Madrid, 30 June 1998

Communique

To the Members of the Executive Committee of the IEHA

ABOUT THE SUSPENSION OF THE SEVILLE CONGRESS

A REBUTTAL TO PROCONSUR'S VERSION by Gabriel Tortella

Proconsur seems to be devoting all of its resources to slandering Gabriel Tortella (GT), while he devotes all of his to the Madrid Congress. However, in view of the inaccuracy of Proconsur's versions (especially that of 9 June 1998), GT has felt obliged to spend some time reestablishing the truth.

1) WHY THE SEVILLE CONGRESS WAS SUSPENDED

It is obvious that most of the work for a Congress is developed during the previous year. From August 1997 to April 1998 Proconsur has done practically nothing but systematically hinder GT's work in order to force him to sign a contract which not only exacted an impossible price for prior services but, even more serious, left Proconsur's future tasks undefined and therefore the normal development of the Congress in doubt. We are ready to send copies of this draft contract (in Spanish) to members of the Committee.

A Congress involves two types of tasks: the material organization (preparing the venue, secretarial work, organizing parallel events, obtaining institutional support) and the academic work. Even Proconsur admits that GT and his collaborators have carried out this scientific work in spite of the obstruction of Proconsur, who have retained manuscripts, correspondence, addresses, etc. As to material organization, up to August 1997 Proconsur had helped organize the Seville meeting of the Committee in 1996 (without carrying out their promise to find a sponsor or sponsors for it and therefore burdening the Congress with its cost), advancing funds for the first brochures and for a Bureau meeting in Madrid early in 1995. They also made frequent trips to Madrid to accompany GT in his interviews with possible sponsoring institutions, while the support they obtained from Sevillian institutions was next to nil. This is the past Proconsur say GT is trying to erase. Furthermore, Proconsur has been unable to produce a single document from a reliable institution making a formal offer of any kind of service for the Congress (catering, concerts, institutional support, etc.) except for a general framework agreement signed by GT with the University of Seville.

Against all established practice in a firm in this line of business, Proconsur concentrated all its efforts from August 1997 on upon pressuruing GT first to accept a grossly overblown budget then to sign an unacceptable contract. Their persistence in this attitude during several months of attempted negotiations and more and more serious warnings on the part of GT, finally convinced GT that no recourse was left to him but to suspend the Congress in view of Proconsur's continued obstruction.

Against all logic Proconsur implies that the suspension was a sudden and capricious decision. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, they had been warned verbally and in writing months before that their obstruction made suspension inevitable. Furthermore, GT has been working for four years on the XII Congress and has engaged in it his name and his prestige among his colleagues. This is why Proconsur thought that pressure and obstruction would force GT to accept their unfair conditions in the end. But even at the risk, or the certainty, of hurting his standing among his colleagues, GT could not sign a contract which was immoral and illegal, which would have put all the Congress resources in the hands of Proconsur without any guarantee that this would assure the normal development of the Congress.

In spite of Proconsur's obstruction, GT went on gathering support of public and private institutions. The Fundacion Fomento de la Historia Economica was created with this end in view as a tax-exempt non-profit organization, and this is what makes it possible for the Madrid Congress to take place

2) ABOUT THE MUCH TOUTED MEDIATION BY THE RECTOR OF SEVILLE Among the efforts GT made to save the Seville Congress was to have an interview with the Rector of the University of Seville on 17 March 1998, to warn him of the possibility of having to suspend the Congress if Proconsur persisted in their obstruction and pressure. The rector offered to mediate, which GT immediately accepted with thanks. Never did the Rector mention a committee; it was understood by GT that the Rector was offering a personal mediation. The next day Proconsur was offering a mediation committee which could be interpreted as an arbitrage, adding that they were offering this "without reservations or previous conditions".

However, such a committee could have been interpreted as an arbitrage and this implied the renounciation by GT to ordinary Court procedures to which he felt, as events were developing, entitled. Furthermore, the Rector never backed such committee either verbally or in writing. Thirdly, given the fact that the President of Proconsur is a full professor at the University of Seville, the probability of one of his colleagues voting against Proconsur in such a committee was slim.

On top of all this, when Proconsur say that they were "accepting without reservations or previous conditions," they fail to mention that they maintained their obstruction, denying GT access to the Congress files or any other type of Congress information under their control, and that they had presented GT with a Notarized document whereby they demanded payment of 81.8 million pts. (about US$ 545,000) and threatened to sue him.

3) ON PROCONSUR'S NEGOTIATING FLEXIBILITY

GT made his first counteroffer to Proconsur's earliest daft contract on 3 December 1997, proposing, among other things, that Proconsur's fees be proportional to the number of attendants. Their answer was (5 Dec.): "This is certainly the usual method of agencies which do not assume the extraordinary functions of Proconsur". On 29 December 1997 GT proposed a contract where Proconsur would be paid in proportion to three variables: 1) subsidies received; 2) number of attendants; 3) advances by Proconsur. This company did not even consider this proposal, rejecting it with the following words: "the majority of [your] proposals seem to me or not specific [...] or easily dismissible form the organizational logic [?] or from the very abundant documents which have been produced in the last three and a half years" (8 January 1998). From then on Proconsur has rejected any proposal but their own.

GT has never attempted "the dishonorable exclusion of Proconsur"; he has only persistently tried to have Proconsur work for the Congress at the rates and conditions normal in the business, to which Proconsur has adamantly resisted. This is why he travelled to Seville on February 19, only to find Proconsur's stonewall, and why he searched the help of the Rector a month afterwards. All to no avail.

GT's position has been flexible and consistent and he has given ample warning of the consequences of Proconsur's obstruction and inflexibility. His attitude could only seem "unexpected" to somebody who thought they had deluded him until the contract was submitted for his signature. Proconsur's "surprise" is due to the fact that as they presented their budget at a time of hard academic work on the Proceedings, and counting on the pressure and tension that fell upon the person who was ultimately responsible for the Congress, they never expected GT to have time to analyze it carefully, to discover its faults, and to refuse to approve it.

4) PROCONSUR'S CONTRADICTIONS AND INACCURACIES

In their statement of 9 June 1998 Proconsur state that there is a "contract which each participant has subscribed with the person responsible for the organizaction of the Congress and not with Proconsur." On 8 January 1998, however, Proconsur's General Manager wrote to GT: "We keep in deposit the amounts entrusted to Proconsur by the congressists and for whose custody we are responsible by virtue of the contract we have established with them". The idea is clear: when it was receiving the money, Proconsur had a contract; when it is legally obliged to return this money, Proconsur no longer has a contract.

How much has Proconsur spent in the organization of the XII International Economic History Congress? Nobody is sure, and they less than anybody. In January 1997 they claimed a total expenditure of 12 million pts. (US$80,000). In August 1997 they claimed a total expenditure of 28 million pts. (US$187,000). In their second draft contract they claimed 67 million pts. (US$ 450,000). In their Notarial document of 11March 1998 they claimed 81.8 million pts. (US$545,000). What justifies these staggering increases in a company which is doing absolutely nothing for the Congresss except keep track of the dues and obstruct the President's work? Even more surprising (and this really is "surprising") turns out to be Proconsur's offer to organize the Congress if anybody recognized that their previous expenditure had been one peseta.

Proconsur has stated on 9 June 1998 that they did not submit to GT the bank documents about the congressists's dues because GT had not requested them. First of all, Proconsur had the legal obligation to submit these document even without a request. Second, these documents were in fact requested by GT in his letter of 13 January 1998, which asked for "the bank statement of the account PROCONSUR-CONGRESO DE HISTORIA ECONOMICA, no. 0004-3482-10-0600418265 of the Banco de Andalucia, where the dues of the congressists are deposited". He is still waiting for an answer.

5) ON PROCONSUR'S WILLINGNESS TO STEP ASIDE AND BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER OPERATOR

The only evidence GT has of this supposed offer is the Notarial document of 11 March 1998, where Proconsur offered to transfer the congressists deposits, which they said amounted to 35.6 million pesetas, plus 11.6 in hotel deposits (a total of 47.2 million pesetas, or US$ 315,000) in exchange for the 81.8 million pesetas at which they estimated their expenditures amounted at that moment. Of course the offer was rejected.

Proconsur then, instead of taking legal action, as they had announced, started writing letters to several University Professors and members of Committee of the the IEHA. GT, afraid that Proconsur might succeed in mixing the IEHA in the affair, wrote a letter of warning to the Committee, asking them not to communicate with Proconsur.

6) WHY THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT MORE FULLY CONSULTED

This obviously was an emergency situation. The Committee is a rather large body, slow in making decisions. Less than half its members have e-mail. This affair is very complicated and can only be adequately explained in a normal meeting of the Committee, which may take weeks to organize. Once it became evident that Proconsur had made it impossible to organize the Congress, GT communicated with the Bureau, some of whose members had been previously informed, not out of secretiveness, but simply because this being a smaller body, it can meet and communicate more easily, and can act as an emergency committee. At this point GT felt that it was necessary to spread the news as fast as possible, and he did not have the Congress file. Observing due process might have slowed things down considerably.

Furthermore, it was clear that Proconsur was trying to divide the Committe (and in this they were not totally unsuccessful) in order to justify their further obstruction, and if possible, to nullify GT's decisions. This is why it seemed better to give maximum publicity to the news of the suspension as early as possible. One of GT's aims in this affair has been to take full responsibility for his decisions and to protect the IEHA as much as possible from Proconsur's machinations.

In view of the pressure for the Congress to take place on the scheduled dates only Madrid was possible as an alternative venue. It was impossible for GT and his collaborators to improvise a Congress with very scarce resources in a city 400 km from where they live. Furthermore, most institutional support for the Congress had come from Madrid institutions even, when it was to take place in Seville.

7) REGARDING PROCONSUR'S FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

(1) GT will undertake all legal actions, civil and criminal, which his lawyers advise against the company Promocion de Congresos en el Sur S.A. With this purpose he is asking for authorization from the congressists to represent them legally before Spanish courts at no cost to them.

(2) Proconsur has not transferred one single cent of the congressists's money to GT personally or to the Fundacion. These deposits must therefore be reimbursed directly by Proconsur to their rightful owners. Spanish law does not authorize the appropriation of deposits of third parties --the congressists-- in payment of services contracted between two parties.

(3) Proconsur must return the total amounts deposited, including hotel reservations. On May 11 all the hotels listed in the second brochure sent a letter to GT stating that "if by May 20th they had not received the down payment for reservations they would return the rooms to the market", which obviously means that Proconsur had not made any payment to them. This means the brochure's conditions should not apply, and Proconsur is obliged to make full reimbursement. Furthermore, it was not the congressists who cancelled their reservations, but the hotels themselves.

(4) Proconsur has done incalculable moral and economic harm to the international community of economic historians, to the IHEA, and very specifically to GT himself. GT could never imagine that a professional business firm could use the methods of pressure and obstruction which Proconsur has employed, especially it being a company whose President is a Professor at the University of Seville and its General Manager an ex minister of the Andalusian government.