This email exchange shows how valid concerns about process, conflict of interest, and accountability were dismissed or reframed as personal attacks.
I publish this to document what happens when a culture resists clarity — and how ethics like transparency and fair share are easily overridden in the name of “sociocratic process.”
This is not about attacking individuals. It’s about showing patterns that hinder progress and erode trust.
The emails below were sent to multiple recipients. Erkki's accusations and framing were received by the entire group, yet not one person replied.
That silence became part of the harm. It allowed a false narrative to stand, erased the structural critique I was offering, and left me isolated.
Silence, in moments of injustice, is not neutrality — it’s complicity.
Mail from Marja (editor's note - Erkki's wife)
Moi! Nyt alkaisi olla käsillä se hetki, että haemme Iso-orvokkiniitylle LAND-sertifiointia. Se tapahtuu Permakulttuuriyhdistyksen kevätkokouksen yhteydessä 21.5. Lotta onkin jo lupaillut tarkkailijaksi ja tarvittaisiin vielä toinen eli Selma oletko tulossa paikalle? Myös Lumia voisi olla mahdollinen tarkkailija. Muita LAND-tiimin jäseniä ei varmaankaan saada paikalle. Ohessa hakemuksemme. Permakulttuurisuunnitelma löytyy seuraavasti: Erkin diplomatyö ( jossa tarkemmat suunnitelmat paikasta) : https://iso-orvokkiniitty.fi/dpaerkki/ Kokonaissuunnitelman esittely: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVODlcdxg=/?share_link_id=99611233406 Ohessa meidän hakemus. Selma, ilmoitatko mahdollisimman pian oletko tulossa paikalle, niin pystytään organisoimaan tarkkailu. Kevätterveisin, Marja(´)
Mail from me 26.04.2022
Hi Marja, thanks for starting the process. Since you are one of the owners you can't assess your own site. From my perspective the most experienced assessor is Selma. I hope Selma has time to run the process. Please open the access to the miro board. Can you clarify which of Erkki's designs are relevant. Do we need to read everything on Erkki's site? Cheers, Dominik
Mail from Marja 26.04.2022
Hi Dominik, Yes, I am the assessed part this time! In fact Lotta is the most experienced to assess as she has been involved in the LAND project and present at all the educational meetings during the project. She has done the design to the first LAND center in Finland. I think we are still waiting for the design for Tärkkilä. We should have done the new evaluation last year there, but for many reasons it didn’t happen. How is it Selma, could we do it this year and finally get the real LAND status for Tärkkilä? I hope Selma can participate in the evaluation process as well! In Denmark they have done the evaluation also alone if necessary as all the other LAND team members have to see the report (incl. photos) and the decision is made together. I just have to find out who are still LAND team members. Erkki can clarify the designs and open access to the board. Best, Marja(´)
Mail from me 27.04.2022
Hi Marja, Perhaps it wasn't clear enough. As the one who will be assessed you can't decide who assesses you. I suggest Lotta, Selma, Terhi and Lumia discuss this matter on their own - without us. From my perspective, and I set through one assessment and recorded the entire process on video, LAND assessment isn't that difficult. It's more or less bureaucracy since the actual site design is not evaluated. There are some consequences derived from what you have written. LAND will be absorbed by education - it is already happening anyway. The remaining task is to close the circle. Besides that I'd like to see the LAND coordinator role open for yearly election - like the other roles in the circles. I like the Danish variant. I'll give it a try with Beyond Buckthorns - perhaps during the PDC. Cheers, Dominik
Mail from Marja 27.04.2022
Hi Dominik, Ok, now I understand the point. Of course it is up to to the LAND team to decide who assesses. Good that you reminded! I was just focusing to get enough people to do the assessment. I would see that it is Lotta, Lumia and Selma, maybe also Terhi and Anton if they want to be involved in the LAND team, who has the responsibility as a LAND team. I have to remember my role as the one who is assessed here. Who of you want to take the responsibility to lead the process? I am glad if the coordinator role will be elected yearly, you can put that to the agenda! What do you mean by Danish variant? Best, Marja(´)
Mail from Erkki 27.04.2022
Hi Dominik, Again I am bit confused with your communication and wondering how it relates to sociocracy. Where and how are decisions taken?
I suggest Lotta, Selma, Terhi and Lumia discuss this matter on their own - without us.
That sounds good but it also looks like a LAND circle meeting.
There are some consequences derived from what you have written. LAND will be absorbed by education - it is already happening anyway. The remaining task is to close the circle. Besides that I'd like to see the LAND coordinator role open for yearly election - like the other roles in the circles.
I don’t see how you deducted these ”consequences”. It also looks to me that these matters should be discussed and decided in the circles - not just declared by someone. I don’t consent with terminating the LAND circle. In any case it should be discussed in the LAND circle and if such a step seems necessary, the in the Education circle and also in the General Circle. Your can’t just declare things… Rgds, Erkki
Mail from me 27.04.2022
Hi Erkki, you don't get it. Marja already told us that she has no control over LAND: "I just have to find out who are still LAND team members." She is either running LAND or not. And from my point it sounds as she is not. LAND is a dead circle. No one works with her activily on anything regarding LAND. Its dead for years. She is the wrong person for the role of the LAND coordinator and we keep it artificially alive. You can support your wife as long as you want. The circle is dead. Cheers, Dominik
Mail from Erkki 27.04.2022
Wow Dominik, So you decide - no-one else. Again I am bit confused with your communication and wondering how it relates to sociocracy. Where and how are decisions taken? E
Mail from me 27.04.2022
I have decided nothing. I was speaking my mind and what I observed. Your constant bickering isn't working. Since February you are constantly questioning everything I suggesting and doing. It is not really helpful. Stop it.
Mail from Erkki 28.04.2022
After a nights sleep I am still shocked about your emails. I can only say this: 1) My reaction was to your categorical statements which are not in accordance with a sociocratic process. If you think you expressed an opinion or proposal you should learn how to communicate accordingly. You are using sociocracy to manipulate not to collaborate. 2) Your follow-up was incredibly rude, impolite and unrespectful. I have never seen such language in my professional life even from people I have disagreed with. I would really rather not collaborate with a person who communicates like that and who creates such negative energy. I came to the association board with a positive mind. Now I can easily understand why no-one in the previous board wanted to continue. I will also retreat for the time being. Erkki
Mail from Erkki 29.04.2022 To be clear: I have not resigned. Retreat just means taking a few steps back. E
Let's analyse it
I made a structural observation → it was reframed as a personal attack
My main points were:
- LAND as a circle is functionally inactive and possibly obsolete. (no meetings, no active members)(editors note - in 2025 the LAND circle still has not active)
- The assessment process lacks independence if the person being assessed is organizing it.
- Leadership roles like LAND coordinator should be elected annually for transparency (editors note - in 2025 the LAND Coordinator role is still not up for election).
These are valid governance concerns. I even proposed solutions (e.g. adopting the Danish model, reevaluating structure). But instead of discussing these points rationally, Erkki escalates emotionally:
You are using sociocracy to manipulate not to collaborate.
This is a false accusation cloaked in jargon. You’re being told you're anti-collaborative because you're asking for accountability.
Erkki shows classic signs of narcissistic injury
His tone shifts dramatically once his (and his wife’s) legitimacy in the LAND process is questioned:
- He accuses you of rudeness and unprofessionalism without citing specifics.
- He centers himself as the victim: “I came to the board with a positive mind... now I see why no one wanted to continue.”
This is a deflection tactic — instead of addressing your points, he redirects the focus onto his hurt feelings, and thereby avoids the topic.
He also declares:
I will also retreat for the time being.
…which he later redefines as “not a resignation” — a classic power-withdrawal move to control the narrative without actually stepping away.
Gaslighting: accusing me of the very thing he is doing
Erkki claims:
You are using sociocracy to manipulate.
But let’s be clear: sociocracy is based on consent, roles, transparency, and accountability — and you were the one upholding all of these by:
- Naming the conflict of interest,
- Proposing a structure for evaluation and elections,
- Highlighting the lack of active participation in the circle.
Erkki is projecting — accusing you of manipulation while he himself is:
- Defending a passive power structure,
- Protecting Marja’s unelected and unaccountable role,
- Avoiding concrete answers.
I speak in terms of systems; Erkki responds with emotions and tone-policing
What I wrote:
“From my perspective... LAND is a dead circle… We keep it artificially alive.”
That’s a systems-level critique — it's about function, not individuals.
He responds by:
- Claiming “rudeness” and “negative energy”
- Refusing to engage with the actual issues
- Claiming a moral high ground via tone policing
This is classic discrediting via affect. If I seem “angry” or “disrespectful,” me argument becomes invalid in their eyes, regardless of its merit.
Recurring Patterns
From the other conversations I have posted so far there is a clear recurring pattern visible:
In every conversation I’ve shared (Slack, email), the same pattern repeats:
- I raise a valid governance concern
- Erkki or others reframe it as an attack or power grab
- They avoid addressing the substance
- I'm isolated, emotionalized, or tone-policed
- The structural issue is left unresolved
This isn’t about miscommunication. This is a power struggle.
Summing it up
This moment was one of several that led to my resignation from the board. I believe deeply in permaculture as a set of living ethics, not just as a symbolic language.
I hope this record is useful to others navigating difficult group dynamics, especially when structure and ethics are quietly eroded through emotional manipulation and soft power.