ATHENS, Ohio — The former executive director of the Survivor Advocacy Outreach Program has asked Athens County Common Pleas Court to toss out one of the nonprofit’s complaints against her.
The nonprofit and its former director are waging a legal battle on multiple fronts, with former director Jen Seifert accusing the nonprofit of defamation and the nonprofit accusing Seifert of misusing nearly $1 million in organizational funds.
SAOP’s countersuit against Seifert says that before her July 2024 termination, Seifert shirked the organization’s internal controls to make two major transactions without the nonprofit board’s approval. Those include $250,000 awarded by Seifert “as part of a profitable real estate transaction by persons known to Seifert” and a $700,000 payment to the 3D-printing construction company Alquist.
In its counterclaim, SAOP said that Alquist sent the nonprofit a draft license agreement and sale agreement, along with its invoice for $705,700. Despite discussion on the draft agreements, no one at SAOP signed either the license agreement or sale agreement, but the organization sent money for the printer anyway, SAOP said. SAOP said it never received anything in exchange for that payment.
Seifert, however, maintains the facts regarding both transactions are on her side. She argues in a Sept. 26 filing that the court already has enough information to toss out the complaint related to the 3D printer payment.
SAOP argued in an Oct. 31 response that Seifert’s argument does nothing but raise further questions about her conduct. Seifert, in a Nov. 14 reply, said SAOP’s argument is meritless.
As of publication, Athens County Court of Common Pleas Judge George McCarthy had yet to make a decision on Seifert’s motion.
Seifert’s request for summary judgment
Seifert argued in her Sept. 26 filing that SAOP’s claims related to the $700,000 3D-printer payment are “so patently false that they invite an immediate summary judgment.”
Summary judgment is a judgment without a trial, and can happen in civil cases when the facts can only be interpreted to favor that outcome.
Seifert said in her request for summary judgment that the SAOP board unanimously voted in January 2024 in favor of a motion to purchase printing equipment and services from the company, Alquist.
After that, “Ms. Seifert and SAOP’s CFO executed a Holding Fee Agreement with Alquist and made a follow-on partial down payment to secure more than $2,000,000 of approved acquisitions,” according to Seifert’s motion. That partial down payment is the one SAOP has raised issues about.
Seifert said in the filing that her quick effort to secure goods and services from Alquist was part of work to deliver on the Appalachian Community Grant that the nonprofit received. The grant, in part, supported the development of 3D-printed housing, and it specifically named Alquist as a partner.
The motion argues, “the $705,700.00 payment was necessary for Alquist to provide SAOP with planning, preparation, and supply chain development for the housing project.”
“Alquist undertook and completed these services,” Seifert says in an affidavit attached to the filing.
SAOP retains the rights within the holding fee agreement, she says in the filing. Seifert blames SAOP not receiving the printer on SAOP’s attempts to renegotiate with Alquist after Seifert’s termination as executive director.
She says there are “no competing facts” that could suggest Seifert’s payment to Alquist “was done with deliberate intent to hurt SAOP or was otherwise reckless.” Therefore, she argues the court should grant her request for summary judgment.
SAOP’s reply
SAOP argues in its reply to Seifert’s motion that her request for summary judgment “is baseless, misconstrues the simple facts … fails to carry her burden to present evidence to warrant the grant of summary judgment, and serves only to escalate the suspicion regarding Seifert’s actions as Executive Director of SAOP.”
The reply criticizes Seifert for not attaching the holding fee agreement she cites in her filing, says the board did not approve any such agreement, and argues that “any such Holding Fee Agreement is of no value to SAOP in the absence of fully executed Trademark or Purchase Agreements with Alquist.”
SAOP says that the unanimously approved 2024 board motion that Seifert relies on to support her argument “approved the allocation of certain funds to Alquist in exchange for the purchase of five specific enumerated items of equipment and services” (emphasis included in original).
“On February 22,2024, SAOP, at the sole direction of Seifert, paid Alquist $705,700 despite SAOP having not received any equipment or services from Alquist,” SAOP continues.
Seifert arranged for that payment despite the fact that “no agreement for the purchase of the approved equipment and services had been reached with Alquist” and that the “$705,700 was noticeably absent from the five enumerated items in the Board Resolution,” SAOP says.
“Seifert clearly breached her fiduciary duty to SAOP by arranging for the transfer,” the nonprofit says.
Current SAOP Executive Director Madison Trace continued negotiating with Alquist after Seifert was terminated. Trace declined Alquist’s request for an additional $500,000 from SAOP, absent any goods or services having been received.
“Nevertheless, Seifert, who was no longer affiliated with SAOP, reached out to Trace urging her to make an additional $500,000 payment to Alquist,” SAOP argues in its reply to Seifert’s motion. “Seifert even offered to access SAOP’s bank accounts herself to make the payment to Alquist even though she was no longer employed by SAOP.”
Negotiations between Alquist and SAOP ended September 2024 without the nonprofit ever receiving “anything from Alquist in exchange for its $705,700 payment directed to be made by Seifert without Board approval,” SAOP claims.
SAOP argues that “Seifert’s actions suggest that she was acting in Alquist’s interests rather than those of SAOP” (emphasis in original).
Seifert defends her position
Seifert argues in her reply to SAOP’s opposition that SAOP conceded the case to Seifert in its filing.
“SAOP confirmed that its Board authorized the purchase of ‘equipment and services’ from Alquist. … It confirmed that Seifert was authorized to “establish and negotiate contracts and MOU’s” as well as to “complete the contract” upon approval,” Seifert argues.
Seifert arranged the $700,000 payment for exactly those purposes, she says. She says this is reflected in the invoice from Alquist that SAOP attached to its filing.
“SAOP authorized Seifert to negotiate contracts to complete authorized spending — which is exactly what the Holding Fee Agreement was,” Seifert says.
She maintains the court should grant her motion for summary judgment.
“The only evidence proves that the $705,700 payment was a partial payment for the authorized equipment and services that SAOP instructed Seifert to purchase,” Seifert says.
Trace declined a request to comment for this story. A communications consultant for Seifert did not immediately respond to a request to comment.
Let us know what's happening in your neck of the woods!
Get in touch and share a story!
