Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00118)

Eldon:

Glad to see your msg. I am glad that you took time to research and post the
message. As I am *not* satisfied with the explanation/reasoning. Hence, I
place the following comments:


1. TSA is a Non Profit Corporation Chartered by the State of Illinois and
hence for all operational and procedural matters of TSA, only the *Bylaws*
of TSA govern the voting and all other matters. No matter what the
International Rules says is totally inapplicable.

So the first item to be clarified is, before the bylaw referendum of
December 1995, what does TSA Bylaws say regarding members' eligibility to
vote in elections and other matters requiring a vote of the membership? Does
the bylaws require a 2 year membership?

If the 2 year membership requirement is *not explicitly stated* in the TSA
bylaws in effect in December 1995, then the only conclusion is that members
are entitled to vote without any requirement of a 2 year waiting period.
What ever logic applied to explain *relaxation* of rules etc in the past has
no applicability nor any validity.

2. It is a widely accepted principle in all of the civilized world that if
there are any voting rights existing for members as on the date of December
1995 referendum on Bylaws, one cannot and should not take that away from any
member who was a member on that date unless there is some other explicit
disqualifying clause is there in the Bylaws and applies to a member.

3. In this particular instance, the voting rights of this class of members
were taken away by retroactively applying the membership requirement.

4. As this is a serious issue, did TSA obtain a *written* legal opinion and
advise on this voting issue from the Chicago lawyers that TSA gets counsel
from? If so, can you get a copy and post it here?  If not, why not? This
will help everybody understand the situation and clear the air of any doubts
as well as ensure that no injustice is done to even a *single* member due to
the *ignorance* of the Illinois law governing Non Profit Corporations. No
amount of in-house lawyering or free advise would have the degree of
credibility that is needed in the current situation.

5. As for discontent of the membership, the number of complaints received is
not a satisfactory measure at all to measure it. Many may not care or
knowledgeable or literate enough to complain. Many many not even be aware
that their rights were taken away. But for Internet, even I would not have
known about the situation and we will not be discussing it here.

6. Everyone knows that the rank and file workers are Wheaton are hardworking
and dedicated. This is how I have always found it to be.  During my
contacts, I have always found them to be very professional, courteous,
cooperative and helpful. However, I do not know how many of them are working
for *no remuneration*. I am very glad that you brought up this issue.

Several years ago, I suggested to the TSA BOD, that TSA should publish the
names and total compensation (including any fringe and other benefits) (from
all entities in the TSA umbrella) of say top five compensated persons. This
would demonstrate to the membership the sacrifices that are made by those
who are compensated at Wheaton from TS Funds. This is like what is being
done in public traded companies.

Initially there was enthusiasm. But nothing came out of it. Making public
such information will reinforce how these persons are working hard for *no
remuneration.* Lack of this kind of information makes one to assume there
are individuals whose compensation, in the eyes of members, may not appear
as working for *nothing.* Can you please pass this request on to your
contacts at Wheaton for their quick action? I am confident that all the dues
paying TS Members would be delighted if it is followed through and
information made public.

7. As for the political problems from both ends - from membership as well as
from Adyar, this is *the job* of elected officials and *not* those of rank
and file workers at Wheaton. As a matter of fact, the rank and file workers
should not never be caught in these matters and they should always send it
up the chain of command to the elected officers so that they can do the job
they aspired for and elected to. Be assured I will be the last person to
cause any problem to any rank and file worker (even when there is a cause)
as I am always *for* the *little guy*.

8. The issue that is being raised now is the retroactive application of the
2 year membership rule and not the rule itself. Personally I have no problem
with a 2 year membership rule. But there is the serious issue of taking away
the voting rights of members by retroactive application of the rule and thus
doing injustice to the membership.

9. I hope something is done very soon and very quickly as time is running
out. Once time runs out, injustice done, it cannot be undone even if the BOD
wants to undo it. No amount of any regret or apology later on is going to
undo it.

	....Doss
============================================================================
============

Eldon 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 remuneration. 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 enough 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