Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00017)

Thursday, August 02, 2001


Dear Bart:

You are wrong in assuming that the U.L.T. has property. It does
not.

It uses the property owned on its behalf by the THEOSOPHY COMPANY
which is a fiduciary legally empowered to do just that. The
fiduciary of any Lodge was required by the Govt. as otherwise the
U.L.T. cannot legally handle funds, property and publications,
etc...

The U.L.T. pursues it objectives: They are only two:

1.	Continuing to make available the ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF
H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge.

2.	Providing a forum for their study and discussion.


All other matters are "side issues" and, if you read the
DECLARATION carefully you will be able to decide if it does what
it says it is constituted to do.

Let me make it clear, as this is written as a result of my
observation for many years and in many Lodges and Study Groups of
the U.L.T.: The Fiduciary is not the Master of the ULT it is
the SERVANT of that U.L.T.

As the Fiduciary is usually made up of Trustees or directors (as
required by Law -- the details are filed annually) who generally
are the more experienced and older "associates" of that Lodge,
they may some of them wear "two hats." Originally and
subsequently they were chosen by consultation and conference with
one another.

The .fiduciary has all the trappings of a NOT FOR PROFIT
organization (as required by law).

The U.L.T. shuns "Constitution, By-Laws and Officers." (It is
not required by law to have them.)

So what could be clearer ?

The U.L.T. per se, in its work, has no need for, nor is it
attached to the facilities provided by a fiduciary that handles
funds and property for it. A trust is a trust. Trustees are
there to act trustworthy.

What is bizarre about that?

Dal

=========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: ramadoss@infohwy.com [mailto:ramadoss@infohwy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 6:33 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: Theosophical Organizations

Bart wrote:

ramadoss@infohwy.com wrote:

> If any non-profit organization is formally organized, then
usually it is
> setup as a non profit corporation governed by the laws of the
state in
> which it is located. Such organizations are governed by a Board
of
> Directors (can be called by other names such as Trustees) (they
can be
> appointed or elected by any procedure set up by the
organization) and
> legally they have ultimate decision making powers on all
matters concerning
> the organization. The names of the Board of Directors are
required to be
> furnished annually to the State and is public information.

and then...

> On the other hand, if an organization is an association of
people with a
> common interest, then there is no requirement for any formal
legal
> organizational setup and it may be impossible to get any
information about
> it or from it.

That is true. But if the organization owns property,
particularly real
property, then it MUST be set up as a NFP. Now, the ULT is
apparently
set up as two separate organizations; one an organization for
Theosophical study, and the other a NFP designed to own and be
responsible for any property owned. The NFP is supposed to go
along with
the wishes of the organization using the property.

Now, let me give a f'rinstance.

As I have mentioned, in New York City, the ULT has
control over some
prime real estate. A fundamentalist Christian group finds out
about
this, and the set-up of the ULT. So they send a couple of hundred
of
their members to join the ULT, and come up with a teaching they
call
Theosophy that the basis of Theosophy is the acceptance of Jesus
Christ
as one's personal savior (this HAS been done before; look up
Messianic
Judaism, where Christian fundamentalist groups did pretty much
the same
thing with some Jewish groups).

Now, my question is: Is there any mechanism in place to
keep that from
happening? And, if such a mechanism is in place, then what keeps
that
mechanism from being used against a hostile takeover by groups
who, for
example, want to study Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey, Ballard, or
Prophet?

Bart Lidofsky

MKR:

Protecting against such an eventuality is very easy. I am sure
there are many
legal ways of doing it. (I am not a lawyer so I do not know all
the techniques.)
One way to do it is how the Board of Directors are selected or
appointed. In a
closed system, the existing Board appoints new or replacement
Director. Several
years ago, I had the opportunity of setting up such a setup for a
local non profit
organization and it has so far worked ok and also prevented from
any outside
interference in its matters.

mkr


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net