The Voice of Mirza Xazar

Comments To My Performance Review
26 September 2002

I strongly disagree with and object to the rating of my Performance Review and the comments included in the review. I consider the final rating, the "NI" in "Professional Standard" and "Judgment" all to be mistaken and the reflection not of an objective evaluation of my professional performance but rather an indication of personal feelings and deep bias. I was the only journalist at RFE/RL to be subjected to a last minute Performance Review. This indicates that I was singled out for special treatment not for reasons of any alleged performance deficiencies but for other, wholly unprofessional, reasons. These reasons are addressed below:

1. In a summary comment, the reviewer writes: "Too often, Mr. Michaeli injects his personal opinion into Service programming. One example the editorial on the Jewish cemeteries (emphasis added/the reviewer's terminology) was discussed at this year's program review." The reviewer then concludes: "The Service programming does not adhere to our professional codes. This is why the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT."

Comment: It is clear that the reviewer had no example or evidence to support this conclusion and rating other than the reviewer's own reaction to my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries". The reviewer failed to discuss details of the commentary. This failure and the use of the suggestive words "Jewish cemeteries" reveal the reviewer's bias and intent. The reviewer conveys the misleading impression that my commentary is about the history and presence of Jewish Cemeteries (in Azerbaijan). In fact, my commentary addressed the issue of the desecration and destruction of 49 grave- sites at the Jewish Cemetery in Baku in November 2001. Our Service reports on and sometimes provides commentary on events and developments of importance and interest to our listeners. When our buro in Baku learned of this particular event through contact with the head of the Baku Jewish Community, every effort was made to obtain additional, accurate information from other sources. This entailed timely action on the part of our stringer who, in the course of two hours, procured reactions and information from The Interior Ministry of Azerbaijan, The Office of the President, and the Israeli Embassy. All of these sources confirmed the initial report on this case of vandalism and desecration. The police official who was investigating the matter was interviewed and we also aired the opinions and views in regard to this event of all political parties, including the ruling political party. Local print and electronic media outlets in Azerbaijan, with the exception of the State run TV, reported on the event. Surely, desecration of a cemetery in Baku is a matter of interest and importance to our listeners. Surely, the importance and interest of this event transcend the particular religious identity of those whose graves were desecrated. This is certainly true of Azerbaijan and to suggest otherwise would speak more to the reviewer's bias than to the concerns of our Azerbaijani listeners. When the local media give extensive coverage to an event, should RFE/RL minimize its coverage and commentary because the desecration and vandalism involved a "Jewish cemetery" because the Service Director happens to be Jewish himself? No matter what unfortunate bias may motivate the reviewer, this story could not and should not be ignored and it certainly was deserving of commentary. s there any reasonable person in the world who will not denounce vandalism at cemetery, be it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish?

The commentary I provided, following good journalistic practice and RFE/RL policy, was kept separate from our stringer reports on the event. My commentary was, of course, clearly labeled as commentary, again in accordance with our Professional Code and the highest standards of journalism.

According to our Professional Code:

C. Analysis, Commentary and Editorials

. Commentary, which is to be clearly labeled as such, is analytical in content and judicious in tone but reflects the personal judgment or opinion of the author on a particular issue. (See Professional Code)

"Our broadcasters and journalists never reflect their own views and opinions in our news stories: commentaries and points of view must be clearly labeled as such."

Clearly, in direct contrast to the reviewer's view, the Professional Code and RFE/RL Editorial Policy recognize the legitimate role of commentary as long as commentary is clearly labeled as commentary. Since my commentary on this event was clearly labeled as commentary and kept separate from news coverage, as has always been the case with all my commentaries and expressions of my views, I have not violated any editorial policy at RFE/RL or of good journalistic practice in general. The accusation that I have violated the Professional Code or other editorial policies by "injecting personal opinion into Service programming" is baseless. There is no Editorial Policy at RFE/RL which forbids broadcasters from writing commentaries. The reviewer, then, is in error and this baseless accusation can in no way serve as grounds for rating my overall performance as "Needs Improvement". Moreover, the reviewer's personal view of my commentary, should remain just that, a personal view. To permit personal views to replace objective analysis is to invite a distortion of the evaluation process and a challenge to journalistic integrity.

In February 2002 the Intermedia Research Center conducted a Panel Review of our November programming. Of eight panelists, a single panelist expressed “outrage” at my commentary on vandalism at the Jewish Cemetery. He did it in an aggressive, insulting, uncivil manner. In my email message to Jeff Trimble, Don Jensen, and Tom Dine on May 3, 2002, I protested this open attack and aspersions on my character, my religion, and my private life:

“The InterMedia has issued a review of Internal Monitoring Panel on Azerbaijani Service programs for the next Program Review. I appreciate the work the InterMedia has done.

I am not pleased with (basically biased) comments of some panelists about my commentaries on the defacement of Jewish graves at the Jewsih cemetery in Baku such as:

"...Khazar's commentary of 24 November was biased and driven by personal ambition, which did not produce a good impression".(see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

This is what a Panelist Nr 1 and some others has to say about my commentary. They all applauded similar views expressed by Azerbaijani politicians, religious leaders, and officials, but amasingly, were outraged when I (Khazar) have expressed same views. What does a commentary on a crime such as destruction of (Jewish or else) cemetery has in common with my "personal ambitions" remains unclear. This is why, in my view, the InterMedia decided (unfortunately) to include here a "Translator's note" "explaining" (amasing isn't it!) the meaning of my (Khazar's) "personal ambition": " Translator's note: I believe the respondent is implying that Khazar is an Azerbaijani of Jewish extraction, from small community of Jews who live in the mountainous Guba region(?)". (see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

Correction: The translator has absolutely nothing to do with my religion, my belief, my ethnic roots. It is my private business. It is not a public issue. Furthermore, contrary to the Translator's "expertise" I have never seen Guba and it's mountains in whole my life. The Guba mountains has nothing to do with me, my religion or my ethnic roots at all.

What this remark about "mountains of Guba", my private life, my religion has to do with the Program Review? Why this remark concerning only my private life, and believe was included into the Panel Review and distributed IN WRITING to several people?

I categorically protest against this kind of (unfortunate) publicty. It is not helpful. It is harming RFE/RL image. It has nothing to do with the Program Review.

rgds
Mirza"

Don Jensen was silent. Jeff Trimble responded the same day:

“Mirza, I appreciate your comments and I understand your reaction. Given the verve of the panelist's objection, I think it's worth looking together at a translation of this item in order to try to understand the nature of his concern. Let's discuss it together.

Rgds,
Jeff"

But Jeff Trimble did not act on his call for a discussion, "given the verve of the panelist's objection". I have asked Mr. Trimble to discuss this pressing issue, as he had suggested. In response, he has told me that he does not have the time. The discussion he suggested has never taken place. I tried to talk to Don Jensen, but he categorically refused to discuss the issue with me. “If you want to discuss this issue, NO COMMENT. I do not want to talk about this”. My protest remained unanswered. My supervisors, in fact, made no effort to help to me obtain a fair opportunity to respond to these baseless accusations. On the contrary, at the Program Review on May 31, 2002, both Jeff Trimble and Don Jensen used language very similar to that of the listener, suggesting that I had “personal ambitions” while writing about the vandalism which took place at the Jewish Cemetery. Don Jensen called my commentary “clearly labeled, but a wildly speculative commentary”. That the cemetery was, in fact, vandalized is not in dispute. Does my religious identity mean that I am not free (or able?) to provide professional commentary on an event when it happens to relate to persons, dead or alive, who share that religious identity? Is this special handling for an RFE/RL journalist, who happens to be Jewish? Is this religious profiling? I have provided more than 20 years of dedicated, recognized service to RFE/RL and prior to this entire matter I cannot recall a reviewer whose remarks clearly imply that there are special expectations of RFE/RL journalists who happen to be Jewish. Are the reviewer and those who have used some of his unfortunate language, ready to attack RFE/RL journalists who may report and offer commentary on any vandalism that might occur at Muslim or Christian cemeteries and accuse these journalists of "having personal ambitions"?

RFE/RL has always been dedicated to democracy and the values of an open society. These values surely include due process, a fair hearing, and opportunities for the accused to present his or her case. Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble, I regret to note, have not acted in the spirit of this RFE/RL dedication to these values. They have misrepresented the facts in this matter. An important part of this misrepresentation is their claim that the issue of my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries" (the reviewer's words) had been "discussed at this year's program review". No stretch of the imagination could enable one to describe that occurrence as a "discussion". At this program review, I was subjected to verbal attack with no real opportunity to respond. On the very few occasions when I managed to begin to speak, I was constantly interrupted, and not permitted to make a complete statement in response to the baseless accusations and allegations leveled against me. A program review in which one has little or no opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way, and discussion is precluded, is hardly a serious exercise aimed at improving programming quality.

At one point in this program review where open discussion and serious analysis were off the agenda, Jeff Trimble called the Azerbaijani Service programs "medieval". Objective observers would recognize the use of a term like this for what it is. In the absence of anything substantive to say or demonstrate, throw a term or name at someone. With some expression of disbelief, he asked: "How do these medieval programs attract the highest number of listeners at RFE/RL?" It seems not to have occurred to him that the answer is obvious. It is not "medieval" programming but rather programming of the highest professional quality which attracts the highest number of listeners. To suggest otherwise, is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the intelligence and discernment of our Azerbaijani listeners.

A program review with the deficiencies I have described is an abuse of the procedure and certainly is no basis for producing a "Needs Improvement" evaluation in regard to "Judgment", "Professional Standard", and overall performance. This particular program review on 31 May 2002 in its denial of due process, open discussion, and basic fairness, was also a violation of the values of a democratic society for which RFE/RL has always stood.

In a Development Plan the reviewer instructs me to avoid writing "personal commentaries". As I stated above, the Professional Code does not prohibit writing such commentaries. But even so, if my supervisors have believed there is no need for my commentaries, why did they not say: DO NOT WRITE COMMENTARIES? Why was I not spoken to about my commentaries on some kind of meaningful basis? Why has there been no effort, short of accusations at a program review, or performance reviews, to speak with me about alleged problems with editorial issues? If, in fact, there has been concern about editorial matters, it hardly speaks well to the professionalism of supervisors who have not communicated in any regular fashion any concerns.

2. The reviewer in a Summary comment says the following: "The most important fact is that long standing editorial issues remain year after year". I deeply disagree with this assessment. The assessment reflects the personal view of the reviewer. This personal view in regard to “long standing editorial issues” may have been of some value if it had been regularly communicated and discussed. In reality, for the last four years we have had only few meetings on editorial issues, mostly at Program Reviews. In fact, year after year my supervisors have failed to discuss, to instruct, and give directives, on editorial issues. Only now, as they depart from Broadcasting Management, have Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble decided to “speak out”.

It is clear to me that the reviewer's use of the phrase “year after year” is an attempt to create an illusion of a long-standing problem with my performance when, in fact, there has been none. It is also clear that this language constitutes an effort to fabricate the appearance of a "pattern" of performance. The aim is to build a wholly unfounded CASE to be used in future actions against me.

I would like to point out that year after year I have implemented all recommendations made by my supervisors at Program Reviews and Performance Reviews. These recommendations were made once every 12 months. There appeared to be a direct correlation between the recommendations and a declining number of listeners. In 1998 our listener rate was almost 36%. After four years of following the recommendations of my supervisors the Azerbaijani Service rate has reached14%. This significant decline in the number of listeners can be attributed to efforts to greatly reduce analysis and commentary. Prior to these imposed changes, analysis and commentary contributed to attracting greater audiences.

At the same time, my supervisors created and fostered an inhospitable work environment in which it was very difficult to maintain productivity and morale. Every opportunity was sought to undermine the authority of my position in the Service, and keep me under constant pressure. Supervisors should direct and assist, not undermine and subvert the dedicated efforts of those whom they supervise.

I have implemented all the instructions given me by my supervisors. I have reduced the number of commentaries significantly during the 12 months of the Review period. Even the Intermedia Review Panel has documented that for the last 12 months I was rarely heard on the air. But the reviewer has nothing to say about this in his summary comments in my Performance Review. As of September 3, 2002 I have completely stopped writing commentaries and analysis.

3. There is a very serious inconsistency in my Performance rating. For example, the reviewer gave me "VG" in "Sense of Mission", but rated me "NI" in "Professional Standards" and "Judgment". How can a Director with a very good "sense of mission" have a bad "judgment" or "low professional standard". At the same time, a Director rated "VG" in administration with the note: "Cooperative and efficient". I cannot be accused of not cooperating in editorial issues. I have always cooperated. There has been no occasion when I have refused to cooperate on editorial issues.

4. The reviewer has given me 3 Very Goods, 6 Goods, and 2 Needs Improvement. But the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. The Internal/External Panel Review conducted among our listeners in May by Intermedia has rated professional content, journalistic quality, objectivity, balance, quality of commentaries and analysis in our programs as Very Good/Excellent. There is a clear discrepancy here and it is the result of biased judgment. This is no way to conduct an appraisal of performance. It seems to me that “politics” played a major role in appraisal of my performance. It is unfair, certainly unprofessional, and I refuse to accept this biased appraisal.

I am ready to cooperate with anyone in Broadcasting Management with the purpose of refining and improving our programs. I have demonstrated my dedication to the highest standards of professionalism throughout my many years of work at RFE/RL. In all these many years I have always assumed others at RFE/RL shared this dedication. My experience of these past four years compels me to note that there are some at RFE/RL from whom I cannot expect this dedication to professionalism.

I urge you to take action to correct my Performance Rating and bring it in
accordance with my REAL performance.

Sincerely,
Mirza Michaeli,
Director,
Azerbaijani Language Service

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mina Muradova: 5/27/09 EURASIA INSIGHT

 

 

 

Baku may have the designation of this year's "Capital of Islamic Culture," but a recent series of mosque closures and fresh requirements for registration of religious organizations has prompted concern about how Azerbaijan is living up to its title.

 

 

 

Over the past month, police have closed or torn down mosques in various Baku neighborhoods for reasons ranging from electricity repairs to alleged construction irregularities. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the 57-member intergovernmental body that designated Baku as its "Capital of Islamic Culture" for 2009, has not commented on the government's actions.

 

 

 

The latest mosque to close, Ilahiyyat, located on the campus of Baku State University, was shut down "temporarily" for reportedly never having registered with the State Committee for Work with Religious Organizations (SCWRO). Prior to the closure, university administrators complained that classes were regularly disrupted by the azaan, or call to prayer, and the subsequent arrival of thousands of worshippers.

 

 

 

The mosque was constructed in 1992 by the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, an organization that builds mosques in post-Soviet Turkic countries. Muzeffer Shahin, religious affairs advisor at the Turkish Embassy in Baku, disputed Azerbaijani authorities' contention that the mosque had been constructed "illegally," the APA news service reported.

 

 

 

Another Turkish-built mosque, Shahidlyar, next to Martyrs' Lane, was shut down for "repairs" on the eve of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's May 13 visit to Baku. The abrupt action, taken amid rising bilateral tension over Turkey's creeping rapprochement with Armenia, prompted some Baku residents to assume the decision was a tit-for-tat expression of displeasure over Ankara's political dialogue with Yerevan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The State Committee on Work with Religious Organizations has since repeated that the mosque will reopen once repairs are complete.

 

 

 

Officials expressed similar concerns for building methods and property regulations to justify the destruction of two mosques. On May 11, authorities tore down a mosque located on the Oily Rocks, an offshore drilling settlement; the reason was to ensure worshippers' "safety" since the mosque allegedly had been constructed "on clay." And on April 26, police used bulldozers to tear down the Prophet Mohammed mosque; its imam was accused of having constructed the house of worship on land that belongs to the State Economic University.

 

 

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu, an imam and head of the Centre for Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Faith, asserts that Azerbaijani leaders are suffering from what he described as "mosque-phobia."

 

 

"A state body that is supposed to protect the rights of believers instead is imposing a police regime," Ibrahimoglu contended. "It is inconceivable to call God's home an 'illegal' place."

 

 

Ibrahimoglu has an extended history as a government critic. In 2004, authorities evicted worshipers from the Juma mosque in Baku, where he was the imam. His supporters at the time said the government's action was politically motivated. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

 

 

 

The start of authorities' "mosque-phobia" can be traced to August 2008, when an explosion at Baku's Abu-Bakur mosque killed two worshippers and injured another 19, Ibrahimoglu said. The mosque was shut down, and city police subsequently stepped up their presence around other mosques, particularly during Friday prayers.

 

 

 

Gunduz Ismaylov, chief of the SCWRO's department responsible for interacting with religious organizations, rejected Ibrahimoglu's allegations. "There is no reason to politicize the situation and create a stir around these closures," Ismaylov said. "Some of them were illegally constructed structures."

 

 

 

Ibrahimoglu argues that the mosque closures are part of a larger picture. Recent amendments to the 1992 Law on Freedom of Conscience, adopted by parliament on May 8, would hinder the registration of religious organizations and simplify their closures, he charged. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has yet to sign the amendments into law.

 

 

 

Before registering with the SCWRA, Muslim groups now need to receive a letter of approval from the Caucasus Muslim Board, a state-associated body that appoints Muslim clerics to mosques and monitors sermons. All religious groups will have to be re-registered by September 2009 in accordance with this requirement.

 

 

 

Religious groups also must submit information about their founders' citizenship, residence, date of birth, religious doctrine, traditions, official duties, attitude towards family, marriage and education, as well as details about any restrictions put on their members. The group can function only at the address given for their registration. This appears to indicate that any activity outside such venues will be regarded as illegal.

 

 

 

Ibrahimoglu contends that the new requirements would contradict international practice. SCWRO representatives counter that the amendments were dictated by the threefold increase in the number of religious organizations functioning in Azerbaijan (534) since the committee began registering such groups in 2001. Once the current re-registration is complete, "the number of religious communities will double," argued Ismaylov.

 

 

 

"If a religious community's activity is in accordance with both national legislation and society's interests, why should we not register it?" he asked.

 

 

Rabiyyat Aslanova, the head of parliament's Committee on Human Rights, said that the law needs to be amended to ensure "state security" and "to prevent harmful missionary activity."

 

 

"Some religious sects that are banned in Europe are freely operating in Azerbaijan," she declared during a May 8 parliamentary session without mentioning the names of suspect groups. "We will ban the activity of groups spreading the propaganda of violence . . . [as well as those that are] against the principles of humanity and human dignity."

 

 

Ibrahimoglu rejects such arguments. "It should not be allowed to suppress freedom of conscience for the sake of state security."

 

 

 

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav052709b.shtml

 

 

Information Centre
CAUCASUS – EASTERN EUROPE (ICCEE), Prague, Czech Republic
Tel. +420/724 938 783, +420/775 581 100, +420/603 317 078
Email: hakob@orer.cz

 

 

 

Czech news agency, CTK, and the largest national daily Dnes (Today) http://zpravy.idnes.cz/svobodna-evropa-podvadi-sve-neamericke-redaktory-stezuje-si-chorvatka-1mh-/media.asp?c=A090506_180222_media_pei published reports (in Czech) based on ICCEE information summarized below in English

 

 

for immediate release:

 

 

U.S. Attorney General Asked To Investigate Fraud at RFE/RL, BBG

 

 

(Prague, May 11, 2009) United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder is petitioned to open criminal investigation of the Prague-based Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and its supervising Federal agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in Washington.

 

 

 

The petitioners, former RFE/RL employees, a Croatian citizen Snjezana Pelivan and Anna Karapetian, an Armenian, are charging BBG and the management of U.S. Congress-funded radio station with fraudulent deception intended to keep RFE/RL foreign personnel in legal vacuum without court protection in the United States and the Czech Republic.

 

 

 

RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages to 20 countries of the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and employs several hundred foreign citizens. Their standard employment agreements with RFE/RL in Prague, as quoted by petitioners, “are governed by the applicable laws of the United States, the laws of the District of Columbia or the policies of the Company”.

 

 

 

However, indicate the petitioners, the American employment, civil and human rights laws, including Federal Civil Rights Act and District of Columbia Human Rights Act, are not applicable to foreigners employed by American companies outside the United States. Thus, they cannot receive any protection in American courts. http://www.gentrylocke.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=242
This fact, the petitioners state in their request for criminal investigation, is well known to the management of RFE/RL and to BBG, “which provides worldwide personnel management policies, programs and services”, (http://www.bbg.gov/office/index.html).

 

 

 

RFE/RL employment policies remain unchanged after Hillary Clinton, as the Secretary of State, became in January, 2009, an ex officio member of BBG and RFE/RL Board of Directors.

 

 

 

While American citizens are covered by U.S. legislation and Czechs are protected by the strict national labor laws, the only regulation applicable to foreigners employed by RFE/RL, are the “policies of the Company”, which permit termination of employment “at any time for any reason”. This rule is absent in the standard employment agreements, which RFE/RL gives to its foreign employees for signature. Company policies are, at the time of hire, unknown to them and not explained by RFE/RL management. The petitioners qualify RFE/RL actions as fraudulent deception aimed at discrimination based on nationality.

 

 

 

Czech Parliament is due to consider an inquiry (interpellation) concerning RFE/RL personnel policies and practices in the Czech Republic. (http://www.psp.cz/sqw/tisky.sqw?STR=4&O=5&PT=K&N=4&F=I&D=6,17&RA=20)

 

 

 

RFE/RL terminated employment agreements with Snjezana Pelivan and Anna Karapetian at different times but by the same mode: without prior warning and without any reason stated orally or in writing. Both, after years of employment with RFE/R and invariably positive performance reviews, were never disciplined for any transgressions.

 

 

 

Czech courts rejected Pelivan’s and Karapetian’s wrongful termination complaints on the ground that their work relations with RFE/RL are governed not by the Czech but by American laws and RFE/RL policies. As a consequence, foreign employees of RFE/RL are placed in legal vacuum without any court protection whatsoever.

 

 

 

Karapetian’s case is still pending in the Czech Supreme Court. Recently, Czech Constitutional Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in Pelivan’s case. She will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Czech Republic, as a host country to RFE/RL. Snjezana Pelivan will ask the Croatian government to join her antidiscrimination claim in Strasbourg. Anna Karapetian plans to obtain support from Armenian government in accordance with European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

According to RFE/RL Mission Statement, “RFE/RL mission is to promote democratic values and institutions… RFE/RL strengthens civil societies by projecting democratic values… RFE/RL provides a model for local media…” http://www.rferl.org/info/mission/169.html

 

 

Petitioning the U.S. Attorney General to investigate BBG and RFE/RL discriminative employment policies and actions, the petitioners write:

 

“ Due to fraudulent deceptions, RFE/RL president now concentrates, in one person, the functions and powers of a breadgiver, an interrogator, a prosecutor, a judge in his own court without defense, an executor of his own judgement, which is final and must not be motivated. And it is not in Guantanamo, which presently is being dismantled as American legal and political shame.

 

 

 

Your investigation will help to dismantle at RFE/RL in Prague the remaining preserve of “no rights to foreigners”, evidently overlooked till now by the present Washington administration.”

 

 

Copies of the Petition are submitted to White House, U.S. Department of State, and relevant Senate and Congressional committees.

 

In case of interest, request the text of Petition.

 

ICCEE is a non-governmental non-profit organization established in Prague in 1999.

###