Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00047)

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.427.mail06.mail.aol.com.818659822
Content-ID: <0_427_818659823@mail06.mail.aol.com.13403>
Content-type: text/plain

The following is the complete text of the letter to the American Theosophist
from Gerda Thompson on the matter of the by-law changes being voted on. I
hope this time it gets on because if it does not she may assualt me with a
broccoli stalk
Chuck Cosimano

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.427.mail06.mail.aol.com.818659822
Content-ID: <0_427_818659823@mail06.mail.aol.com.13404>
Content-type: text/plain;
name="GERDAT.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0D
Sep 1995 AT Letter to the Editor
=0D
Dear Fellow TSA Members:
=0D
I would like to start this by reminding you that the TSA is a democratic =
non-profit membership organization. The power and responsibility in the c=
onducting of our affairs rests in each and everyone of us to know what is=
going on at our Administrative Headquarters - Olcott. And to hold our e=
lected Board of Directors accountable for their omissions as well as acti=
ons.
=0D
Did you know that this latest round of By Law revisions began two years a=
go? That just a year ago a very small number of members were informed th=
at major changes to the By Laws were being contemplated? Some at the inst=
igation of the International Society? Why wasn't the general membership i=
nformed of these vital matters and denied the opportunity to contribute=
their ideas and suggestions? We have an "official members' magazine" - T=
he American Theosophist. Why wasn't this vehicle used to informed the mem=
bership? If not a special letter sent to every member?
=0D
I know the general reasoning the Board will state why these comprehensive=
by-law revisions were kept virtually secret. That too many people contri=
buting their suggestions would make things unwieldy for the three-person =
By Law Committee. That the goal of these revisions changed over time from=
being a simple clean-up-job to the major undertaking it evolved into. Th=
at the changes instigated at the International level weren't complete unt=
il last Dec's General Council meeting in Adyar. These reasons are
NEITHER VALID NOR JUSTIFIED in my opinion from keeping the general memb=
ership informed of the status of the By Law Committee's work!
=0D
Now that the general membership is being informed another question raises=
its head. Why the rush in voting? There will only be two AT issues out b=
efore the voting is completed. Now that we have or will have a copy of=
the proposed by-laws don't they warrant a serious consideration? Remembe=
r this is the product of two years work by people who have put in much ti=
me and effort with personal sacrifices.
=0D
Again I know the basic line of reasoning the Board will take. They will =
say that as some of the changes have to do with electing the Board and as=
next year is our triennial elections that these changes must be put in =

place for that. This is nonsense! We can have our election operating unde=
r the present system. This present system works very well and I don't see=
how the welfare of the TSA would be unduly compromised by using the "ol=
d rules" another time.
=0D
In fairness to the By Law Committee and to the TSA membership I would pro=
pose that the vote on the revised By Laws be postponed until next Fall. B=
esides the changes effecting the election of the Board there are two subs=
tantive issues [items 09 and 17] that will have an enormous impact on the =
individual member and the organizational structure. These are two very se=
rious issues and can't be handled casually. A postponement would give all=
the members ample time to talk among themselves at Study Center Branch =
and Federation meetings. Also that the Annual Meeting for 1996 be devoted=
to discussing the By Laws and TSA policies in general as we prepare to e=
nter the 21st Century.
=0D
If a postponement of the referendum is not forthcoming then especially b=
ecause of the critical nature of [9] and [17] which I will outline below=
 I urge you to VOTE NO ON ALL THE ITEMS. The rational and justification=
for [9] and [17] is vague and tenuous in some parts and completely lack=
ing in others.
=0D
[9] By Law 04 Section 09 Termination of Membership
Adyar has asked for this inclusion in our By Laws referring to Internatio=
nal Rule 9. To my knowledge this is the first time that an expulsion clau=
se would be included in our By Laws. Approximately ten years ago a Board =
member prior to the Annual Meeting proposed something similar which was s=
o strenuously rejected by the members and at the Annual Meeting that it n=
ever came up for a vote. I have asked for background and reasoning for th=
is item but have received none. I also asked what criterion would be use=
d and who is to formulate it? Again all I got was silence! I proposed th=
at a parameter of conduct be included in the By Law which was also reject=
ed. If no clear guidelines are established the reasons for "termination" =
could readily change over time because of the rotation on and off the Boa=
rd. This means that the reasons for excommunication could easily degenera=
te into personality and/or political differences. The need for a two-thir=
ds Board vote doesn't necessarily protect a member from this contingency.=
I strongly urge you to VOTE NO ON ITEM [9]!
=0D
[17] By Law 09 Section 03 Lodge Organization
The second paragraph of this section begins "Each lodge shall be a fully=
autonomous body...". If this is truly the case then why is [17] being p=
roposed? Financial autonomy is just as important as philosophical autonom=
y. I know that there have been a few difficulties in the past but when I=
asked for explanations all I got were these general statements: 01 prot=
ection for legal official? members when factions occur; and 02 to stop=
a local group from unilaterally wanting to withdraw from the TSA and do =
something else or affiliate with another organization and use the lodge f=
unds. These two types of problems can be handled without the TSA taking o=
ver financial control of all the Branches. Even without this clause there=
is nothing stopping a Branch from asking for nor the TSA from offering t=
o help with any financial transactions. It all hinges on the phrase "suc=
h consent not to be unreasonably withheld". Point d states that the TSA=
has legal recourse for enforcing this. But what remedy does a Branch hav=
e if they feel that TSA consent has been unreasonably withheld? Can a Bra=
nch especially those which are incorporated have legal recourse also? T=
he way this whole item has been written the TSA if they so choose can h=
ave a strangle-hold over a Branches' finances. And through the finances c=
an influence both collectively and individually the Branches philosophica=
l autonomy. I strongly urge you to also VOTE NO ON ITEM [17]!
=0D
The general direction of the Theosophical Society in American our offici=
al policies are the responsibility of the members to formulate and the B=
oard of Directors to execute. Think about the impact this version of the =
By Laws will have on the future growth and prosperity of the TSA. Will it=
be beneficial or detrimental? If a postponement of the By Law referendum=
is not forthcoming I again urge you to VOTE NO on all nineteen items bu=
t most especially [9] and [17]!
=0D
Fraternally yours
Gerda J. Thompson

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.427.mail06.mail.aol.com.818659822--