Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00073)

I posted this yesterday morning, and still haven't seen it
come back, so I'm reposting it.

-- Eldon

----


MKR:

In your letter you make a good point that it is not customary for
new rules to be imposed retroactively upon people that had been
previously granted rights that the rules would take away.

I've heard, though, that the rules *have been* applied in the past.
When Chuck Ponsonby was National Secretary, he looked at the
national bylaws and decided they did not exclude new members from
voting, had a statement printed in the AT saying they could vote,
and allowed them to vote in the election. It was at this point
that the rules were relaxed.

The situation, then, is not the retroactive imposition of new
rules, but the renewed application of already existing and
previously enforced rules. From this standpoint, it was not that
certain new members that were previously entitled to vote are now
retroactively denied that right. Rather, it is that certain new
members were inadvertently allowed to vote in the past, when they
should not have been allowed to do so.

The intent, then, with the bylaws changes, was to make the
national bylaws more in accord with the wording of the
international bylaws. It was not to reduce or infringe upon the
existing rights of members.

As to the level of discontent with the vote, I've heard that
there's been three complaints so far regarding the vote. One was a
ballot lost in the mail. The other two were members ineligible to
vote for whatever reason. This is not many considering there were
thousands of ballots mailed out.

I think that the people at Wheaton are a sincere, hard-working
group of volunteers, that put up with long days of work for almost
no renumeration. They have to deal with theosophical politics from
both ends -- from individual members with their preferences from
one side, and from Adyar at the other side. I'd rather not give
them a hard time on any particular issue without good cause.

Regarding the merits of the two-year rule, it helps, I think, keep
elections from being rigged, it keeps things more fair. Why?
Because it keeps candidates from having flocks of followers from
joining at the last minute, in order to vote for them, only to
lapse a year later, never having a real interest in participating
in the T.S. And it tends to keep voting control in the hands of
students that are interested enought to stick around for a couple
of years. Many join and quit in the first year or two, finding no
attraction to what the T.S. offers.

-- Eldon