Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00454)

>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