IndyMedia - Vrij Media Centrum Nederland

Hier kun je discussieren over "Rumour in Appel shaven", a reaction to the play of Kees Stad..
ie 1 is that it was not the board that allowed things to escalate in Appelscha, but the group that was adorned with the name 'from the bottom up' directed this. The board sounded the alarm at the end of January this year after the very deteriorating financial situation became clear in 2017.On account of her responsibility as a board member, she clearly stated that, in view of the possibility that some of the campers would not pay for the third consecutive year, the site could not be opened in April. And whether anyone who had not paid for two years now wanted to pay their bill to avoid that. Further interfering with the financial reserves would have been irresponsible.

The group did not receive any response from the bottom up to this cry for help, let alone any payments for the outstanding years 2016 and 2017. In the last week of March 2018 it even turned out that the group had no intention of paying the foundation again. At that time, the board had little choice but to do what it had previously announced. However painful it may have been, the site had to be closed in order to reduce fixed costs as much as possible.

lie 2 is that the board decides everything and the campers have nothing to say. First of all, most board members themselves are also campers and therefore users. In recent years, the board has led a "dormant" existence in practice, as a result of which it barely determined anything. In practice, an informal association structure has always worked.The board participated in the decision-making almost exclusively as a camper. Only contracts and finance were mainly in the domain of management.

lie 3 is the proposition that the users wanted to have more to say and that the board did not want to know anything about it. Some of the users actually want to have more to say than is customary given the current informal association structure. A large proportion of campers still support the old structure because they consider the decision-making process in the camping meetings to be sufficient.Nevertheless, the board has always said that an association of campers is negotiable. The idea has always been that all campers should be able to support this.

lie 4 is that, in this context, it is claimed that the board systematically disregards requests and decisions. This has certainly not been the case. The sole purpose of such monitoring is to justify the payment strike. For example, the PL group was allocated its own budget (an advance of thousands of euros) and its own account. This did indeed give rise to discussion because in the history of the site this has never been discussed before with a PL group.

Subsequently, the PL group did not comply with the agreements made in the camping meeting, such as the submission of a budget, the drawing up of a financial report as justification for the camping meeting, the payment of monies and the payment of a contribution to the operation.They, too, were concerned with power and not with content (they kept all the revenue from the PL itself, while the foundation was allowed to pay the costs of facilities and maintenance). They, too, have not accounted for their expenditure or paid their bills for two years.

lie 5 is that the board did not want representative representation on the board of the foundation, because the people on the camping site would not be able to do so. The strength of the foundation, the owner of the land, has always been that the board was a homogeneous group of like-minded people, which guaranteed the survival of the land. This has proved to be a success for 85 years. The idea behind this was that the board would not get a power struggle in its own ranks. And if the board has to be dormant (as the group wants to be from the bottom up) why is control over the composition of the board so interesting? There can only be one reason for this: from the bottom up there is a desire for power.

lie 6 is that the payment strike would be the result of the board's unwillingness to get something done. This is nonsensical given the informal association structure in which the decision-making process has always been leading, also for the board. What did the board not agree to, then? Kees Stad fails to mention examples.
From the very beginning, the payment strike has been a coercive means of putting the board in front of the block and of using it as a means of power on the ground.
After all, the board is still paying the bills and has been stripped of its finances in this way! The only thing that can be blamed on the board afterwards is that it did not get this through earlier and acted upon it earlier.

For two years the board had expected that the non-payers would still pay their contribution if the conversations about an association of (all) campers were to start. At the end of March this year, however, the group from the bottom up announced that it would not transfer the arrears of contributions to the foundation, but to the newly formed association. The payment strike thus became a means of forcing the form of association desired by the group from the bottom up through the throats of the board and the other campers. It literally stated in the mail: "Board; but quickly sign and then we transfer the money" (only not to the foundation). And these people themselves have their mouths open about the government that is pushing things through.

lie 7 concerns the association construction that would have been decided upon in a meeting in which all parties participated. In advance, the board had indicated that it no longer wished to meet until all campers had paid their bills. This is in order to avoid an impure discussion in which the group forces its way through from the bottom up, under the threat of non-payment.The board and a number of other campers were therefore absent from this meeting. Nevertheless, the association was set up despite the fact that it was clear that a large number of campers did not want to be part of this association. Here too, the group gives the false impression from the bottom up that it speaks for all campers, and that they can simply decide that the demurrage money must be transferred to the association. This is like a tenant who decides that he no longer pays the rent to the housing association but to another party.

All of a sudden, all kinds of working groups were set up and new members were appointed, and the people who had been carrying out these tasks up to that point were simply put on the sidelines. And the group from the bottom up has created a new email list for the association where the board (self-campervan) and a number of other campers from outside is closed! This, apparently, is the democracy that the group stands for from the bottom up. A good example of how the group works is that the new association organised a meeting at the beginning of May to which some of the campers are clearly not invited. Apparently it has been decided somewhere that an entire group of campers is no longer allowed to participate.

In the meantime, the board has indicated that it cannot transfer its control to an association that is unable to unite all the campers. It would mean that there would soon be first- and second-class campers on the ground. A group that has something to say and a group that has nothing more to say. The group from the bottom up does not explain this.

While there are several options, a preparatory "structure group" has only developed the possibility of an association with a fruit user arrangement. This is the option that the group desperately wanted from the bottom up. An option that costs 10,000 euros to set up and that transfers all control to the association for a period of no less than 30 years. The foundation remains legally liable as owner but has nothing to say in this case. This is also a fine example of democracy.

Other options for regulating the relationship of control between foundation and campers have not been elaborated, despite the fact that some members of the structural group have indicated that they wish to do so. It was, however, unmentionable for the group from the bottom up. Partly as a result of this, three people left the structural group or were no longer involved in the further course of events. Apparently, it was not the intention to map out other possible options for regulating the relationship between the board and the association. The board has always indicated that campers should be able to choose from different options. They have never been given that choice.

It is not untruthful that a board member has stepped down and left as a camper. This person has openly indicated in the mail that he personally can no longer resist being called an 'enemy' by the followers from the bottom up. He has just been bullied away. For example, the board members have been treated the same way in recent years and are depicted in the same way by Kees. It is not only the administration that is suffering as a result of this pressure. The bottom-up group has created an atmosphere of intimidation and threat, of personal attacks and enmity that is unprecedented in the field. A whole series of campers have left, there are people on the waiting list who do not accept their place on the site, and visitors who no longer come because the atmosphere has deteriorated so much.

This in contrast to the last 20 years, in which the board and campers in good cooperation have provided a new building on the site, for the supply of electricity to the caravans, for the renovation of the toilet block and for the construction of a new sewage system. The board also ensures a healthy financial policy (so that the prices of the standing charge can remain low) with an annual report that is on the agenda of the camping meeting each year.

This administration and, above all, the campsite, deserve to be treated better than is currently the case. It is now clear that a group of campers who are constantly engaged in a power struggle do not comply with the rule that applies to others (i.e.: those who have not been paid to leave) and who are now pushing their own way at the expense of other campers, do not belong there.
And it is precisely they who speak of anarchism and democracy....

The only reason why the board came out earlier is to respond to the PL preparatory group call to come to Appelscha with the PL, despite the fact that the facilities there have been closed down. There is not a single word from this group about this.
The board considers this to be irresponsible, in view of the many parents with children who come here every year. Falsifying them is yet another form of abuse of power. This is only done to thwart the board, and does not show any responsibility for the inconvenience of potential visitors.

Kees Stad could have discovered all this if he had not been so unilaterally informed and, as befits a journalist, had applied the adversarial principle. Apparently, he allowed himself to be uncritically pinned on the sleeve from the bottom up, and let himself be stretched in front of their trolleys without thinking. They themselves stand still and let others express their unsalted opinions, and now Kees is even their mouthpiece. This does not suit someone with a good reputation in the alternative journalistic field.

We would like to conclude by saying that we can, of course, substantiate all the claims made in this paper. And of course we are available for Kees Stad if he wants to test his story. If people really want to know what is going on here, they just have to ask.

The Board of the Terrain of Freedom