Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
Those with a parent in Ehatare, mostly, side with the Administrator.
Those who sing in a choir, mostly, would like to see the Administrator lynched.
Those who sing in a choir, mostly, would like to see the Administrator lynched.
What does this comment have to do with the issue here????
I wrote the article.
Sadly, I am not in a choir at this moment. And when I did sing in a choir it was the Estonian Koor... at the time Ingrid Silm and before her Margit Viia Maiste where the chor leaders.
Please, the issue is larger than who sings in a choir.
I wrote the article.
Sadly, I am not in a choir at this moment. And when I did sing in a choir it was the Estonian Koor... at the time Ingrid Silm and before her Margit Viia Maiste where the chor leaders.
Please, the issue is larger than who sings in a choir.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Ingrid Tanner (21:12), Ingrid Tanner (21:26)
It would appear that the above letter writer has a poor understanding of what are common place practices in the workplace. Employment decisions are made by the employer and not "outsiders".
I filled out my application for membership, and found the criteria entirely reasonable. I don't think the community would want a situation in which one or both sides are signing up their non-Estonian neighbours just to buy votes at ten bucks a pop! That could have happened without a membership process such as this.
In sensitive employment situations discretion is the better part of valour. Web-pages, Facebooks sites are not "value adds" in situations such as this. They are in some ways tawdry. Whoever launched them did not think out the long-term implications. It's new technology run amuck and being used indiscriminately.
I filled out my application for membership, and found the criteria entirely reasonable. I don't think the community would want a situation in which one or both sides are signing up their non-Estonian neighbours just to buy votes at ten bucks a pop! That could have happened without a membership process such as this.
In sensitive employment situations discretion is the better part of valour. Web-pages, Facebooks sites are not "value adds" in situations such as this. They are in some ways tawdry. Whoever launched them did not think out the long-term implications. It's new technology run amuck and being used indiscriminately.
The conditions for joining ERC seem fair, except the "If you have written or said anything negative about the Estonian Relief Committee".
Can somebody post the actual application? Maybe EWR can publish it online?
Can somebody post the actual application? Maybe EWR can publish it online?
The application was part of the article. Have a look. Intererestingly enough, Ehatare's article makes reference of "unsubstantiated allegations" being the basis for refusing membership. Not dissent. Makes sense, I think.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Ehatare Watcher (16:23)
....täitsa mõttetu laialivalduv mulin...
First off, I would like to acknowledge Ingrid Tanner’s courage for writing about her convictions.
On the other hand I find her description of Mayor Rob Ford’s “firing” of TTC General Manager Gary Webster profoundly simplistic. She writes [i]“Rob arranged … for … Webster to be terminated … because … he did not want to make the effort of working WITH someone that had differing views from him.”[i]
Tanner even uses the word dictatorship to describe EAK as well as Rob Ford’s administration: [i]“This sounds like a DICTATORSHIP! … [s]omewhat like what Mayor Ford has done?”[i]
There is more where I find Tanner completely off the mark, but commentary should not exceed the length of the provoking article.
On the other hand I find her description of Mayor Rob Ford’s “firing” of TTC General Manager Gary Webster profoundly simplistic. She writes [i]“Rob arranged … for … Webster to be terminated … because … he did not want to make the effort of working WITH someone that had differing views from him.”[i]
Tanner even uses the word dictatorship to describe EAK as well as Rob Ford’s administration: [i]“This sounds like a DICTATORSHIP! … [s]omewhat like what Mayor Ford has done?”[i]
There is more where I find Tanner completely off the mark, but commentary should not exceed the length of the provoking article.
What worries me the most is the fact that having a mental illness is criteria to be rejected from the committee. One, Mental illness can include a variety of things. According to the American Psychiatric Association, anything from addiction to depression to eating disorders are considered mental disorders. So how are they going to police this? Are they expecting medical histories? This SCREAMS of discrimination, and is so typical of the current social stigma attached to mental illness. I'm going to look into the fact at whether this requirement is legal. But I restate, more than anything else, I am concerned that I am the first who is absolutely DISGUSTED by this requirement, and this is the kind of thing that makes me want to run from the Estonian community and never look back...
Please re-read the criteria before you spend good money on legal advice. Then, you'll see that the restriction applies to imbeciles incapable of managing property. It doesn't apply to hysterics, like yourself.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: This is a crying shame! (12:29)
I have returned from a 2 week holiday. I read the letter from the Abistamiskomitee regarding the new membership application. I submitted my letter to the editor BEFORE their letter was published.
EAK wrote “the memberships seem to be solicited for the express purpose of overturning the Board of Directors and replacing the Administrator. In order to ensure that there was a fair process that protected the organization and ensured that the ERC would continue with its mandate of assisting the Estonian community,“
They stated what I assumed. They changed the rules because they feared losing their positions along with Ruth Macfarlane losing hers. YET, they say they accepted 81 applications and rejected 4. So they changed the rules in order to eliminate FOUR applicants? This was their concern? They imply that people who applied for membership did NOT have Ehatare’s interests in mind? Really? I believe people applied because Ehatare IS important to them and the issue caused concerns.
Ehatare Watcher has written that ”It would appear that the above letter writer has a poor understanding of what are common place practices in the workplace. Employment decisions are made by the employer and not "outsiders".“ - I Absolutely agree with that statement. Can you say mediator?
When this issue is so HUGE and DEVISIVE in our small community - where Ehatare is part of most of our lives, were most of us have a parent or relative who is or who will be living in Ehatare. Fortunately, for many years the board has taken care of Ehatare – everyone in the community was happy to allow the board to run it as they saw fit since it seemed to work.
Yet, this same board when faced with the overwhelming shock of the “not for cause termination“ of Rosie Lindau decided that they knew best and wanted to ignore the protests.. That is when they NO LONGER represented the best interests of Ehatare Residents (who overwhelming signed a petition to get Rosie back in June and just recently in a survey) and they no longer repesented ALL of the Estonian community when they did not attempt to do DAMAGE CONTROL – they should have valiently worked to save the good name of Ehatare and themselves. They should have openly acknowleged the PERCEPTION of an “unfair termination“ – hired a mediator. They should have listened to the residents and the community.
And as for their comment on the “family counsel“ and how positive it was. That is wonderful but that is just in the nursing home as a mandated event. What about having a non-mandated “family council“ meeting with the rest of Ehatare?
EAK wrote “the memberships seem to be solicited for the express purpose of overturning the Board of Directors and replacing the Administrator. In order to ensure that there was a fair process that protected the organization and ensured that the ERC would continue with its mandate of assisting the Estonian community,“
They stated what I assumed. They changed the rules because they feared losing their positions along with Ruth Macfarlane losing hers. YET, they say they accepted 81 applications and rejected 4. So they changed the rules in order to eliminate FOUR applicants? This was their concern? They imply that people who applied for membership did NOT have Ehatare’s interests in mind? Really? I believe people applied because Ehatare IS important to them and the issue caused concerns.
Ehatare Watcher has written that ”It would appear that the above letter writer has a poor understanding of what are common place practices in the workplace. Employment decisions are made by the employer and not "outsiders".“ - I Absolutely agree with that statement. Can you say mediator?
When this issue is so HUGE and DEVISIVE in our small community - where Ehatare is part of most of our lives, were most of us have a parent or relative who is or who will be living in Ehatare. Fortunately, for many years the board has taken care of Ehatare – everyone in the community was happy to allow the board to run it as they saw fit since it seemed to work.
Yet, this same board when faced with the overwhelming shock of the “not for cause termination“ of Rosie Lindau decided that they knew best and wanted to ignore the protests.. That is when they NO LONGER represented the best interests of Ehatare Residents (who overwhelming signed a petition to get Rosie back in June and just recently in a survey) and they no longer repesented ALL of the Estonian community when they did not attempt to do DAMAGE CONTROL – they should have valiently worked to save the good name of Ehatare and themselves. They should have openly acknowleged the PERCEPTION of an “unfair termination“ – hired a mediator. They should have listened to the residents and the community.
And as for their comment on the “family counsel“ and how positive it was. That is wonderful but that is just in the nursing home as a mandated event. What about having a non-mandated “family council“ meeting with the rest of Ehatare?
You are rude!
The concern is valid.
I wonder how that clause can even be used to exclude someone?
How would they know anything about a person's mental health? There is no registry they can go to... it is either very subjective "we think the person is mentally unfit so we will exclude them" OR... they wanted to exclude somone that they knew had a mental health issue and if the clause did not exist then that person would have qualified.
To me... they can't really prove this clause.
Either way... please be polite....
The concern is valid.
I wonder how that clause can even be used to exclude someone?
How would they know anything about a person's mental health? There is no registry they can go to... it is either very subjective "we think the person is mentally unfit so we will exclude them" OR... they wanted to exclude somone that they knew had a mental health issue and if the clause did not exist then that person would have qualified.
To me... they can't really prove this clause.
Either way... please be polite....
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Ingrid Tanner (21:12)
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.