Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00105)

>At 011600 AM 12/11/95 -0500 you wrote:
>>
>>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
>>
>>>
>>=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?
>
> ==================================================================

Sometime before the 1994 Annual Meeting of TS I heard thru a member
that some changes to the bylaws are in the works. As soon as I learnt about
it I wanted to know from the horse's mouth and sent a handwritten fax to
the National President. I did get a reply but it got nowhere and nothing was
ever mentioned about any thinking of the bylaws change. So when I recently
got the AT publishing the numerous changes I was surprised and immediately
shot off several letters to the National President touching upon several
issues of importance based on my experience and professional training. All
communication with the National President was in writing so that the
communication is very precise and all elected Board Members and the
International President were copied every correspondence. I wanted to keep
everybody fully informed. There were also some very serious issues relating
to the TIT and I sent Chairman of the Board of Trustees the correspondence
for his information and action. Any request for facts and information from
National President was mostly met with silence.

...doss
=============================================================================
>
>>=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--
>>
>
> Gerda: You have presented very logical and clear suggestions. I was
hoping that your letter will be published in the AT. Today I received the AT
and there were only three comments published. Two detailed ones arguing
against and one one line is support of the changes. Reading AT and reading
the above each one can come to ones own conclusions. It's providential that
we have Internet today and what you post is uncensored and is for everyone
to see all over the whole world. Again let us hope better judgement will
prevail and the bylaws revision is postponed; it's never too late.
>
>...doss
>
>PS: Chuck:
>
> You have done an excellent job of uploading the message. Looking
forward to more messages.
>