Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00455)

Dear John Crocker:

Your message is an excellent and comprehensive response.

I hope it is read by John Algeo and the Board of Directors very very
carefully and closely.

I also hope Wheaton copies it to Radha Burnier and the General Council by
FAX and not by snailmail.

.doss

============================================================================
=====

At 091700 AM 12/27/95 -JRC wrote:
>>From John Mead:
>
>>I recently received an e-mail from Dr. Algeo which suggests that
>>the intent of the changes were to directly conform with requests
>>from the Adyar/Committee.
> Is there some particular reason why this explanation was not
>sent to the general list? Especially since so many have been
>asking for precisely this kind of explanation?
>
>>We seem to be caught up in an argument about the implementation
>>vs. the *intent* of the changes.
> It seems more like the core issue is the *ramifications* of
>the changes and the shift of power towards centralized control
>from HQ that they entail. Both the original intent and the
>details of implementation are both *expressions* of this concern.
>The result of the new by-laws regardless of intent will be a
>further consolidation of power at the HQ level IMO continuing a
>trend that began when HQ began passing by-laws greatly limiting
>who could stand as a candidate for office. The way the proposals
>have been presented for a vote seems to me to contain the same
>attitude contained in the proposals themselves: That HQ knows
>what is best for the membership and the membership ought to just
>agree to be taken care of as HQ sees fit.
>
>>It is clear from e-mail and also snail-mail that we have the
>>following options:
>>1 By-Laws get Ratified and several lodges file suit.
>>2 By-Laws get rejected and we have many within the TSA who do
>>not trust the TSA administration -- which is not good for
>>anyone/organization. law-suits would probably follow too
> Yes and the lack of trust in a membership almost
>*predisposed* to want to trust in the intentions of its officers
>is the direct result of the *behavior of TSA Administrations
>past and present*. **It is the responsibility of the TSA
>Administration to regain that trust** ... most especially if it
>wants the membership to actually give it more power. The
>Administration IMO has mistaken the silence of many members for
>contentment with policy. It had better understand that there is
>significant discontent among the ranks and the current by-law
>fiasco is not the only problem but is more like a final straw
>that caused normally quiet voices to speak up. The Bing
>situation for instance appeared to many to signify the
>willingness of HQ to use its power in an arbitrary and personal
>way to look like a particular faction that had been used to
>choosing leaders felt free to even possibly pass by-laws with the
>intention of keeping a "non-chosen" out of office ... and it is
>then surprised when the membership reacts to its desire for
>*more* power?
>
>>we need new options:
>>1 we need to allow TSA to gracefully extend the election. This
>>means that they can extend it *without* blame -- i.e. backing
>>off can SEEM like a defeat and be embarrassing. I think that
>>they can decide to postpone elections in a manner which
>>signifies a *responsive presidency/board* decision which we
>>should ACCEPT as an HONEST effort to allow a larger window of
>>discussion. We need to allow for misunderstandings and
>>communication problems as *honest* problems due to the current
>>communication networks. NOT as personal attacks against certain
>>brothers/sisters within our organization.
> Well here may be the most difficult part of the situation.
>I fear I cannot agree with the sentiment here ... and *my* intent
>also is the long term good of the TSA. The TSA Administration
>for whatever its reasons kept virtually secret until the very
>last moment when it was almost too late to do anything a major
>revision of the laws governing our organization. It then broke
>several of the current laws governing the means by which the
>revisions would be voted upon made absolutely no effort to
>encourage discourse and in fact seemed to attempt to thwart it.
>It also recently not only showed itself willing to use its
>substantial financial clout that it has because of *us* ... past
>and present members who have given money against one of our own
>Lodges but then gave this a spin that impugned the motives and
>accused the character of some Boston Theosophists to justify its
>own position that letter from the attorney posted on theos-l
>but also distributed by HQ with an introduction from JA ... was
>almost pure political smear tactics ... actually implying that
>the Boston members were intending to sell the Lodge and pocket
>the money personally ... and the apology Rich rightly demanded
>has *not* been forthcoming. While I believe the membership would
>*welcome* a *genuinely responsive* presidency/board I do not
>think it healthy to try to figure out how to allow the
>presidency/board to *appear* responsive when it has for some time
>seemed far more responsive to Adyar than to its own membership
>even acted *directly against* some of its own members and only
>now in an effort to mitigate the crisis of legitimacy it has
>itself caused finds itself *forced* to be responsive.
> In short uncomfortable as it is to accept HQ has had no
>qualms about playing political hard-ball to achieve its ends
>without regard to sentiment within the membership and now when
>suddenly it went the final step too far and finds itself besieged
>by a somewhat severe reaction from the membership its ignored it
>cannot suddenly sit back with no penalty to pay. It is reaping
>its own self-generated karma - its current dilemma was *entirely*
>created by its own behavior.
> Why should the membership attempt to help it find a "face-
>saving" way out of its mess? Compassion? A sense of
>"brotherhood"? These things are noble ideals but not when they
>applied in such a way as to inhibit *growth*. Many non-profits
>as they grow and evolve have periodic power grabs at their HQ's
>but in feeling the full force of the *effects* of them
>institutional *growth* happens as for instance in the United
>Way in 94 and the NAACP in 95 ... IMO it will be very *helpful*
>to the TSA Administration to have this current disaster *seared*
>into its institutional memory - for it to understand that if it
>behaves as it has been in the future it is taking a *risk*. We
>*want* future TSA officers and board members to *understand* that
>they serve the *membership* not Adyar or their own particular
>visions that *the Lodges and members do not need them ... they
>need the Lodges and members*; that if they want to operate
>according to the model of the Roman Catholic church with Adyar
>as "Rome" dispensing edicts to the "Archbishops" at Wheaton who
>then adapt them to an obedient membership they will discover
>that American Theosophists will react pretty much like American
>Roman Catholics have been ... with many members leaving and even
>among those who stay formally connected less and less of
>inclination to consider the pronouncements of the hierarchy in
>any way binding on them.
> I don't think Wheaton needs another option they have two:
>1 Simply declare the current vote null and void due to the
>irregularities present in the process as noted in the letter
>from Lodge Presidents or
>2 By a vote of the Board withdraw the current revisions.
> Either one of these *accompanied by an apology to the
>membership and a public declaration that a suitable length of
>time e.g. 01 year for Society-wide discussion would be
>permitted before another vote was called* would probably go a
>long way towards diffusing the temporary crisis ... but I also
>think there is a much longer-term distrust that it will take
>quite some time to make right.
> And finally to address the "personality" issue: I
>understand that we do wish to be nice that we want to keep
>things at the level of legitimate debate about the ideas
>themselves ... but we must remember that it has taken a good
>number of Theosophists expending considerable energy even to
>reach the point where the membership is on the verge of being
>given the time and information necessary to even *allow*
>reasonable debate: HQ had to be *forced* into it ... and it was
>not abstract entities that attempted to do this it was *people*.
>We are talking about the Administration of an organization and
>the behavior of its elected officials; decisions don't just get
>made *people* make them ... and just as organizations grow by
>being held accountable for their actions so too the
>*individuals* who are given the *power* to make decisions must be
>made to bear the *responsibility for its use.*
> I do not know John Algeo personally but *as President* I
>can't help but see the TSA being badly damaged: Tight control has
>been exerted over the AT; membership has declined significantly;
>the Theosophical Trusts have lost considerable equity; and the
>Lodges and membership are now embroiled in a by-laws fiasco that
>at best is taking considerable energy from members who might
>better spend time on Lodge activities and at worst threatens an
>outright schism. John Algeo was groomed for the job by our
>"Bishops" ran for the job and gets paid for doing the job and
>it is not a "personal" attack to say that by every almost
>standard measure that a non-profit might use to assess the job
>performance of its President or Executive Director - membership
>figures financial conditions membership morale accomplishment
>of mission - the TS is in worse shape since he took office.
> [While my own suggestions for by-law changes will be in the
>next post I should mention here that the absurdity of the by-
>laws restricting who can run as candidates show themselves here:
>Time as a member or on the Board simply assures one knows
>Theosophy but for instance deep knowledge of the SD and
>administrative skills *have nothing to do with one another*. In
>the TSA our President acts as Executive Director and I believe
>an examination of whether to split those duties ... i.e. *elect*
>a President with Theosophical "wisdom" and have the Board *hire*
>an Executive Director with demonstrated organizational and
>administrative skills ... is something that ought to be explored
>during "by-law discussions". Running a national non-profit
>organization with 5000 members and close to 05 million in assets
>takes specialized skills and the current by-laws allegedly
>designed as the filters to assure the integrity of the positions
>not only do not even discuss the qualifications *most* needed by
>those who would run the organization but in fact serve to
>significantly restrict a number of TSA members who may be far
>*more* qualified from running for the office.]
>
>>perhaps we need 9-12 months to really get the arguments out
>>in. the open.
> Yes.
>
>>we may find it hard to understand but I do not think they
>>TSA had anticipated the response to this ballot. We need to
>>set up an environment where the devisivness is eliminated. this
>>is necessary to preserve the TSA's integrity and restore
>>people's faith in the elected members.
> The elected members created the environment it is their
>responsibility to make things right. They have lost the faith of
>the membership because of an attitude that has manifested in far
>more than just this current situation; they must IMO *alter
>both the attitude and their actions* to regain that faith. So
>long as I and many I've spoken to feel as though this current
>"openness" on the part of HQ only came about because of the size
>and intensity of the reaction without which HQ would have
>actually ignored a few procedures and just imposed a new set of
>by-laws on the members with barely a fraction of the time needed
>for reasoned discussion ... there will be *suspicions*.
>
>>2 I have received a letter from Dr. Algeo where the intent of
>>the new By-Laws were *requested* by International Adyar.
>>However the wording and implementation were to be determined
>>by the TSA. Hence --- we have an instance where the guidelines
>>were set but the specific implementation needs to have an open
>>discussion esp. between TSA Chapters/Lodges.
> Why has no one else received this letter? Why do we only
>find out now after the ballots have actually already been
>mailed that this is driven by Adyar? What *precisely* did Adyar
>"request"? In what *form* was the request delivered? To what
>degree can Adyar *force* the American Section to implement such
>things? And I don't agree that its just the implementation that
>we must discuss ... its the standing of Adyar to make such
>"requests" that is an issue as well. How much of this is *legal*
>and how much behind-the-scenes tacit agreements? In fact if
>Adyar got too insistent the American Section itself might start
>debating whether it even matters whether it remains formally
>connected to Adyar. This whole situation seems to be surrounded
>by too much secrecy. I'd like to see the US-Adyar relationship
>explicitly articulated ... and if Adyar wants to "request"
>guidelines I'd like to hear them *from Adyar* along with the
>reasons *why* Adyar wants them implemented ... to know for
>instance whether the whole American Section might be forced to
>alter its by-laws as the result of some factional dispute at
>*Adyar* - that seems to have recently gotten into the mood to
>exert control to the point of excommunicating national sections
>that do not behave.
> Regardless the fact that neither Adyar or Wheaton even
>considered that the American membership *ought to be given full
>information* which *to this day* it still does not have about
>the source and reasons for the by-law changes is quite
>disturbing.
>
>>Let us try to fix the system before it is permanently damaged.
> Actually I believe that from a larger view the proper
>paradigm may not be fixing a system before it is permanently
>broken but rather that of understanding that a required if
>painful and upsetting phase shift has been triggered by this
>dispute ... a phase shift needed for the TSA to live beyond its
>foundational generations and stabilize in a form in which its
>greatest service will be in the future rather than in its past:
> We began with *Masters* choosing the leaders who lead by
>something akin to Divine Right. We then had a number of leaders
>Dora the last in America who were elected but whose power and
>standing still came chiefly from having *known* or been connected
>to those who knew the Masters ... power and leadership legitimacy
>has been passed down with something like apostolic succession -
>and the leaderships both at Wheaton and at Adyar have long
>operated almost as though they were running an *occult hierarchy*
>.. and Masters do not *consult* chelas when they make the rules
>of the order they simply make them and chelas have the right to
>either agree or leave the order. We are now perhaps for the
>first time having to face the fundamental contradiction between
>the Master-Chela and Democratic models of organization and IMO
>the leaderships both at Wheaton and Adyar will need to do some
>very deep-level re-examinations of attitudes ... because they are
>no longer considered "Masters" and the memberships are
>increasingly refusing to be their "Chelas". Its likely that the
>leaderships will no longer be able to *demand* anything from
>memberships that they'd better get rid of the attitude that
>voting is just a formality that they can decide what's "best"
>for the membership without even consulting the membership
>without bothering to even give them full information and just
>expect the membership to say "ok! as long as you think that's
>best!".
> IMO Theosophy will be *much* better off in the long run if
>we can accomplish this difficult shift so long as we have the
>courage to see it through.
> -JRC
>