Coalition of Concerned Allies
Sep 16, 2019
To be direct, YES, we will meet with the boycott organizers and YES, we are willing and able to prove our public statements in that meeting, including the former investor’s non-involvement in our business. This was the goal of our first attempted meeting, and we have reached out to the boycott organizers today to resume those conversations.
Given how large this miscommunication has become, we do have to defend ourselves by reiterating and elaborating on the following misinformation:
We did not cancel our originally scheduled meeting with the coalition - we suggested the mediation process in the first place, and worked with the boycott campaign to mutually select a well-known conflict resolution organization. A day before our planned meeting (and after a week of follow-ups), we finally received the list of individuals from the boycott who would be participating – we asked for time to negotiate the terms of the participant list, which is a normal part of the mutual consent mediation protocol. Frustrated by this delay and unwilling to reschedule the meeting for the following week despite our several requests, the boycott organizers exited the mediation process entirely and resumed public campaigning immediately.
That the boycott instead tried to force an ad hoc meeting that same night without the expert facilitator present and with none of the conditions that we had collaboratively worked 2+ months to establish with the mediator, does not prove that Elsewhere “didn’t show up”, “pulled out,” or “cancelled.” The opposite is true: both us and the mediator were prepared to continue working together on the mediation process immediately – the boycott was not. We remain open to meeting as soon as possible.
None of the alleged incidents happened at Elsewhere, or while Elsewhere existed - the organizers of this boycott agree that the alleged incidents of violence at the center of this boycott DID NOT occur at Elsewhere, while Elsewhere existed, or by any individual who represents, owns, or manages Elsewhere. As a result, we fundamentally do not believe that Elsewhere is unsafe, or that the hard work of everyone here is negated by the alleged actions of someone who does not represent, own, or manage our venue
We have gone above and beyond to address the allegations - when we learned of the allegations in 2017, the accused was immediately confronted and permanently banned from our establishment, and subsequently removed from the business entirely, before they were ever able to profit from Elsewhere - we intend to prove these claims in our meeting, which we made in our transparent June public statement: bit.ly/elsewherestatementIG
Finally, and before things go any further, we want to take a step back to address something that has been entirely lost in this tense dialogue back and forth over the past few months:
We legitimately do want to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, which we believe has ballooned into a much larger miscommunication than it should have. We do have sympathy for the organizers of this campaign, and there are ways that we have unintentionally contributed to gaps in mutual understanding, and we apologize for that.
When we respond to an issue as serious and legally fraught as this, we are representing not only ourselves, but 150+ employees (and their livelihoods), all of who are counting on us to make deliberate and responsible decisions, and not to respond recklessly under the pressure of what has often felt like a very misdirected, personal, and aggressive attack.
The organizers of this boycott have chosen not to expose the identity of the accused individual for fear of retaliation - please understand that we are in the exact same boat. We have no interest whatsoever in protecting the accused, who we have long disavowed and severed ties with - but without any proof of the allegations, we have very few legally responsible ways to disclose the confidential information that the boycott organizers are demanding.
Given all of the above, we ask everyone to understand that showing up to a meeting without legal representation would be irresponsible and unreasonable. We say this in good faith: legal representation will be needed to help verify and explain legal documents, and allow us to be more capable of presenting sensitive information. We seriously ask the boycott organizers to consider this in order to allow the process to be as cooperative, productive, and expedited as possible.
Nevertheless we are willing to meet without legal representation if that is what it takes.
After we have proven our claims in this upcoming meeting, we hope that the boycott campaign will update their community that their demands (as clearly outlined in their most recent response here) have been met, discontinue circulating misinformation, and end their boycott.
Thank you.
----------------------------------
FOR CONTINUED TRANSPARENCY: BELOW IS OUR EMAIL TO THE COALITION
Hello -
Yes, we confirm we are willing to meet with you and to prove our public claims, including the former investor’s non-involvement in our business.
Please consider our request to bring an attorney, which we have suggested in our recent posting on the Change.org petition. We make this request in good faith: we genuinely believe that a professional 3rd party will be needed to help verify and explain legal documents, and allow us to be more capable of presenting the sensitive information you’re requesting from us.
Please note that an attorney need not be present throughout our actual conversations, but should be brought in to handle and explain legal documentation.
Regardless, we are willing to meet and move forward.
All three owners will be present. Please suggest a few dates and times that work for the seven of you, and we can find a mutually agreeable location.
Thank you.
Given how large this miscommunication has become, we do have to defend ourselves by reiterating and elaborating on the following misinformation:
We did not cancel our originally scheduled meeting with the coalition - we suggested the mediation process in the first place, and worked with the boycott campaign to mutually select a well-known conflict resolution organization. A day before our planned meeting (and after a week of follow-ups), we finally received the list of individuals from the boycott who would be participating – we asked for time to negotiate the terms of the participant list, which is a normal part of the mutual consent mediation protocol. Frustrated by this delay and unwilling to reschedule the meeting for the following week despite our several requests, the boycott organizers exited the mediation process entirely and resumed public campaigning immediately.
That the boycott instead tried to force an ad hoc meeting that same night without the expert facilitator present and with none of the conditions that we had collaboratively worked 2+ months to establish with the mediator, does not prove that Elsewhere “didn’t show up”, “pulled out,” or “cancelled.” The opposite is true: both us and the mediator were prepared to continue working together on the mediation process immediately – the boycott was not. We remain open to meeting as soon as possible.
None of the alleged incidents happened at Elsewhere, or while Elsewhere existed - the organizers of this boycott agree that the alleged incidents of violence at the center of this boycott DID NOT occur at Elsewhere, while Elsewhere existed, or by any individual who represents, owns, or manages Elsewhere. As a result, we fundamentally do not believe that Elsewhere is unsafe, or that the hard work of everyone here is negated by the alleged actions of someone who does not represent, own, or manage our venue
We have gone above and beyond to address the allegations - when we learned of the allegations in 2017, the accused was immediately confronted and permanently banned from our establishment, and subsequently removed from the business entirely, before they were ever able to profit from Elsewhere - we intend to prove these claims in our meeting, which we made in our transparent June public statement: bit.ly/elsewherestatementIG
Finally, and before things go any further, we want to take a step back to address something that has been entirely lost in this tense dialogue back and forth over the past few months:
We legitimately do want to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, which we believe has ballooned into a much larger miscommunication than it should have. We do have sympathy for the organizers of this campaign, and there are ways that we have unintentionally contributed to gaps in mutual understanding, and we apologize for that.
When we respond to an issue as serious and legally fraught as this, we are representing not only ourselves, but 150+ employees (and their livelihoods), all of who are counting on us to make deliberate and responsible decisions, and not to respond recklessly under the pressure of what has often felt like a very misdirected, personal, and aggressive attack.
The organizers of this boycott have chosen not to expose the identity of the accused individual for fear of retaliation - please understand that we are in the exact same boat. We have no interest whatsoever in protecting the accused, who we have long disavowed and severed ties with - but without any proof of the allegations, we have very few legally responsible ways to disclose the confidential information that the boycott organizers are demanding.
Given all of the above, we ask everyone to understand that showing up to a meeting without legal representation would be irresponsible and unreasonable. We say this in good faith: legal representation will be needed to help verify and explain legal documents, and allow us to be more capable of presenting sensitive information. We seriously ask the boycott organizers to consider this in order to allow the process to be as cooperative, productive, and expedited as possible.
Nevertheless we are willing to meet without legal representation if that is what it takes.
After we have proven our claims in this upcoming meeting, we hope that the boycott campaign will update their community that their demands (as clearly outlined in their most recent response here) have been met, discontinue circulating misinformation, and end their boycott.
Thank you.
----------------------------------
FOR CONTINUED TRANSPARENCY: BELOW IS OUR EMAIL TO THE COALITION
Hello -
Yes, we confirm we are willing to meet with you and to prove our public claims, including the former investor’s non-involvement in our business.
Please consider our request to bring an attorney, which we have suggested in our recent posting on the Change.org petition. We make this request in good faith: we genuinely believe that a professional 3rd party will be needed to help verify and explain legal documents, and allow us to be more capable of presenting the sensitive information you’re requesting from us.
Please note that an attorney need not be present throughout our actual conversations, but should be brought in to handle and explain legal documentation.
Regardless, we are willing to meet and move forward.
All three owners will be present. Please suggest a few dates and times that work for the seven of you, and we can find a mutually agreeable location.
Thank you.
Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X