Their pattern is predictable: they rise to action briefly, then immediately focus on seeking ways to demonstrate they are not accountable. Often, they will blame each other as the responsible party. Then, their contact ceases, presumably hoping that the issue will "just go away".
They are well over 1500 days late in paying, yet, amazingly, they still insist that they need more time to clarify which of their groups is actually responsible for the hiring!
(The statute of limitations in Cambodia is 5 years, so there’s still time to let the hammer fall in a court of law, if that’s what this all must come to.)
The groups involved - CHRAC, LICADHO, and to some degree, EWMI, along with the consultant who hired me, Ms. Maria Victoria (aka, “Maia”) Diokno, have been exceptionally skillful in avoiding accountability for payment for IP which Camerado generated for them on a urgent basis, as per specific demands, back in 2005.
See selected materials related to this situation at the
Camerado Scribd account:
http://www.scribd.com/camerado
The main basis of their mutual argument for not paying is that we didn’t conclude a TOR (Terms of Reference - known as a "Deal Memo" in the private sector) as per their preferred specifications.
Nevertheless, there was a hiring agreement with written follow-up, which is the only essential requirement for any common private sector effort: this is a legally binding agreement (even a verbal agreement alone is contractually binding - just harder to prove in a court of law)
The lack of their desired TOR did not, ironically, prevent them from seeking additional changes and adjustments in the resulting work order, nor did it prevent them from accepting and utilizing the content which we created on a rush basis for their urgent human rights-oriented video project in development at the time.
My lawyer has correctly argued that the very basis upon which they are seeking to decline payment (lack of the preferred TOR) therefore renders them all the more responsible for providing due and rightful compensation for misappropriated IP (intellectual property).
That is, if they had no formal TOR as a hiring agreement to justify the IP which Camerado created, then that content remains the property of Camerado until ownership is actually transferred via formal contract.
However, since the IP was already used - unlawfully, due to lack of the very TOR which they insist is the barrier to their making due payment - then compensation must be due and forthcoming, since they have utilized (basically stolen) IP content which is not theirs.
Even so, the three groups, and the single consultant, want to have it both ways. The would like to utilize the lack of their preferred TOR format, but only insofar as it justifies their non-payment...while conveniently ignoring the fact that, as a result of not having a TOR which meets their specifications, the copyrighted material which they had ordered created (and utilized) therefore never actually belonged to them.
Possibly realizing their bind - yet stubbornly refusing to accept responsibility - they have over the years consistently retreated into the opaque realms of non-accountability which are abundant here in the Cambodian context.
Rather than agreeing to numerous requests to meet and sort out once and for all *who* was actually accountable for the hiring agreement, a constellation of excuses and blame-gaming gushed forth instead:
“Ask Naly, she was head of the steering committee...”
‘I was NOT on a steering committee – “
“Ask Maia, she’s the one who hired you...”
"As Mr. Balen notes in his letter, the issues raised relate to a matter between you and CHRAC, arising in 2005. EWMI was not a party to the relationship from which your claim arises" (EWMI Lawyer)
I went last week and hand delivered to the CHRAC offices a copy of a final demand letter, sent by email from my lawyer to Mr. Suon Sareth, secretariat of CHRAC.
Mr. Sareth continues to avoid accountability for this issue - refusing to answer phone calls, etc, claiming that "too much time has gone by" (not true - the statute of limitations in Cambodia is 5 years)
Anyway, I gave a copy of that email to a staffer ("Jeudi") at CHRAC, accompanied by my colleague Mr. Sambath, acting as witness:
“Who’s he?”
“My helper...here you go. I just want to make absolutely sure this is received”
Leaving CHRAC’s offices, I realized it would be useful to have Jeudi’s phone number.
“Hello Jeudi, we’d like to get your contact number please.”
“I’m sorry I can’t do that.”
“You’re refusing?”
“It’s not like that.”
“Well then, if you’re not refusing, please let us have your contact number.”
“I cannot.”
“Well...that's 'refusing'.”
My lawyer suspects that, one reason the accountable party/parties are not willing to come forth and make payment, is because there may have been an element of fraud involved with the original project. By making payment, they could be technically opening themselves up to a fiscal accounting process which would reveal some unethical, and perhaps, criminal, dimensions to their activities.
This would be interesting, given that many of the actors involved in this situation – including legal consultant Maia Dionko – are involved in crafting Cambodian legislation as a core occupational activity.
This particular instance of theft of IP and nonpayment for services is just one example of the disposition of a number of groups working in
Yet, if organizations and consultants like these are unable, or even unwilling to be accountable for even the most modest transactional instance (my initial fee was a mere $300 back in 2005, which easily could have been taken care of), then how can they be expected to undertake other more serious tasks in the Cambodian context?
If, after 1500 days, they still "need more time" to determine who is actually responsible for paying for our minor services...how can they possibly manage to coordinate complex human rights projects here, with far more critical ramifactions for a very large number of Cambodian stakeholders?
It’s evident, therefore, that some groups and consultants who are operating in Cambodia are not primarily concerned with their impacts on the development process in
They are here first and foremost to make a living, with as little a tax-free trace as possible. They would therefore prefer to work in the shadows, away from the light of accountability that they themselves seek to command in the name of the missions they see fit to undertake.
Paradoxically, if their mission is related to holding local actors - such as the Cambodian government - accountable in any way, these same organizations tend to exhibit a profound arrogance when they themselves are asked to be held accountable by a third party.
Of course, not all organizations, NGOs or civil society groups behave this way. I'm only speaking from direct experience, in this instance solely regarding the behavior of CHRAC, LICADHO, and consultant Maia Dionko (*EWMI has at least been responsive and prompt in denying their responsibility, though until this is sorted out, who can say who is really responsible and who is just blaming who?)
All too often, the trend here in Cambodia is to stay under the radar, squirrel the money away, and not rock the boat. Dont' take a stand! Avoid accepting responsibility: shroud your accountability in a vague haze of group culpability.
Highlight the ways you are not responsible, rather than seeking a good faith, equitable way of dealing with situations.
I would therefore like to shine the light a little on this situation now, with the hopes that something constructive may ultimately result, if even only to set a public example of what may not constitute 'Good Practices'.
Of course this may rock the boat a little; it may even lead to my permanent 'banishment' from the NGO & development community indefinitely (if that hasn't happened already...)
Yet, I do believe in the mantra of accountability and transparency which is so oft-repeated here by development practitioners in Cambodia...so, herewith, I am thus obliged to present some selected documents which may be of interest:
http://www.scribd.com/camerado
Posts
