Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00094)

Hi

I do not have immediate access to Chuck Posonby's statement in AT. If you
have access to it, can you please post it here.

	....doss


On Thu, 2 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>