi mõistlikumad inimesed läksid selle tõttu eelmise aasta EAK peakoosolekule oma muredega. Avaldati kiitust juhatusele nende töö eest kuna sinnamaani tundus Ehatare elu sujuvalt liikuvat aga veel rohkem kiideti vallandatud töölise oskusi ning kinnitati temale poolehoidu sõnavõtjate omakestelt kes elasid parajasti Ehatares. Soovitati juhatusele paha meelt ja legaalseid probleeme vältida ning Ehatare elanikkonna tahtmist teha oma halvale otsusele järele mõeldes. Tehti ettepanek läbirääkimisi pidada professionaalse vahendaja juhendamisel. Juhatus oli absoluutselt ebapaendlik selle koha pealt ja trotsi täis. Pea direktor dr. Leesment käskis neid kes polnud juhatuse otsusega rahul endid liikmeiks võtta ja järgmise aasta koosolekul juhatuseliikmeteks kandideerida. Kui seda tehti, siis oli ta ilmselt pahane, nimetades väljaspoolt juhatuse kandidaate ja nende toetajaid Ehatare "vaenlasteks". Kummaline nimetus heatahtlikutele inimestele kellel omal sugulased/tuttavad Ehatare elanikkude hulgas! Dr. Leesment vist segab ennast ja enda huvid Ehatare huvidega aga keegi pole kummagi vastu vaenulik. Teine arvamine ja õigustatud kriitika pole vaenlus.

Tänavu aastane koosolek oli ilmselt farss. Juhatus najatas pidevalt körge kuludega palgatud mitte eestikeele valdavale advokaadile kes andis korduvalt kohapeal nõu "not legally required" kui tavalist koosoleku reeglite rakendamist paluti. Selgus, et endine juhatus oli küllalt volitus hääli omale kokku ajanud (räägiti peamiselt Baptisti koguduselt), et kohaletulnud rahval polnud võimalust midagi vasta juhatuse tahtmist muuta. Inglisekeeles kutsutakse seda "a set up". Kes andsid oma volituse polnud üldsegi teadlikud teistest kandidaatidest ega nende kvalifikatsioonidest mis olid paljudest juhatuse liikmetest hiilgavamad kuna juhatus esitas ainult nende enda kandidaate. See oli moraalne sohk. Arvatavasti, juhatus sai head nõu nende palgatud advokaadilt kuidas oma kohti pidada. Aga kes maksis selle kalli nõu eest mis pidas samad isikud edasi kes lähevad Ehatarele võimalikult kuni $250,000 maksma oma paha otsuse ja trotsi pärast? Summa tundub suur, aga kuna vallandatud tööline oli 5 või 6 aastat erru minekust ja kuldse töö saavutustega, see on standard nõudmine, kaotatud palk ja $50,000 kahjutasu. Mõistlik ja ettenägelik juhatus poleks Ehatare rahasi niimoodi riskeerinud. Oleme selged, kes tegelikult tekitasid selle rahalise probleemi ja keeldusid seda sõbralikult väljaspool kallist kohtuprotsessi lahendamast.

Mul on kahju, et pean varjunime kasutama, aga mu sugulased/tuttavad kes elavad Ehatares on nagu pantvangid. Pole mõeldamatu, et nemad võivad kuidagi minu sõnade pärast kannatada, arvestades milliste viguritega juhatuse liikmed on juba hakkama saanud. Peale ülal toodud, kas kõik on teadlikud, et Ööbiku kooril on Ehatares esinemine keelatud kuna nende juhataja on see vallandatud tööline? Kui mõned kooriliikmed rääkisid eraisikutena EAK koosolekul nende Ehatares asuva pereliikmete huvides, seda pandi juhatuse poolt pahaks ja nüüd on tervel kooril isegi laulmine omakestele Ehatares keelatud…kelle korraldusel?

I can't believe that Ööbik has been banned from Ehatare. Are you serious??? What hope is there of holding off a continuing demise in petty prejudices that now seem to have taken a sudden foothold with the rise of very narrow-minded special interest group arising within the ranks of the leadership of our Toronto community who only see dollars rolling before their eyes? Its pitiful and pathetic.

Vallandatud töötaja nõuab veerandit milli ja vallandatud töötaja sõbrad tahavad lisaks veel ka juhatust üle võtta, samal ajal toetades miljoninõudeid sellesama organisatsiooni vastu mida nad omast arust juhtida tahavad ? Irvitama ajab.

I have a feeling that there are two issues being dealt with.

One issue is that a wonderful person to her friends can also be a difficult employee in the work world. An employee needs to take direction and if this is not done, then this is a detriment to the organization and the person should be fired. Her friends should consider this fact. Did the board handle the dismissal properly? I am sure that this has been a learning curve for them and looking back they wish that they had done things differently.

The other is the issue of whether the board could be a more crack team running the Ehatare ship. People have a hard time letting go of power positions. We now have people who would like to be a part of this team. From Vaado Sarapuu’s interviews done with Dr. Leesment and with Mr. Meiusi (excellent coverage, by the way, we need more such reporting in our community), I can’t help but feel that some stagnation is taking place and that the time has come to let people eager to bear the brunt have a chance. I find Allan Meiusi’s responses here to the EWR articles to be quit credible and the anonymous attacks (such as a person combing through a guestbook) quite petty.

We should be looking at all our major organizations more closely...are they measuring up? Do they need a shake-up? Sometimes leaders who are in positions for a very, very long time start taking short cuts and liberties. A changing of the guard safeguards against that. Something to think about.

Jah, see on kindlasti EWR ja EE viga, et kõik need asjad juhtuvad, kirikutest alates ja EAK lõpetades. Kui ainult ajakirjanikud nagu Purje ja Sarapuu ei teeks artikleid ja intervjuusid, siis oleks jälle kõik ilus ja korra järgi. Juhatused oma tarkuses teavad mis on vaja teha, kui ainult need ühiskonna liikmeid oma suu ometi kinni hoiaksid ... LOL

My own view is that a fatal mistake was made a year ago following the termination. Discretion should dictate how both parties behave. There's a wonderful idiom in Estonian - "asjad kella kulge panema". Perhaps best translated as "attaching a bell to things". Friends and family built petition sites, announcing to the world that the employee had been terminated. Then, e-mails from close friends and family went viral. I was being forwarded e-mails that surely weren't intended to have as wide a distribution as they did. These e-mails referred to over throwing the Board, etc. This is really troubling. Why an employer should take into account the number of names on a petition is baffling? This is not how a responsible employer makes decisions re hiring and firing. Come on, let's exercise discretion. While family and friends are there to support the terminated employee, there are ways of doing this that are appropriate and those that are totally inappropriate.

While there is a process to admit members, I understand that there is also a process to terminate members. I really think that consideration should be given to terminating the memberships of those making unsubstantiated allegations about the staff and facility. If Ehatare wants a new facility, I really have to wonder how with all this muck raking one can expect the community to donate? I am not sure some of the folks doing the mud slinging or organizing a takeover have given much thought to this. Moreover, the funds spent on "special meetings" are borne by the organization, when these funds could be directed to better uses. I totally understand and agree that terminated employees are entitled to appropriate "packages". It's simply a question of the quantum. This may be an irritation to some, but it's the law of the land.

Hopefully you mean to terminate memberships instead of terminate members you dislike, though the Freudian slip is telling. A person lecturing on comportment, civility and "unsubstantiated allegations" like Ehatare Watcher should perhaps avoid calling people who disagree with him/her "a busybody with a grudge"...who should go to Church to pray for the ability to forgive (how Pharisee-like holier than thou),"unemployed", "ignorant and an incoherent hysteric" and "kooks and hysterics". On this thread at least, the only ones using demeaning terms are Ehatare Watcher and others who also "march" but behind "Leesment and Ruth", no less partisan than anyone else. Why the wrong assumption that you speak for everyone with a parent in Ehatare especially in such disagreeable terms? Many of the board's critics have loved ones there. Why the disparaging of a candidate's "ambiguous academic experience" when similar qualifications of previous and present board members escape such scrutiny? And who on earth cares about the technicality of a $10 membership a day earlier or later when someone well qualified and motivated volunteers to make a valuable contribution to Ehatare of her time?

A long time employee's abrupt firing was the catalyst for taking a look at who was running Ehatare and how because it seemed a poor decision. Why was the worker "popular" as Watcher sniffs? Could it be because she was good at her job? In fact, Dr. Leesment himself admitted as much at last year's meeting when speaker after speaker got up to praise her work at Ehatare. So she would have to have done something truly heinous for the board to risk a suit, right? This board of the only people who could possibly run Ehatare couldn't possibly have made a mistake, right? But yes, this will now play out in a court of law at great expense because the Board rejected advice to negotiate and use a mediator, another poor decision.

According to Watcher: "Why an employer should take into account the number of names on a petition is baffling". Well, if the employer/volunteer board is supposedly working on behalf of Ehatare residents, then a petition signed by those residents or their relatives should be of some interest, no? The majority of Ehatare residents signed a petition to reinstate the fired employee they valued. In another comment, this was dismissed as "phony as a $3. bill" on the basis of a single gentleman saying afterwards he didn't realize what he'd signed. That did not negate all the other signatures. Not all the elderly become incapable of understanding and making decisions. How patronizing.

The million dollar question is why do people on what's supposed to be a volunteer Board think they're a) infallible and b) indispensable and that anyone else volunteering to share decision making must be fended off one's turf by using any means, including expensive legal advice and electoral shenanigans? They and their supporters are no less guilty of slugging it out in the court of public opinion. So why the moral high horse?

As for Ehatare’s future, it is arguable whether if by some miracle the money were raised and a new facility built, “they will come”. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Estonians who are 75 and under have no requirement nor desire for an Ehatare. They feel more comfortable in English. They will largely move into retirement homes near their children. Surely the concern should be for our present elderly in their 80s and 90s and how best to meet their time limited needs? (The waiting list is in the same age group). Has the present Board not even considered the inevitable drop in demand for an Estonian retirement home within a decade or so? I’m not going to bother translating this comment into Estonian the way I did my first because anyone computer savvy who’s reading this whatever their age understands English
.

"No person should think that they are irreplaceable (that would be a person's ego leading them astray). I myself have learned from the school of hard knocks that everyone is replaceable."

That comment applies more to the EAK board running Ehatare than any employee who would not be going to court claiming they were irreplaceable but that they were let go and replaced without just cause. There's no sense speculating that the termination of employment was not abrupt as that will now be decided on evidence in court. The board had better have documentation (and not back dated) of chronic unsatisfactory reviews given to the employee with ample time to correct any deficiencies. There should not be any evidence that the employee's duties were changed to make them more onerous or demeaning as that is considered "constructive dismissal". The court may also weigh praise received by the employee from Ehatare residents and their relatives e.g. a petition for her reinstatement against documented complaints. Are all these ducks in order? I repeat, the legal (and moral) issue is not whether the employee was replaced by someone as good or better but whether she was treated fairly according to Ontario law in so doing. Then there's the purely human desire to erase the blot on one's reputation that being fired leaves if one feels it was undeserved. The malicious speculation and innuendo directed at the employee since then have likely only added to her sense of injustice. But if the board had cause, treated the employee fairly and has proper documentation, no worries right? It's not as though they personally are going to be out any money if they made a wrong decision.

All organizations encounter situations in which the employer's and employee's paths diverge. There are many reasons for termination of employment. For cause or otherwise. Diogenes expresses concern about the reputation of the employee. As I said earlier, what sane person would have it announced it to all and sundry via petition and Facebook sites? These are out there in cyberspace virtually forever, and make for interesting reading by potential employers and other interested parties. Certainly, a total lack of discretion. When it comes to expressions of concern about reputation, perhaps there should have been the same concern for the much maligned administrator, who has had no end or arrows sent her way. This expression of concern for one's reputation cuts both ways!

Jaak

nobody is hacking.
EWR itself tells us that the same IP address is being used by listing the all the aliases that were used from the same IP addres

small print below comment in light colour.

How about those Leafs?