I’ve been an active member of Esperanto-USA for many years, even serving on its board of directors. I wanted to help build a strong, healthy national organization that effectively promotes Esperanto in the United States. But when I stepped down from the board, that desire didn’t end. I continued to bring problems to the attention of the organization, ranging from member rights to strategy to proper governance. I’ve decided to be public about this latest issue because of its seriousness and because of how the board has been secretive about it. The membership deserves to know what is done in their name.
What Happened
In November 2025, the board of Esperanto-USA sent a formal letter to Esperanto-Ligo en Israelo (ELI) with a copy to UEA, concerning an article published in ELI’s bulletin. The article, written by Eduardo Topol, contained inflammatory political content. And although I agree that the article was extremely offensive, the board’s decision to inject itself into the issue, and then decide not to publish its correspondence with ELI or otherwise inform the membership, prompted me to question whether they had acted consistently with the organization’s own bylaws.
From Esperanto-USA’s official board minutes:
11/2025 — Letter to ELI, to be copied to UEA
The board has been reviewing and editing a draft letter to Esperanto-Ligo en Israelo regarding a controversial recent article promoting violence that ELI published on the political situation in Israel and the USA. There is also a draft press release, but based on the lack of response to the ELI article so far by E-USA members, Quintyn suggests that the press release may not be needed. Hanso BECKLIN, the chief delegate for UEA with Esperanto-USA, has reviewed the letter to ELI and agreed with it. Brandon suggests that the letter be sent to ELI and UEA but that no public facing documents need to be sent out. Izaak suggests that the more energy we provide toward this topic, the more we legitimize the inflammatory ideas within the article. He agrees with the idea of sending the letter to UEA and ELI but not publishing anything to the membership. Quintyn proposes that the drafted letter be sent to ELI, with a copy to UEA. Enriko seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously.
I had previously seen a draft of the letter and was concerned about its tone and content. When I later read the board minutes and confirmed that the letter had been sent, and that the board decided not to publish the correspondence or inform the membership, I was greatly concerned But in fairness, a draft is not necessarily the final letter. So I officially requested copies of the correspondence to understand what was really said.
What followed is documented below.
Timeline of Events
November 2025
- The board votes unanimously to send a formal letter to ELI, with a copy to UEA.
- The minutes record that prior to the vote, it was suggested that no public-facing documents be sent out. The motion passed with that understanding.
February 2026
- Board minutes acknowledge that ELI has responded to the letter. The response is discussed by the board. No further details are available and the membership is not informed.
April 2026–June 2026
- I request copies of the letter sent to ELI and ELI's response.
- The request is denied. The board describes the exchange as a “carefully worded, neutral communication and a friendly exchange between the two organizations”. They note that ELI requested the matter not be further publicized, and that they are accommodating that request. They also say an attorney is “conducting a health check” of the organization.
- I further clarify my concerns and request that the attorney specifically review the neutrality obligation, the scope of board authority, and the §701 transparency requirement — with particular attention to the fact that the decision not to inform members was made before ELI’s confidentiality request could have existed.
- The board declares the matter closed. They cite my dues status and the advice of retained legal counsel as bases for denying my request.
- Another member (in good standing) who was CC’d on the email thread expresses his concern and is ignored.
- I send two additional emails setting expectations and deadlines. Both pass without response.
I have made copies of the email exchange available for those who wish to read. (Please note that I have redacted the names of the other members for their privacy at this time.)
What the Bylaws Require
The Preamble defines the League’s primary purpose as furthering “education in, and dissemination of information about, the international auxiliary language Esperanto within the United States of America.” It further states “The League is and shall forever remain neutral concerning questions of religion, politics, and socio-economic theory.” Section §309 states that the board “shall supervise the functioning of the League subject to the By-Laws.” The board's authority is bound by the bylaws, including the mission and neutrality obligations in the Preamble.
It is my position that sending a letter about the political content of another organization's newsletter is not education about Esperanto, dissemination of information about Esperanto, or an activity within the United States. It falls outside the organization's defined purpose and is inconsistent with the neutrality obligations contained in the Preamble.
But more importantly, the November 2025 minutes document a formal motion, a second, and a unanimous vote to send the letter. This was unambiguously a board decision that cannot be characterized as routine correspondence or a purely procedural internal matter. As such, §701 of the bylaws applies:
“Except for purely procedural decisions affecting only the functioning of the Board, Central Office, or the Congress, all rulings by the President and decisions of the Board or the Congress shall be published to the membership within a reasonable time.”
Publication requires enough disclosure for members to understand and evaluate the board's actions. Members cannot evaluate what was done in their name or the consequences of those actions without knowing what the letter said and how ELI responded. And yet the minutes further document that, prior to the vote, it was explicitly suggested that no public-facing documents be sent out, and the motion passed with that understanding. Both the action and the decision not to inform members were therefore deliberate and documented.
The board later pointed to ELI’s confidentiality request as justification for the non-disclosure. But the timeline documented in the board’s own minutes shows that the decision not to notify the membership was made at the same meeting in which the letter was authorized. This was before ELI had responded and before any confidentiality request could have existed.
What Happens Next
For Esperantists in the United States, this is a question of whether our organization demonstrates integrity and proper stewardship, which is especially important given the current political climate in our country. For Esperantists across the globe, it should be a concern as Esperanto-USA's leadership actively seeks greater influence within UEA and the international movement.
It seems appropriate to demand publication of the ELI correspondence to the full membership, a substantive acknowledgment that the bylaws’ transparency obligations were not met, and acknowledgment that a promise made to another organization does not supersede the rights of the membership. Such demands mirror, perhaps fittingly, the presumed demands in the E-USA letter itself. But it’s unlikely that the board will act on any of it without pressure from the membership.
Ultimately, it’s up to the membership to ask themselves whether this is the kind of organization they want to support. Be engaged and demand better. Never let those with power, even in the small community that is Esperantujo, confuse amicability with permission to act without accountability.
Comments
Post a Comment