By Iwazaru
This is the third installment in an ongoing series about ATEK. Read Part 1 and Part 2.
In May of 2010, KangNam Labor Law Firm (KLLF) found itself in a rather intriguing position given its access to ATEK via the Legal Assurance Program (LAP), a program which provided legal services for teachers. KLLF’s appearance in English media here also gave it priceless publicity that brought foreigners in legal binds to its doors. Yet, within months, the number of ATEK members enrolled in the LAP dropped, ATEK removed the Legal Assurance announcement from its Web site and at present, ATEK has distanced itself from the firm. Another great opportunity and service for ATEK was lost.
That same May, Reyes I. Galvan, an American teacher, discovered the law firm following his own labor dispute as a teacher for an outsourced after-school program at a public school in Seoul. Interested in immigration, labor and constitutional law, Galvan expressed a desire to join the firm as a kind of intern who could facilitate outreach to expat workers who needed help. “I joined K-Labor because it was a great opportunity to be involved in the kind of law I want to study while making a difference in the life of foreign workers who need help but are lost, much like I was,” said Galvan.
Quickly Galvan learned of ATEK as approximately 40 of its members, mostly leadership figures, were signed up for the LAP at the time. Another foreigner and associate ATEK member, Gerald Staruiala a paralegal who specialized in foreigner’s labor affairs, was already with the law firm and acted as a sort of recruiter for the LAP. As early as 2008, Staruiala had been reaching out to teachers who needed help, even on Dave’s ESL. Staruiala became a nexus between ATEK and the firm bringing in members who were willing to pay the monthly fee of 20,000 won for access to the legal services—mediation, conflict resolution and assistance filing claims—offered by the firm on a group retainer. When recently reached for comment about his involvement with ATEK and the LAP, Staruiala only wrote in an e-mail, “I am no longer providing any form of services for any law firms in Korea as of August 31, 2010.”
By that August, Galvan had joined ATEK and was given the title Director of Legal Assurance Program, taking over for Staruiala, whereby, according to Galvan, he would only suggest the law firm to those whom approached him with legal issues. “I was not promoting it,” Galvan insists. Simply this meant that if Galvan were at an ATEK event, he would only tell people who first mentioned a legal problem that he was associated with the law firm. One gets the sense that he did not want to look like he was pimping for KLLF, which some critics could take issue with. To no surprise, Galvan says that he slowly began to see the numbers of the LAP decline. “It went from around 40 down to 20 and eventually near zero,” said Galvan. “I think people just stopped following through with their payments.”
Not long after joining ATEK, friends and acquaintances began suggesting that Galvan seek the vacant Chair position of the Seoul Provincial/Metropolitan Association (PMA) previously held by the Internal Communications officer who’d gone on to a National executive officer position. Galvan’s own interest in organizing began at the University of Michigan where he was a member of the Korean Student’s Association and Students Organizing for Labor Equality. The opportunity to join an association that was working to help teachers appealed to him much as legal interests drove him to join KLLF. In September he submitted a letter of intent to ATEK laying out his general mission. “I told them ‘I can help you use the membership more effectively and increase the value of the organization,’” Galvan said. At the end of September he was officially elected. It would only take a month for 
problems to begin.
Galvan held his first Seoul PMA meeting as chair in early October at a Coffee Bean in northern Seoul with five other members and a graduate student who was researching non-profit organizations. Galvan was eager to get started. “I was excited to get to work as there had been a leadership vacuum,” Galvan explained referring to the numerous exits from leadership posts in ATEK and, specifically, the Seoul PMA. Galvan says his main proposal at the meeting was a “boots on the ground” campaign that would put officers on the street to raise awareness. “The idea was to get officers in the Seoul PMA to get out there, sit at high volume locations and just ‘fish,’ to talk to people who might be interested and tell people more about us or about an event we were planning.”
The first event the PMA worked on was a legal clinic in conjunction with KLLF to be held at the Itaewon Hannam Global Center. A fairly simple concept, thought Galvan. Plan the date, make pamphlets, distribute the pamphlets and hold an event where they’d provide teachers with basic legal advice. But right away Galvan got his first of many lessons in ATEK’s byzantine Bureaucracy—a page out of the National leadership’s “Micromanagement 101” textbook. “We had a hard time really doing anything with the idea because all communications had to be approved by the National leadership,” said Galvan. Basically, the National executives wanted a hand in every aspect of the Seoul PMA’s activities, even if it disrupted, diminished and derogated the association’s mission to improve things. The pamphlets for the legal clinic were exhibit one for Galvan. The Seoul PMA received approval for the basic design from ATEK’s National Communication officer Robert Ouwehand after Ouwehand made revisions. Pamphlets are external communications, right? “They were approved by Rob Ouwehand, whom I was told I had to get things approved by but just as we were about to distribute, we were told that Rob did not have the authority and that we were in violation of some rules,” explained Galvan. Consequently, the clinic was rescheduled several times much to the dismay of the Seoul PMA. “It was rescheduled something like four times in as many weeks with the last happening less than a week before the event, “said Galvan, adding that the damage was obvious when they finally held the event. “About seven people showed up.”
This bureaucratic bungling is endemic in ATEK but the National executives either steer clear of addressing it when asked or pretentiously point to the hallowed bylaws. “Holding up the rules and avoiding ethical compromises to stay true to the principles of the organization is a challenge that presents itself time and time again,” wrote President Oh Jaehee in an e-mail. “Our list of bylaws is a long and involved document, and not all our members know it 
as well as I do—I have to keep my eye out to make sure that things are being done by the book.” With the Seoul PMA and Galvan, Oh and other National executives were certainly keeping their eyes out for “ethical compromises” including pamphlets printed without National authorization from the “right” people.
Galvan’s next run-in with the National leadership came mid-October at the KOTESOL Conference on the campus of Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul where he met the man who’d eventually seek to banish him from ATEK, National Internal Communications officer Russell Bernstein. ATEK had a booth at the Conference where interested individuals could learn more about the association and both Bernstein and Galvan showed up for the two-day event. “I was ready to go,” said Galvan who arrived at 9 a.m. to find the Bernstein setting up. Bernstein, a former athlete who stands well over 6 feet tall, is described by those who’ve met him as an imposing physical presence. Galvan stands 5’ 9”, is of medium build and would disappear into a crowd quickly. During that first day, a man approached the ATEK booth asking for help regarding unpaid wages. He was not an ATEK member. Galvan spoke with him and then gave him a KLLF card so he could seek some consultation if he wanted. Immediately Bernstein approached. “He was intense,” said Galvan adding that Bernstein was not pleased with Galvan’s behavior. “He said, ‘while you’re here for ATEK you can’t hand out cards and if you’re gonna talk about the law firm, you have to go home.” Galvan defused the confrontation by saying, “I won’t do it here then,” implying that he could do it elsewhere at the conference. According to Galvan, the Bernstein said, “Well I can’t follow you around.” Bernstein was making sure things were done by the “book.”
A few days after the conference, Galvan spoke with Chair of the Ethics Committee Charlotte Lawrence who mentioned a possible “conflict of interest” (a phrase that the National leadership would repeatedly use over the following months in a campaign against Galvan). However, ATEK’s leadership will not address the event specifically only saying, “the issues arose as internal matters in the association and have been resolved internally,” according to President Oh. Giving advice to nonmember teachers was not part of the bylaws. In addition, referring nonmembers to one law firm might have appeared controversial. Lastly, ATEK desperately needs members and that was on the leadership’s mind when people approached with a problem. “Sign up first, then we’ll help you,” could have been an ATEK slogan. President Oh refers to ATEK’s desire for NGO status as a central reason for strict oversight and firm “principles of the organization.” “We are seeking NGO status, so we have to walk the line carefully and be diligent about the ethical standards of the organization, and helping the leaders of the local PMAs understand and adhere to the rules, even the ones that may strike them as silly, has been a challenge from time to time.” Galvan’s open approach to teachers must have been one of those “times.” And he wasn’t done.
ATEK held a national meeting via Skype on October 24 with six members in attendance including Galvan and Bernstein. One issue came to a head: the Busan and Daegu PMA Chairs had lost access to some officer’s files on the ATEK Web site, which, up until a week before, they’d had access to, and they wondered what had happened. “The problem was they cut off a lot of people’s access to files so we couldn’t contact members or set up activities by e-mail, text or Facebook,” said Daegu PMA Chair Pete Garcia, a teacher from Los Angeles. “They took over and we were deaf, dumb and blind.” Bernstein who’d never been elected to the National Council but was instead appointed a National officer by Greg Dolezal, the president at the time, had unilaterally restricted the access. He’d single-handedly prevented chairs of PMAs across the nation from accessing forms and documents that they needed to sign up new members, to understand details about previous members and to contact current members. Bernstein allegedly claimed confidentiality concerns—former members personal information and any legal cases covered by a former officer—and said he’d provide any necessary documents per approved request. As National Internal Communications officer, he would handle everything.
But, instead of condoning Bernstein’s actions and supporting his proposal, a suggestion for a motion arose among the members and Galvan stepped in to make it. The motion called for access to vacant officers’ files “under the condition that [the officers] are trained to perform those roles first,” according to Galvan. The motion got support from everyone except for Bernstein who reportedly said, “You’re making a mistake.” Garcia sensed futility from the get-go. “We all voted and won but didn’t get anything,” he said. Bernstein wasn’t budging—the motion and vote hadn’t adhered to the bylaws. Still Galvan’s motion also stated that the motion would not take effect until “the vote of every National Council member currently in Korea” was counted. Furthermore, the motion stated that “seven days” would be given for voting. The National executives rejected the vote.
Nonetheless, after Busan Employment & Legal Issues Officer Adrian Lake made the second, “procedurally correct” motion,—much to the leadership’s chagrin—a “procedurally correct” vote was taken. Again, the motion passed—let PMA Chairs access non-confidential files for the benefit of ATEK. Bernstein and Ethics Chair Lawrence, tacitly (at first) backed by President Oh, issued a litany of denunciations, declaring the vote null and void because, again, the bylaws prevented the National Council and PMAs from accessing “personal information.” At the time, the unelected Bernstein and uninvited Lawrence were prohibited from entering National Council forums to discuss the issue as stated in the bylaws. Ignoring this, they failed to adhere to the same rules they’d consistently deferred to in previous conflicts. A flurry of vitriol filled forums and e-mail inboxes. Aside from countless forum posts, more than 800 e-mails flew through cyberspace in less than a few weeks. The war was on.
In Seoul, the PMA officers knew they were the target. Seoul Ethics officer Bryan Hollingsworth found himself at the center of the shit-storm just two months after entering ATEK. “It was a battle of egos,” said Hollingsworth. “Charlotte Lawrence committed an ethics violation by entering the forums even though she was the Ethics officer,” Hollingsworth explained highlighting the hypocrisy of the National leadership. “None of them wanted to work past this—there was too much pride.” One word that Hollingsworth used again and again while struggling to explain his time in ATEK was “clusterfuck.” Months after the meltdown, Hollingsworth still seems aloof and befuddled. “I’ve been in this organization since September and I still haven’t figured it out,” he said.
On November 3, at 4:29 a.m., things got more bizarre when Bernstein shut down ATEK’s Web site without consulting anyone. He then sent out an e-mail titled “Temporary Shutdown: ATEK Website, Forums and Email Addresses” declaring:
Dear ATEK Officers,
I have shutdown the website temporarily. We will inform you when it is back on. I am sorry for the inconvenience this may cause, but there are some major internal issues we need to resolve immediately. All operations outside the National Executive are suspended until further notice. Enjoy your free time.
Regards,
Russell
Numerous members say the site was down about a week and another odd e-mail titled “ATEK Apology” sent out by Bernstein on November 10, at 2:47 p.m. confirms this. Among other things Bernstein writes, “ATEK emails are working, and the forums are up,” to begin. He follows with clear prevarication, writing, “You all deserve an apology from me and from each other.” “From each other”? Several paragraphs later he presents his excuses which include writing “progress reports for over 80 students,” and the observations that his “room is filthy,” he smokes “too much” and doesn’t “eat right.” During the Web site’s downtime no new member could sign up and, by most measures, ATEK was on a virtual lockout staged by one man. An ex-member Ryan Cox wrote, “Since there was no physical manifestation of ATEK in the real world, he [Bernstein] basically destroyed the organization for about a week.” For his actions Bernstein was given a seven-day suspension by President Oh.
All the while, the National Executive members end game was taking shape—Galvin needed to go, one way or another. And four days after Bernstein restored the ATEK Web site, Galvan received the following e-mail from President Oh at 11:48 p.m. on Sunday, November 14:
Dear Reyes,
Thank you for your time and efforts with ATEK. You have done a lot for us in many ways. Unfortunately, a lot of what has transpired lately has been very damaging to the Association. As a result, I do not feel like I would be acting in the best interest of General Members if I did not ask for your letter of resignation.
I do not want this issue to escalate any more than it already has. These instances are always damaging for the Association, and it would be best if we just parted ways professionally so that no one burns any bridges.
Please send me your official letter of resignation in writing and by email. It doesn’t have to be long.
Thank you, Jae
Less than 30 minutes later, Galvan would respond with a single, “No,” saying he’d “consider resigning” if Bernstein and Lawrence officially resigned along with Oh herself under the condition that all four (Galvan included) not “be allowed to hold any officer position in ATEK for two years.”
Oh’s reaction to Galvan’s e-mail may well have been the nadir for ATEK (it sure ranks in the top five) in terms of ethical conduct and professionalism. During working hours on that Monday, November 15, Oh phoned Galvan’s boss and Managing Partner of KLLF, Jong Bong Soo, to inform him of a “conflict of interest” and to ask him to hasten Galvan’s resignation from ATEK. Galvan was furious. “To put it simply, a national officer called a local officer’s employer,” said Galvan. “That act alone was egregious enough but it is compounded by everything else that happened with the National leadership.” KLLF still had a space on ATEK’s Web site but, according to the firm, it wasn’t generating any traffic. Oh completely severed that relationship in a third call to Jung during which she threatened to remove the firm’s space if something wasn’t done about Galvan. Nothing was done and KLLF disappeared from the ATEK site. Ethic’s officer Hollingsworth saw the ethical breach as just one more in a series that centered around Oh’s affinity for and defense of the National executives. “She was always siding with the National people,” said Hollingsworth, “and this was one more example of her going too far in her fight against Seoul.”
Oh ignored Galvan’s repeated attempts to contact her until Thursday, November 18 when she got around to sending an e-mail in which she offered no apology but instead defended her actions writing that she as president is “responsible for the smooth operation of the organization, which included a duty to protect the integrity and the image of integrity of ATEK as well as to protect the ATEK’s officers.” She added, “As such, I am well within my rights to explain to Mr. Jung that ATEK is, and will continue to be, vulnerable to conflict of interest accusations, as long as you are an officer of ATEK.” Later in the e-mail, she references the “good faith affidavit” that Galvan signed which protects ATEK from “acts of malice or ill intent by those who may wish to harm it.” Oh and the association were immune and infallible. Period. The comedy of errors and egos carried on, and in a rather amusing, inept and juvenile response to an attempt by Galvan to reach National Communications officer Ouwehand, Ouwehand wrote:
Reyes you wanted to talk.
I’m sorry, but my phone is completely non-functional right now.
But why didn’t Galvan just move on? Why stay in an organization that couldn’t get out of its own way? Why maintain a defunct position where around every corner the National leadership has set up a checkpoint to oversee your every move? Galvan first refers to the past in response to such questions: “I’ve been in other organizations and had this happen before. I’m not putting up with it again where leadership handicaps the organization’s progress.” As a member of the Korea Student Association, Galvan says he was “bullied around” by members of the leadership. He also spoke of ATEK’s ability to blacken the reputations of ex-members: “It has a powerful name and they can snuff out small people. They threatened to sully my name. I do public interest work and I don’t want my name sullied.”
So Galvan and other Seoul PMA officials dug in for what would end up being a three-month standoff with the National leadership. Numerous current and former members claim that ATEK stopped operating as neither side blinked. President Oh ordered an independent investigation into the ordeal that was conducted by Tom Rainey-Smith (so much for independence) and “seriously considered” by the Ethics Committee (yes, the same committee that Lawrence was chair of). As expected, the report laid blame at the Seoul PMA’s doorstep with a “To Galvan” card on top. Other reports and votes within ATEK regarding Galvan show obvious meddling and manipulation by the leadership. In one case, Bernstein was in control of the voting process and in the case of a tie, President Oh had the deciding vote.
As the story unfolded signs appear that indicate ATEK drew its allegiances to the southeastern edge of the peninsula. With Seoul all but shut down and additional issues with the Gyeonggi PMA, Busan continued to operate. Daegu Chair Garcia expressed his own frustration with 
what he called “regionalism” given that President Oh resides in South Korea’s second largest city. “Busan can and does do more events than anywhere else. It’s like ATEK care more about that region,” said Garcia. Former ATEK member Mike Yates made the same assertion: “For a while they tried to focus on Seoul when Greg [Dolezal] was president. They had a lot of meetings after Bernstein was moved to a national position. But they couldn’t keep Bernstein out of things and three months later, the meetings just stopped. Then it was back to Busan.” When asked about Seoul’s importance, President Oh wrote in an e-mail, “We have members all over the country, and they’re equally important to us. It’s true that a large number of them are concentrated in Seoul, but foreigners living in that city have access to a much wider array of services than our members living in rural areas across the country.” To be fair, with only one-third of PMA positions filled, Oh has bigger worries than Seoul.
In February of 2011, Galvan—who was recently promoted to Managing Director at KLLF and continues to help teachers with legal issues—and a handful of Seoul officers, including Hollingsworth, finally vacated the PMA. The Gyeonggi and Jeollabuk Chairs also departed. Bernstein, who wrote in an e-mail that one of his top accomplishments while with ATEK was the “Formation of functioning National Council, enabling democratic decision-making,” is now back in America where he’s started Global Team Players (GTP) a supposed NGO for athletic, professional and social development. In his wake is the current emaciated, limping and lost ATEK. Over the past two weeks more members have jumped ship according to correspondence received by The Three Wise Monkeys. Is this the final act of the tragedy or must the show go on? Will ATEK disband, rebuild, rename and relaunch with a leaner, smarter, less bureaucratic base. Looking back at a little more than two years of operation ATEK would be wise to heed the words of George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Print This Post
April 4th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
i love how this installment paints Galvan as some kind of hero. its preposterous. he had as much affect in destroying ATEK last year as [name redacted] and Lawrence. the proposal drafted by Reyes and the other chairs was poorly written and contributed much the to the war on the forum when they refused to retract and rewrite it to address the concerns of those that called it a “power grab”.
April 4th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
The most severe allegation I’ve heard (and that’s saying something) is that the president of ATEK contacted a member’s employer. Was this verified in any way, or is this being reported on the word of the employee?
Very serious, if true.
April 4th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Employee. Not employer. Damn auto correct. If one of you monkeys could edit that I’ll throw you a banana.
April 4th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
TJ, I have edited your comment per your request.
April 4th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I remember those forum posts from before ATEK removed them.
The only, ONLY, person who called it a “power grab” was the Seoul Webmaster.
You know, I remember posts from the Galvan guy, he tried to find ways to compromise but was met only with [name redacted] and Lawrence saying ‘NO!’.
Choice quotes from the Seoul Webmaster:
“wow. my first, second, and third reaction is: … power grab.”
“what the chair decides should be irrelevant, thats why we have votes. im not seeing a plan here, but ‘baby wants! baby wants!’ ”
To that last quote: But wasn’t it a vote?
Geez louise.
April 4th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
T.J.,
I received a letter written by Mr. Jung (Reyes’ employer) that confirms Ms. Oh’s contact with him about this matter. I was the Inter-Cultural Communications Officer for Seoul at the time, and the letter was sent to all Seoul PMA, National Executive, and National Council officers.
I am embarrassed at this point to admit that I had that title, but I can confirm that she contacted Mr. Jung directly in order to convince him to encourage Reyes’ resignation.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
I have no such letter, nor did I ever receive one.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Hi Caleb,
I was just told that the .pdf was not sent to all PMA officers. I am looking at Mr. Jung’s letter right now. It was sent to, I guess, some of us on the 8th of January of this year. While the letter does not directly mention that Jaehee contacted him, it is a response to her allegations. Anyway, my apology– I must have gotten it mixed up with the other 1,000 emails I received over a couple of months, like this one that I received from Jaehee earlier in the morning on the same day (8 Jan 2011):
To Mr. Reyes I. Galvan
I called Mr. Jung after I received the Seoul Ethics Officer’s email, saying that you told him that I threatened KLL :if you don’t resign, I will take down the ads for KLL.
… I told him that you said that I threatened the firm and his first response was that ” why is he doing that? you didn’t threaten me, you can record this conversation, Ms. Oh. You don’t have to worry about anything because it is simply isn’t true. Mr. Reyes is a bit young and eager but I don’t think he means to be malicious.” I asked him if he could write me a letter in my defense. (Mr. Galvan, I didn’t ask him not to write a letter in your defense, I certainly didn’t do anything like that.). He told me that I am important and you were also important and he wasn’t comfortable coming between you and ATEK. After I hung up the phone, I thought about it and I wanted to leave it as a written document. So I wrote to him and he said that he didn’t want to get involved with either Mr. Reyes or me and I wrote him back that I understand his position…– Jaehee Oh, President of ATEK
Anyway, that seems clear to me.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Clear as mud…after the fourth he said that she said, I can’t tell who said what to whom…
April 5th, 2011 at 12:00 am
I have been an ATEK member who never receives any communication at all for a long time. I find all of the above comments useless and childish. I was involved in labour movement in South Africa and sadly ATEK is not the answer. Just a few people seeking to pad their resume and do no organising work. The Busan chapter is not functioning at all sadly as far as I can tell.
April 5th, 2011 at 12:01 am
I’m very sorry that the writing isn’t up to your standards. Do you want me to go subpoena cell phone records, or something?
April 5th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Ryan: “…I can confirm that she contacted Mr. Jung directly in order to convince him to encourage Reyes’ resignation.”
The email you posted doesn’t confirm this. It says that Galvan said she threatened the firm in her name, and that she denies it.
All that email proves is that she contacted the owner of a law firm that ATEK was partnered with in order to prevent the relationship deteriorating because of rumours that she considers unfounded.
It doesn’t confirm (or deny) the allegation that she contacted Mr. Jung in order to force a resignation from Galvan.
April 5th, 2011 at 12:19 am
From ATEK’s President (same email as previous one: 8 Jan 2011):
“…some of the officers asked me to call Mr. Jung to ask him if he could recommend resignation from ATEK. Since ATEK and KLL was in a relationship and the mutual “employee” was at the center of this controversy, I thought that I would talk to Mr. Jung.
I called him and explained the situation to Mr. Jung and that if he could talk to you and recommend resigning. I told Mr. Jung that the reason why I am asking this tough favor is because your case might go to the General Members’ vote; some of the officers wanted that to happen but the former VP asked me not to go through with it. And once it is in the General Member’s vote, then the entire GM will hear about you and the relationship with your law firm and such. So I told Mr. Jung that I think that it is disrespectful to put KLL’s name in disgrace like that. I told Mr. Jung that that is the reason why I was asking for him to talk to you.
After he talked to you (I do not know what he said or not said), you went and emailed me demanding apology and telling me that what I did would be the same thing as you calling CDI and asking them to recommend Russell to resign from his position at ATEK. I wrote you back that calling Mr. Jung was within my rights and duty as president of the association and I do not respond well to any threats or demands and that the logic behind your analogy regarding Russell is flawed because ATEK and KLL had a relationship and there is a conflict of interest and CDI and ATEK do not have a relationship or there is any conflict of interest. And you wrote me another email saying that my analogy is wrong and you demand apologies from me. I thought about it and I realized that I CANNOT argue with one’s feelings or emotions. I wrote you in an email : I apologize if my calling Mr. Jung offended you.” And you texted me “thank you”.”
I don’t want to publish the entire series of emails on the wall, and this one was long. Perhaps having known the context of the email made it clearer for me.
April 5th, 2011 at 12:43 am
If true (not doubting you, just covering my arse), then that’s fucked…
Sure, she can call him as ATEK President, as KLL was a partner of ATEK. Calling and asking him to force a resignation and suggesting that, should he not, it would “put KLL’s name in disgrace” is blackmail.
And going onto the Russell analogy… Once ATEK has established links with major hagwon chains and the various MOE/POE’s, the President would then have the right to threaten the job of EVERY member of ATEK who worked for one of those organisations.
That’s the precedent that’s been set… right?
April 5th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Doesn’t ATEK already have an association with a major hagwon chain?
http://atek.or.kr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=258:seoul-atek-volunteers–tenchildrens-centers–&catid=65:volunteer
Can the president of ATEK contact these employers when she has a problem with a member of ATEK that works for them?
April 5th, 2011 at 1:17 am
fun read. K-expat drama at its finest, probably, ever….
April 5th, 2011 at 7:37 am
Nothing surprises me about the comments in the article about [name redacted]. I was an ATEK officer for 6 months. Never have I seen so much incompetence displayed from just one person. Absolutely everything was micromanaged by him and Rob as well – often delaying the time it would take to respond to requests for help (you’d find yourself saying to people who needed help things like “sorry, I can’t help, I’m afraid. If you contact blah blah blah then they can help” sort of nonsense. Why can’t I respond directly?). I left in the end because it was clear that ATEK weren’t achieving a damn thing because, and only because, of [name redacted]. Perhaps now he is gone, an organisation that actually helps teachers may arise. I have my doubts……
April 5th, 2011 at 11:31 am
I don’t think these emails parts are telling the whole picture. And Ryan, when you post only part of an email quoted out of context it just makes this bickering seem more stupid. What I want to see are all the emails because I the conspiracy that is implied here isn’t working for me and probably not for a few other people too. Otherwise you would think there would be more Angry ATEK people about calling for an “investigation” or some such nonsense.
April 5th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Frankly, I wasn’t trying to show “the whole picture.” Someone requested to see evidence of Jaehee contacting Mr. Jung, and that’s about all I wanted to give. I certainly don’t think it’s out of context at all, as the “context” of the email itself was about the contact between Jaehee and Mr. Jung. If you want to see all of the emails, I believe the guys at 3WM have them, and I believe I still have about 600 ATEK-related emails myself. Perhaps the guys at 3WM would be willing to get you those emails, or I could provide them to them– I still have about 600 ATEK emails, I think.
On second thought, believe whatever you want. ATEK already wasted enough of my time. My motivation for posting on here was to prevent other people from going through the same crap, but if you don’t believe it, go see for yourself. I’m glad to be out of that mess.
April 5th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Interesting. Why isn’t it brought up that Reyes received financial kickbacks from KLL?
KLL is a racket. They take money and act as little more than a scrivener. Anyone could get a Korean friend to fill out Labor dispute paperwork without having to go through that joke of a program.
My few interactions with KLL via email indicated to me that Reyes is little more than a law school reject who is doing little more than padding his resume with the intent on re-applying to the schools that didn’t want him the first time.
A grade-A idiot. A grade-A climber. Good for the people within the organization that sniffed him out. Made me actually want to join it.
Maybe after this piece, I just might.
April 5th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
I’ve been on the fence about ATEK from the beginning. Now, I’m off – ATEK needs to disband, delete every bit of personal or public information they have about members on their database, and shred any paper documents that exist. Comments I made in earlier installments of this series about no harm being done can be disregarded : clearly harm is what is going on, and the potential is there for much worse.
As a freelancer on an F-visa I had been hampered in some rather desultory attempts to join up. I’m grateful for that now.
There is a need for an all-volunteer service association that can help people when they need help. ATEK was, clearly, never going to be that.
April 5th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
@OhReally,
I highly doubt you know what you’re talking about.
KLL is a law firm. A business. Not a program. I’m not sure what program you’re talking about.
Reyes is a director at Kangnam Labor Law but he worked on corporate cases. I KNOW he doesn’t make money by helping teachers do things like fill out paperwork and answer questions. How do I know this, you’ll probably ask next? Because I’ve referred people with hagwon labor disputes to him and he helps them without charging. If he is unable to help them, and the dispute goes to litigation, the case is out of his hands and the person needs to hire a lawyer, THAT costs money.
April 5th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
@Bryan Wow. Bully for you and your relationship with Reyes. Funny how ATEK already had confirmation from KLL that Reyes WAS getting compensation for his work whether via the people he signed up for their “labor law assurance” or otherwise. Seems from that that he stood to make boatloads from having access to ATEK’s roster and the private information that was contained there within.
Sure, Reyes does some “free” consulting in that he answers questions for free. Then he gets kickbacks from getting people to sign up for the “scrivener” insurance. Where you’re terming something litigation, I think you need to stop thinking LA Law and perhaps something more bureaucratic: like writing Korean on a few forms. This ain’t arguing crap in front of a jury, honey.
In general, the program is a racket.
In regards to the “unethical” allegations against Ms. Lawrence, I think that perhaps it would behoove the author of this article, as well as the former, embittered members of ATEK to look at what their own by-laws say:
Investigation of ‘abuse of authority’ of the National Council and National Executive
18 The Ethics Committee shall have the power to receive and investigate complaints of unethical conduct of the National Council or the National Executive and their respective National Council Representatives and National Officers, to report on types of cases investigated with specific description of difficult or recalcitrant cases, to dismiss or recommend action on ethical cases investigated or to resolve cases by agreement where appropriate.
19 The Ethics Committee cannot override a decision of the National Council or National Executive.The Ethics Committee can make a recommendation as to whether or not the decision made was ethical; to this end ethical will be defined as within the powers of the bylaws
However, asking authors of pieces on this blog, as well as embittered apologists for Reyes and his ilk to read is probably akin to asking for the moon.
April 5th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I posted this on a private forum where this is being discussed, but I figured I would put it up here too. On the record as it were:
I don’t like [name redacted]. I never have done and I never will do. He’s a bit like a fart in a lift, his very presence being enough to cause tension. But… He’s not a deliberately bad person, he’s just socially inept. He’s a visionary who’s great at getting things done, but usually forgets WHY something is being done.
His brain works like this… “I can make ATEK into an awesome organisation. I’ll think of everything that needs to be done AND get it done!!! What? Teacher? Fuck teachers! Who cares about teachers?!”
Does that make him a bad person? Not really. But he’s an awful leader. He would have been great in an adjunct position, or in an advisory role. A doer or a thinker. He should never be allowed to deal with people.
Now… The one part of the 3WM piece I didn’t like was the part about his size. The guy is a fucking giant, and as often happens, he overcompensates for this. When people blow up on him, he withdraws. When he gets angry, he sulks rather than express it. If he were a different kind of person, he could have picked me (and numerous others) up and hurled us across the room for any number of perceived attacks made on him. He didn’t. He sulked. He would go sit on tables alone or make himself unreachable. He never expressed anger physically and his language never became violent or threatening.
So yeah… I call BS on that. Just because you’re scared of the big guy, doesn’t mean the big guy is trying to scare you.
April 5th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“Just a few people seeking to pad their resume”
I’m from Washington, D.C. which is pretty much ground-zero for resume-padders and social climbers. And I really don’t get it — American employers (unlike their Korean counterparts) do check your references, they do make phone-calls and send e-mails to your former bosses to find out if there are any red-flags about you. And with such obviously fake (not to mention hilarious and pretentious) job titles as ATEK has, I can’t imagine a single respectable employer getting the wool pulled over their eyes.
It all just smacks of the Tracey Flick, high school government b.s. that any sane person would avoid. And maybe that kind of thing helped you get into a better college when you were 17 and you weren’t really in a position to have “real world” job experience, or not much anyways, but I can assure you that it won’t get you a better job once you’re past college.
High school is over, folks. And so is ATEK, apparently.
April 5th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
@OhReally
First off, I’m not your honey…As I said in my previous post, Reyes works for KLL, that isn’t in dispute. I would like to see your confirmation that Reyes took kickbacks from the Legal Assurances program. A prepared tax form would suffice. By litigation, I mean people having to take things beyond the labor board. To court. To litigate the matter. It has happened and does. Some hagwons aren’t scared of the labor board.
As to the supposed conflict of interest, Reyes had no interest in confidential case files. That has been documented. Anyone with access to the membership list, all 14 general members, could sell that information or use it for profit…
As to the Ethics Committee…as the former Seoul Ethics Officers, I personally brought Russell up on charges citing:
Ethical Behaviour
3 It is the duty of every Member to refrain from actions that may impair the Association or its Members, including, but not limited to, unauthorized or unethical disclosure of internal communication, defamation of Members, Officers, Representatives and or the Association, and encouragement of unwarranted prosecutions against the Association or its Members. To that end, any Member who acts in a way counter to the Associations interests may be investigated by the Ethics Committee as provided for in Article XVI or any other Body of the Association invested with investigatory powers.
AND
4 Issues deemed sensitive or against the best interest of the Association or any other decisions made by Officers and or Representatives of the Association unreasonably, not in good faith, or outside the powers of the Officers or Representatives acting individually or collectively as a Body of the Association, prescribed or derived from these bylaws herein, may be subject to investigation by a Body of the Association invested with investigatory powers
As, at that time, the Ethics committee was the only investigatory body, it should have been our responsibility to to decide if Russell had acted within the best interest of the organization. I brought this to the attention of the Ethics Chair….There were only two officers on the Ethics Committee at the time.
14 If there is an even number of Ethics Officers serving and voting on the Committee (including theChair) at any one time, the Chair shall remove themselves from the vote and a simple majority of those participating in the vote shall carry the vote of the Committee. In this situation the Ethics Chair shall present the issues to the Committee and facilitate agreement; the Chair shall vote when there is an odd number of Officers (including the Chair) serving and voting on the Committee.
As I was fairly sure that the Ethics Chair would vote against me, I cited this bylaw…and was told to “fuck off.” Granted, it was in much nicer words, but that was the basic gist of the communication. I was basically told that I had no power and that the National Executive was dealing with the issue. He was a national officer and I had no jurisdiction over him.
There are other bylaws saying that a general member can be elected to the committee in case of missing members. As that was never done, I had the sole deciding vote on this case. Undemocratic? Yes, but those were the bylaws as they were written. Had a general member been elected, I’m sure the chair would have found someone more attune with their point of view on this disagreement. I would have accepted a discussion with the Ethics Chair and the National Executive in order to resolve the dispute, but I wasn’t even given that.
It was clear from the beginning that the National Executive wanted Reyes out. So much so that the President, acting far outside any moral or ethical code, called an employer of an ATEK member to try to force a resignation. And the Ethics Chair really had no problem with that. Or if she did, she never brought it to the attention of the Ethics Committee.
@Mike Yates
I understand your point of view regarding Russell’s size…but I’m a little guy. If someone of larger size threatens or confronts me, the threat is magnified. I see your point of view, but have to disagree. No matter what the intentions were, whether he be as docile as a sheep, if a large guy gets in the face of someone smaller, it IS a threat to us tiny folk.
April 5th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
This is so laughable! Now the Napoleon Complex rears its head. Between Bryan’s fixation on his short size and the portrayal of Reyes and the other scorned ATEK people in this article, I’m not quite sure exactly who wins the Oscar for Best Victim.
I think the author of these “exposes” might do well to rename them “ATEK: An Expat Retelling of the Three Little Pigs” because all of these ex-ATEK folks are coming across like whiny, disgruntled kids who got their asses kicked by an organization that they couldn’t take over or bend to do their wills. Now they’re crying Weeee, weeee, weeeee all the way home.
Actually, all of the disgruntled people in these articles remind me of one of my favorite characters from Troop Beverly Hills. An amazing campy movie. Watch it now. I highly recommend it. At the end, Velda Plendor gets kicked out of the Wilderness Girls due to her shenanigans and (gasp) inability to get away with bending the rules for her own gain. She vows to go off and form her own organization: “Plendor’s Pilgrims” or “Plendor’s Pioneers.” It’s hysterical, and it’s echoed right here on 3WM in real life. Amazing.
So you all lost. Waaahhhhh. Now you want to try to bring down ATEK because you’re bitter. Really, ATEK should be thanking you profusely for leaving and for giving them some free PR while you were at it. Good thing the organization was tested and purged of incompetence early on in its existence.
Great job! Keep playing victim. It’s super entertaining!
April 5th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
BTW, Reyes vacated the position because he was voted out.
3WM, why did you guys drop the ball on this as far as research goes? You didn’t dig deep enough. Keep diggin’.
April 5th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVKoF7QR3AM
April 6th, 2011 at 1:14 am
“if a large guy gets in the face of someone smaller, it IS a threat to us tiny folk.”
The tiniest drop of water is filled with the largest universe of insignificant activities…
and sometimes the goings on are just plain funny…
Who be ye tiny folk? be ye the leprechauns?
April 6th, 2011 at 1:17 am
@me
Yes
April 6th, 2011 at 1:44 am
When you say he got in your face, what do you mean? Did he enter your personal space? speak loudly? Use profanity? Threaten you verbally?
I would agree with you if the big guy did anything threatening, but, all I’ve heard is that he “got in your face.”
Hey, I’m no leprechaun, but I’m no fighter either and when some big aggressive muscle head aggressively confronts me, I feel threatened too.
So, how was his behavior threatening you? Just curious. I have the insomnia.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:45 am
@OhReally
Show us definitive, non-hearsay proof that he received some ‘kickbacks’.
Or show us somewhere where he or his firm states that he is getting paid in the way you describe.
Everyone here is demanding to see proof that Jaehee Oh called his employer, and it has even been confirmed and verified by several sources to the satisfaction of those who don’t seem to much on this guy Galvin’s side:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=199493&start=105
But you seem more interested in the whole kickbacks thing, ignoring the fact that Jaehee Oh acted quite unscrupulously and without common sense. I mean, really, What kind of leader of a volunteer org would do this? If you want more members, why would you go out and do something that would drive members away, like the possibility of having the org call your employer?
Who would want to join your organization knowing that’s something that might happen to them?
If your allegations are true and you can prove it, it seems very important.
Show us. Show us your proof that he got ‘kickbacks’.
Even if they’re not to you satisfaction, the people on the other side of this argument have given you proof that’s verified, vetted, and sourced. Do the same.
You also seem really bent on this ‘scrivener’ thing.
Can you show us an example of the Galvin guy marketing or promoting the Legal Assurance Program? Or how about this, can you show us an example of the guy even talking about the program without someone bringing it up first like he claimed in the article?
It’s also pretty obvious that you are already a part of ATEK as you refer to that law firm at “KLL”, and so far only ATEK members have used that name. I’ve seen it in ATEK communications that I got in my inbox, and on the forums (before they were gutted). That’s not how they refer to them here in this article, how they seem to refer to themselves, or how other people refer to them. It’s hard to set aside habits like those, isn’t it?
Also, use of vocabulary says a lot about a person. ‘Scrivener’ isn’t really a term heard a lot in the US or Canada, which makes me think you’re British. That may or may not be true, but gosh darn, with the caustic comments you’ve put up here, your ease of use of the term ‘KLL’, and your willingness to quote the bylaws of ATEK on a whim, if you’re not Charlotte Lawrence, then you could really be her stand-in. Your own Sherlock Holmes solved cases on less info.
About that jury thing, Korea has only recently started experimenting with using juries. They employ a mix of continental European legalities and American ideas. Did you know that? You made it seem as if it’s not litigation if it doesn’t get argued in front of a jury, but rest assured that’s not the way it works, honey.
“You have no power here! Begone, before somebody drops a house on you, too!”
….That’s for quoting ATEK bylaws outside that auto-erotic echo chamber you call an org.
April 6th, 2011 at 7:55 am
@me
Russell never got in my face. I was just commenting on why the author felt the need to discuss the size disparity between Russell and Reyes. Intention and perception of actions are two different things…thats what I was going for.
April 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am
I don’t need to provide proof of anything. I think you already have it. I’m sure a phone call to your friend would confirm it. Besides, when it came out in the comments that Reyes was an “employee” of the firm, it was blatantly obvious. It was merely implied in the article. No one can be as “innocent” as everyone in this expose pretends to be. Besides, 3WM aren’t exactly known for even handed journalistic integrity. There’s always a catch. That’s why people keep reading them.
Clearly, Lawrence doesn’t need a defender. Seems from the Geraldo Rivera-esqe article above that she’s enough on her own.
No, I’m not an ATEK member. I left the organization almost a year ago because I had no idea what they stood for. Exactly what does it mean to “make things better for English teachers?” Unionize? Act as a repository of information? What? When I heard from others about the Reyes Coterie incident, I was glad I left.
Here’s what I would ask, had I been a member, and what I hope the leadership of ATEK had the awareness to ask regarding this joint venture of KLL and ATEK: Does Reyes represent KLL or ATEK? What interest is he actually serving? Why, if he’s representing an English teacher organization, is he going around as an officer of ATEK representing a law firm, and not representing himself as an English teacher? Why is he handing out business cards for another entity at our booth? Does ATEK want to be a free advertising service for KLL? Is joining forces with KLL a good move for ATEK and its members now and in the long term? Is it in line with where the organization wants to go? Are ATEK’s goals compromised by possibly being aligned with KLL? Would members feel comfortable knowing that their information is being handed to labor law firms or to ANYONE outside of the organization for marketing or sales? Are there better options out there for teachers other than KLL?
The whole article reeks of conflict of interest.
And no, I’m not British. I happen to be in my 30s which gives me life experience and a better knowledge base to draw from. Scrivener is a common term for anyone who’s ever actually had to use one. Kudos to you for looking it up online, though.
Definitions available online just like the bylaws. Also, most people who have been around Korea for more than a year refer to KLL as “KLL.”
I actually feel a bit sorry for all of you. You joined an organization wanting to help, but you started out on the bottom of a totem poll. Rather than learning to play politics (which any organization has, btw), you decided to stage a protest and a stare down when you didn’t get what you wanted right then and there. When you lost, you took your story to someone who would hear you.
Learn to play the game, boys. There’s going to be an ATEK in your lives for the rest of your lives. Grow up and learn the game and play the game to win. I hope you learned from this experience.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:14 am
@R!!!
As expected, the report laid blame at the Seoul PMA’s doorstep with a “To Galvan” card on top. Other reports and votes within ATEK regarding Galvan show obvious meddling and manipulation by the leadership. In one case, [name redacted] was in control of the voting process and in the case of a tie, President Oh had the deciding vote.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Does anyone else have a problem with an employee of a law firm as an officer in an English teacher association? Shouldn’t he have been kicked out as soon as the organization realized this? Full stop?
April 6th, 2011 at 10:48 am
His position was known before he was officially appointed chair (see YouTube link above… Doesn’t flatter Galvan, especially if you watch to the end, but this was a month before his appointment.
Anyway… ATEK comms officer Rachel Bailey has responded here: http://atek.or.kr/index.php?option=com_agora&task=topic&id=977&p=1&Itemid=112#p2838
April 6th, 2011 at 10:49 am
“Now you want to try to bring down ATEK”
Sounds like ATEK managed to do that all by itself.
April 6th, 2011 at 11:00 am
@ Mike in Seoul
“Can you show us an example of the Galvin guy marketing or promoting the Legal Assurance Program? Or how about this, can you show us an example of the guy even talking about the program without someone bringing it up first like he claimed in the article?”
i guess you thought that YouTube link was just an ad or something, because that is exactly what Galvin does in it.
here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVKoF7QR3AM
April 6th, 2011 at 11:16 am
@ROFL
You focus on two comments, one of which is my response to why, I think, Iwazaru phrased something the way the did. It was a minor aside, barely an oscar winning performance. The only, if slightly, Napoleonic metaphor that is fiasco is worthy of, would be ATEK slowly rotting away in exile, being eaten from the inside by cancer.
The ‘vote’ you speak of was a complete farce. People were asked to vote with no knowledge, save for what ATEK deemed worthy of the masses…ie bullshit. The email said something to the effect of “we have found a conflict of interest….please for to remove the Seoul Chair.” It made no mention of WHAT the conflict was. In fact, ATEK wouldn’t even allow a discussion about the vote amongst its members. Democratic elections? Yea, a 3rd world Autocratic democracy….
@OhReally
If you can provide no proof, then you have no argument.
Your questions about Reyes, KLL and ATEK have been answered both in this article and in previous comments. Reyes is a teacher. He also does work for the law firm, but works on the corporate side of the firm. He received no financial game from anyone for helping people in dispute. Unless you can prove otherwise, your argument is moot.
At the KOTESOL conference, he was approached first about his relationship with the law firm, at the behest of those in the national leadership. “Hey, you know about these things, can you help this guy?”
Politics? No amount of politics will fix something inherently broken. I drank the koolaid when I joined and it gave me a massive headache. Keep drinkin’ yours.
Where do you see a lack of journalistic integrity from 3WM? I’m curious at this statement. Is it because its written in a more of a tongue-in-cheek whit? This definitely ain’t your momma’s daily print…but lacking in integrity is quite a far leap. I know Iwazaru researched and vetted this, which is far more than you have done. Your comment smacks of hypocrisy.
April 6th, 2011 at 11:30 am
from ATEK:
[quote]
I would like to clarify: Neither Jaehee Oh, nor anyone affiliated with ATEK, contacted any of our members’ employers at any time.
Ms. Oh contacted the head of Kangnam Labor Law Firm, an organization with which ATEK already had a relationship, to inquire as to whether our former Seoul Chair was compensated for his work at the firm as part of an investigation of conflict of interest. Only our membership officer Jeff Nunziata has access to members’ employment information (which is provided as a part of the general membership application), and that information is never shared with other officers. The former Seoul Chair claimed that he was a volunteer for the firm, as he was for ATEK at that time, though a number of sources later confirmed that he was receiving compensation for his work with KLLF.
Let me repeat: As a condition of his general membership at the time, the former Seoul Chair was employed as an English teacher. No one from ATEK ever contacted or attempted to contact his employer.
[/quote]
April 6th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Guys. Get a new cause. Seriously.
You all had no problems with scathing when the article was scathing towards Lawrence, Oh, and ATEK. Now you’re upset that people aren’t buying hook, line, and sinker into your story and who are starting to ask quite inconvenient questions. A story, mind you, that also reeks of hearsay and lacks “proof” other than bold faced alleged emails in the article or supposed quotes of supposed emails in the comments. Puh-leeze. No screen shots of emails. No screen shots of forums. No recordings. So here you want a tax return of Reyes as proof and yet you demand that we, the readers, merely assent to what is written about your sob story here as gospel. Tsk, tsk.
Darling, if you think that 3WM has integrity, you haven’t been reading long enough. They thrive on controversy and being unbalanced because it brings hits and comments to the site. Any publicity is good publicity for them. Hang around ‘em in the press club and you’ll hear ‘em laugh about it either way. Mercifully, at least the article and commentary are…entertaining.
Doesn’t seem to me that he vetted it very well or even researched it very well given that it appears to be left out, from other commentary, that Reyes et al. were voted out. Why didn’t he find that out from Reyes or that Reyes was receiving compensation for signing people up? Did Reyes neglect those pieces of information in interviews? Why did he? Because it would have painted this particular story in a different light? Or, was it left out on purpose? Either way, it shows at the very least, an investigative oversight.
As for me and hypocrisy, go for it. We’re all members of the same club. I’m self-aware enough to accept that label.
I have a feeling that ATEK will survive and so will you, as soon as you move on.
April 6th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
@OhReally,
So you’re saying Ryan basically made up those emails to prove a point? Interesting conspiracy theory. Sorry, I left my time machine and telephone tapping equipment at home in the states…I can’t get you a recording. If you want to help me fill out some paperwork in Korean, we can subpeona the phone company. 3WM has all the relavent emails and forum posts. I can tell that no amount of proof will convince you, your mind is made up. That’s fine, we are allowed our opinion, however wrong I believe it is. Likewise, you think I’m talking out of my ass….Until you can provide substantiated proof that Reyes took kickbacks from the legal assurances program, I will not argue any more. Ryan provided clips of an email in which the president admitted to calling a company Reyes works for and discussing his resignation….If you feel that the evidence is valueless, then…well…thats the end of that, you won’t accept proof. I can’t
As to 3WM. I’ve been reading them long enough. I’ve even been to the meet ups at the press club…(I’ll probably be at the next one if you would like to have a civil conversation on this matter, instead of muckraking over the internet.) Until can provide proof behind your allegations of a lack of journalistic integrity…hold your tongue. I don’t think anyone here is disputing the fact that 3WM might not be as friendly to ATEK as other media…but 3WM saw a problem and brought it to light. And I thank them. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant…just as I will be hard pressed to read something and rethink my opinion of ATEK. This article isn’t written for us, you and me….Its written for the thousand other foreign English teacher. Think of it as a “Toxic: Drink at your own risk” label on information well that ATEK supposedly provides.
At this point, we’ve lost sight of the forest, for the trees. No matter, the other two parts of the article were proof enough of the ineptitude of the organization as a whole. This part just to show that no matter how much the organization tries to rebuild and rebrand itself (using the same logo and name), it still can not and will not run away from its past. If ATEK does survive, it will limp along, castrated and hobbled…
April 6th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Bryan. You and your friends lost a battle at ATEK. Now you’re continuing to sink your own ships by proving that Reyes was duplicitous, an employee of KLL, and that he did not “vacate the position,” but rather he and his cohorts were voted out. Looks like you guys are walking away limp and castrated! Poor babies. Thinking that saying “hold your tongue” will stop a conversation. Tsk, tsk, young man.
Please, don’t ever become attorneys. Any of you. I fear for your clients. You’ll disclose information that could sink them. You’ll get disbarred. You’ll lose cases. You’ll lose money.
I’ll pass on the drink, though, since I don’t drink. But have a nice day and life!!! Now and forever more the names of you and your duplicitous coterie are emblazoned on google for all to see. Your comments, your napoleon complexes, your mess ups. Your future employers will LOVE it.
Take care, now, boys! I don’t see the need to give this site more hits!
April 6th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I posted these over on the ATEK site, but I’ll link them here too. They are excerpts from a letter sent from the KLL owner. The black blobs and red lines are mine. I have the entire letter.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11198933/Image%204.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11198933/Image%205.png
I’m not a friend of anybody involved here, and I’m certainly not an enemy of teachers… but I fucking hate liars, especially liars that use a position of authority to publicly defame others. That’s the kind of thing I expect to find on the AES site, not a site that purports to represent the interest of teachers.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Hey goofball number 45. You don’t have any reason to give this site more hits because you are an internet troll. My definition of an internet troll= a number seven hitter that believes he is hitting clean-up. There is a plethora of interesting work on 3wm that rarely gets commented on: try a comment on this one if you can keep up with the writing:
http://thethreewisemonkeys.com/2010/12/21/belief-in-korea-the-yoido-full-gospel-church/
Mizaru
April 6th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
My colleagues in the Seoul PMA, Jeollabuk PMA, and the Gyeonggi PMA were not voted out.
They all resigned because they were disgusted with what happened, and especially with me being voted out in a voting process controlled completely by the people trying to oust me.
You may not be aware of, or you may have chosen to ignore, the fact that the Elections Committee of ATEK at the time was made up of: [redacted] and the Ethics Committee, including Charlotte Lawrence.
This is the same committee that handled all the votes regarding by being ousted.
How’s that for a conflict of interest?
———————————————–
Also, you may want to look at what was just posted on the ATEK Forums:
http://atek.or.kr/index.php?option=com_agora&task=topic&id=977&p=1&Itemid=112#p2838
It seems that Jaehee Oh may have forgotten to mention that Mr. Jung officially refuted all the accusations against me in a signed document to her.
And please, tell me what you think of me again. Use the best words you can find.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Just came across this site– seems to be allot of huffing and puffing about the wanna be scoundrels of ATEK. Would like to offer cheers to The Three Monkeys for doing this in-depth stuff. I particularly like the inter-culture relationship matter. Hey I am a girl what can I say? Cheers.
April 7th, 2011 at 12:38 am
From the onset(beginning of ATEK), the hatred some feel toward ATEK exists because F-visa holders(some of whom are NOT considered Wononim Gangsa by Koreans themselves) feelings were hurt when the fact that E-2 visa holders rightfully claimed they were being discriminated against. What you see here is what has NEVER gone away! I suggest the haters go join AES, but I don’t doubt already have!!!
April 7th, 2011 at 12:59 am
@Ohh ohh ohh
It’s a valiant effort to try to distract others from the fact that your president lied to everyone.
I understand why you wouldn’t want to address that kind of issue: mainly because it makes you look very bad, petty, and senseless.
You may have convinced yourselves that what you and she did was ok, but in the end, trying to distract the people calling you out won’t stop the rest of the masses from wondering what on God’s green Earth you think you’re doing.
You don’t control communications outside of ATEK, deal with that and address the concerns of the people you claim to represent.
We’re asking: what the hell did you do in our name?
April 7th, 2011 at 2:14 am
Let ATEK die. There is no purpose for this group, as their are other avenues for foreigners in trouble to pursue — and no purpose to centralize this nationally and create bureaucratic and communication logjams. It’s no wonder ATEK attracted people with conflicts of interest, power lust, and anger mismanagement. Why would ATEK members have expected otherwise?
April 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Mike in Seoul,
I’m looking at the big picture, you aren’t. I’m looking at the long haul, you’re not. You’re trying to cause more than little disruption within a group of teachers who were initially for equality and now other things. It’s that “equality” thing that really bothers some people still today. I agree with what those said on the Seoul Podcast # 61, there are immature(putting it mildly) F visa holders who are afraid of criminal background checks and are NOT for equality and it’s you that’s doing the distracting!!!
April 7th, 2011 at 10:14 am
The fact that a group issues communication claiming to represent 7000 English teachers in Korea, Without their permission then engages in questionable conduct. They seek to distract from their breach of ethical standards by attacking Mr.Reyes. A.T.E.K. should disband voluntarily. I think that they are on shaky legal ground.
April 7th, 2011 at 10:51 am
But as many have pointed out, ATEK poisoned its own well by being founded by a convicted sex offender, making huge mistakes, and, apparently, being an organization where the president will mess with your professional life on a whim.
In the “big picture” its very clear that ATEK is damaged goods and in its current state its very existence taints all foreign teachers, E-2, E-1, F-, etc.
April 7th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting stuff.
April 7th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I love the use of the word “equality”. How is a long term f-visa holder situation equal to a transient e-2 visa holder is beyond me. But it is not the “fear”of a criminal background check which caused the fuss. that is an A.T.E.K. distortion. Rather that people with families and jobs would have to leave Korea to get the background checks done that was the problem. Two different groups of people in different situations. But what is really irritating is that this campaign was started by three guys who had very limited experience in Korea, who claimed they represented 7000 teachers. One of those three guys is gone due to his criminal past by the way. A.T.E.K’s campaign would have caused great hardship for families in Korea but never mind that they still continue to want to damage peoples lives, and families all in the name of equality. Have you no shame!
April 7th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
[quote="ohh ohh ohh:"]
April 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Mike in Seoul,
I’m looking at the big picture, you aren’t. I’m looking at the long haul, you’re not. You’re trying to cause more than little disruption within a group of teachers who were initially for equality and now other things. It’s that “equality” thing that really bothers some people still today. I agree with what those said on the Seoul Podcast # 61, there are immature(putting it mildly) F visa holders who are afraid of criminal background checks and are NOT for equality and it’s you that’s doing the distracting!!![/quote]
I’m pretty sure this is in fact the ATEK President, who in fact is a Korean national. While that alone should not precede her from leading the organization, she clearly has a beef with F-visa holders as Hellman, Rainey-Smith and Thomas.
I find this disturbing that the issue is being brought up again. An issue ATEK ran into the ground once before. I challenge anyone who is an F-visa holder and is involved in ATEK to step down until the time organization decides that they will no longer condone such activity.
April 7th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Except F visa holders DO have to produce background checks. The difference being that it’s not a visa requirement, instead it’s a Ministry of Education requirement in order to hold public school and university jobs, while true that only some hogwons require F visa CBC’s, I don’t see too many F visa holders trying for many hogwon spots when more bountiful uni positions would grant them a better quality of life here.
April 7th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Here is a perfect example of ATEK in motion and their attitude toward the F visa community.
http://atek.or.kr/index.php?option=com_agora&task=topic&id=207&Itemid=112
April 7th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Ron I completely agree with your last post. Shame on you ATEK! There is no ‘fear’ associated with a criminal background check. Its the effect on our families and lives. Something that ATEK has clearly not taken into consideration. There is a big difference between the F visa holders and the E2 visa holders, something that is clearly not understood by this organization. Rather than include the people who live here, have careers and businesses outside of teaching you have chosen to marginalize and alienate the people who could be the biggest asset for ATEK. And yet you claim to represent the interest of all us!
April 7th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Yes there is a fear. The fear that the cost of flying to their home country to get the C.B.C. the possible loss of employment that that could cause. The break up of a family unit for an extended amount of time. There was fear of that.
But this issue is a stalking horse to get rid of the CBC, and drug test. I believe we understand now why some A.T.E.K leaders wanted the C.B.C done away with.
I sincerely wish that A.T.E.K. had taken f-visa holders into consideration when they concocted this scheme. But instead they attacked them. Of course there was always the jealousy displayed by the A.T.E.K. leaders toward F-visa holders. I sincerely wish they had not made it seem that all NETS were drug users who wanted to force their views on Korea and Koreans. Human rights abuse??? A Net who has been in Korea for a few years has a tidy bank account , works between 10- 30 hours a week and has a pension plan and health care benefits. Oh the horror!!
April 7th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Ron,
Unfortunately the people who run ATEK have a self-serving attitude that they should be treated the same as everyone else which dates back to the creation of the organization. That won’t ever change. They are simply too stupid to understand the differences. Apparently getting F-visa holders involved was a ruse for them to cover their true intension. ATEK is and always has been a fraud.
April 8th, 2011 at 12:41 am
Korea 90210
April 8th, 2011 at 2:05 am
T-J,
What was that link suppose to do, it doesn’t impress me or do what you claim.
Those who started ATEK pointed out Korean Immigration discrimination toward E-2 visa holders. F visa holders sat on the sidelines till then even though most anyone should’ve known of it, assuming they all didn’t have there head up you know where. Sadly, the F visa crowd never pointed out obvious discrimination by Korean Immigration(were happy someone else was being discriminated against) and instead chose to HIDE the FACT or ignore it.
F visa holders(which you seem to support) started this backlash against anyone who was willing to fight for their rights. It is you and or they who hold a grudge against anyone who saw or claimed obvious discrimination. It’s good to know you still stand on the side of those who discriminate. Good Luck on your sick endeavors.
April 8th, 2011 at 8:38 am
“sick endeavors”
Um, that’s Tony Hellman’s gig.
April 8th, 2011 at 9:53 am
@wetcasements:
Haha!
@ Ohh Ohh Ohh:
Bitter much?
I’m an E-2 visa holder, and I agree that some of the policies towards E-2s are discriminatory. That said, why would you attack the F visa holders to improve the conditions of E-2 visa holders? And furthermore, why would you expect them to help? I think T.J., Ron, Dan, Mike Yates et al. have done a good job at highlighting the major differences between E-2 and F visa holders and the opportunity costs that each would face if the visa requirements were the same for both classes of visa. Think about it objectively, and try not to take sides. Their argument makes sense. ATEK’s previous opinions do not.
And I don’t think T.J’s post indicates that he “stand[s] on the side of those who discriminate.” That’s ridiculous. You are accusing him of supporting xenophobia, and I don’t think that’s the point that any of the F visa holders on this thread are making.
Your use of ad hominem attacks is very classy, by the way. I hope you can learn to approach these issues in a manner that attacks the issues at hand rather than attacking people you don’t know personally on a thread of an article that you don’t like. If you are who I think you are, this ad hominem pattern has been demonstrated in other forums of discussion, as well. If you are not that person, you demonstrate the same dialectic patterns.
April 8th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Well said Ryan
April 8th, 2011 at 10:55 am
I completely agree with the F visa holders that have spoken up on this thread, not that it really matters.
@OhhOhhOhh
We all seem to agree on the fact that some of the E2 visa requirements should be further examined. But saying F visa holders support discrimination by not standing with you is both off putting and silly. F class visa holders are in a completely different situation than those of us on E class visa. The F visa represents a sort of permanency while generally E visas are essentially migrant workers. We spend a few years here, and then move on. Please stop comparing us to them, because we really have very little in common. If we were all in the same situation, with the same needs and desires, then we would have the same visa status…
Your arguments contain blanket fallacy like:
Sadly, the F visa crowd never pointed out obvious discrimination by Korean Immigration(were happy someone else was being discriminated against) and instead chose to HIDE the FACT or ignore it. F visa holders(which you seem to support) started this backlash against anyone who was willing to fight for their rights.
Bring some proof to any of your arguments or please stop making such asinine statements.
@Webcasements
hahahaha
April 8th, 2011 at 11:02 am
The same old argument: F-Visa holders are against ATEK because F-Visa holders don’t join ATEK!!!
If you want to chainge things, join ATEK!!!
Except… you can’t join ATEK unless you are doing an E-2 job. Seriously. Try teaching adults on a full-time freelance basis. You can’t join.
Try owning your own study room or hagwon. You can’t join.
Employed in a managerial position (and still teaching 25 hours/week)? You CAN join, but only after you jump through an insane number of hoops.
I had a F/T teaching job and was I expected to prove my visa/job status 3 times in 6 months. So yeah… they let me join ATEK, but their bureaucracy drove me out in short order.
ATEK discriminate against F-Visa holders. It has NEVER been the other way around.
April 8th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Ah GAH! I just broke my rule. This ISN’T the big issue today. The big issue is that the president of ATEK called somebody’s employer to discuss that persons role in ATEK.
Let’s not allow them to take attention away from that!
April 8th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Yeah, she did. That said, what can we do?
Seriously, is there anything that can be done to rectify this situation? I don’t think it’s a good idea for ATEK to go on claiming to represent English teachers. Imagine if Chosun-ilbo or Joongang-ilbo (or Hangook-ilbo or Dong-a-ilbo) got a hold of something some irresponsible person who is part of ATEK says, and then they applied it to the entire English teachers’ community.
At the end of the day, none of us have it that bad, whether we’re E-2, F, or something else. Personally speaking, Korea has been very good to me and I will miss it if and when I leave. While I do continue to live here, I don’t want anyone currently associated with ATEK representing me and making my situation (not to mention ALMOST every other E-2 visa holder that I know) worse. ATEK really, really should be disbanded.
When I was a part of ATEK, there were people who were genuinely interested in helping the foreign community. Since there are injustices that happen every day, those people can still continue to help. You don’t need an association like ATEK to enable you to help others.
You certainly don’t need the president of ATEK calling your employer because she feels that your existence there threatens her organization’s future NGO status.
April 8th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
So A.T.E.K’s president can interfere with peoples employment at will. because 1. They are discriminated against! ( problem here is that they have not proved discrimination). 2. They are A.T.E.K. and ethical rules do not apply to them. 3. It’s the f-visa holders fault!
This needs to be dealt with. This is intimidation of the A.T.E.K. membership into obedience to the “Leaders”. This is the issue.
I have a question. What are the regulations about e-2 visa holders attempting to set up what is basically a business, the NGO. Are there rules concerning their being involved with a law firm in a business relationship. Any lawyers or people familiar with immigration regs on that. Just curious.
Oh yeah! Please explain why f-visa holders are bad guys, one more time please.
April 9th, 2011 at 1:10 am
Came back to read it again and more and more it sounds like a bunch of high school kids operating a half-assed Model UN.
April 9th, 2011 at 3:48 am
I spent 3 years in Korea. God I hated that country. It made lousy foreigners become worse and nearly brought them down to the level of Koreans.
April 9th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Hey Lucy, Huzzah!
Sounds like they are circling the drain to me. Why would I join an organization that will make trouble for me at work unless I do what they say? Thats the last thing I need!!!
April 9th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I find it odd that they chose Reyes as the scapegoat for the shutdown when the ICO was the one who did it and was planning to leave anyway. That being said, I wouldn’t want to be a part of an organization that contacts my employer in a HUGE breach of ethics. And no matter how you wish to explain it, it WAS what Ms. Oh did.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:15 am
As what I started against Hellmann nearly 2 years ago and always said then. ATEK was and is currently a kids clubhouse with no real legal power. Very little accountability and will implode. If ATEK wanted to succeed, he should have looked at AFEK (which I founded) and Mike Yates who took the idea to new heights.
Over 500 famlies registered and stable. No ethics issues, no issues about power and ego trips. AFEK has been a great place to meet, discuss and help expats in Korea. Sadly, ATEK included all the crap that AFEK was to avoid.
ATEK should simply die off. Regardless of how much you may wish to toot your horns. You have no legal standing in this country. AFEK does. The right to vote in Korean political elections gives us opportunities to do things that ATEK could only dream about. Sadly, after 2 YEARS…you are still squabbling over the scraps of a clubhouse…
How sad….
Chicken
April 27th, 2011 at 1:12 am
Roboseyo blogged about this, but he’s not allowing comments on his blog at this time. Here’s a place you can.
http://www.afek.info/forum/open-forums?time=1303822328
April 27th, 2011 at 11:12 am
comments will be open on Thursday, Bobster. That’s less than 36 hours. Have patience, please.
April 27th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Clownshoeshaseyo.
April 27th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Surprised nobody has mentioned a recent ATEK tweet:
http://twitter.com/#!/ATEK_Korea/status/60917637626073089
“Bi-linqual volunteer with intermediate English speaking and advanced Korean writing skills needed for non-profit registration process”
Given that a simple google search will show that one of ATEK’s founders was convicted of a sex offense in America, this organization has gone from “kind of annoying but harmless” to “actively smearing all NET’s with a broad brush.”
The ATEK brand is irrevocably poisoned. End of story.
April 30th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Good post by Chickenlover. AFEK is effective and working. A.T.E.K. a joke. After this last fiasco where an officer of A.T.E.K. contacted a members employer it is clear that they should not be trusted with any information about members. If they have an ethics at all they should disband. There is a vibrant well run alternative in A.F.E.K. many A.T.E.K. members and officers i am sure are well meaning and honest folk. It is just it could never overcome it’s parentage so to speak. But it has caused enough harm to the image of NETs the side show distraction it causes. it’s relentless attacks on f-visa holders,its lack of any single accomplishment to help NETS. Now the focus is on forming an N.G.O. Strange how it went from helping NETS to seeking a way to solicit money legally.
April 30th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Dude what happened to the website yesterday? I can’t help but notice that there is no longer any mention of Russell Bernstein in any of the articles.
Regardless of what the ATEK website claims, he is still an active person in ATEK. If he was responsible for the downing of this site yesterday, and that is my conclusion since his name is specifically no longer mentioned, then seriously, WTF?
This is the same shuckster who downed his own site (ATEK) when he “got stressed” or some such other nonsense. Yet he’s still in play, making demand, and being a control freak.
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:26 pm
[...] ATEK: The Great White Hoax (Pt. 3) [...]
May 7th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
She called a members employer because she was having a relationship (professional) problem with that member.
C&$@.
August 7th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
very helpful…
I preferred to thank you for this good article. http://www.showcasefootball.com/event.php?event_id=395 I by all odds liked every little bit of it…
August 9th, 2011 at 4:35 am
Great…
love your blog, http://blog.palungjit.com/elsa11/ ,Thanks again….
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:09 pm
very helpful…
I preferred to thank you for this good article. http://pcztew.blogonsisters.com/uncategorized/100-dollar-temple-wedding-gowns/ I by all odds liked every little bit of it…