Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00751)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
> I posited three possibilities about the statusof the Burnier letter :
> 
> 3) The letter was to all General Council members expressing her
position. If
> so, then it was electioneering and therefore sufficient grounds for
General
> Council members to respond and/or protest.

As it is election, and electioneering is necessary part of any genuine
election, to protest against the letter because of above stated reason
is not appropriate.  

> In his answer to my question Pedro Oliveira re-affirms that:
> 
> "As Elvira Carbonell and others at Adyar wrote the above
communication to
> the members of the General Council of the TS, not only attempting  to
> pre-empt Mrs Burnier's candidacy but definitely announcing that Dr
Algeo had
> agreed to accept nominations, Mrs Burnier was entitled to write to
the same
> GC members and present her views."

If Elvira Carbonell announced that John Algeo had agreed to accept
nominations, there is nothing wrong in it. Algeo has right to accept
nominations, which he did and Elvira Carbonell simply communicated the
fact that he would be accepting nominations.

> I take this to mean that he settles for possibility #2: The Burnier
letter
> was a response to the Carbonell letter. This might be the case, but
still is
> highly problematic, for it raises the following questions:
> 
> 1) Why did Burnier not mention the Carbonell letter to make it clear
that
> her letter was a legitimate response to the questionable, but
> understandable, action by Carbonell? Any GC, or any TS member,
reading the
> Burnier letter, would not be able to ascertain that the letter was a
> legitimate response, and he/she would be on relatively firm grounds to
> perceive the Burnier letter as electioneering, as Betty Bland did.

Electioneering is not wrong. So, if we assume that Radha's letter was
part of electioneering, then it was acceptable. Also it is not
necessary that Radha should mention Elvira Carbonell's letter, while
Radha wants to communicate her views to others. 

> 2) Even if you put the two letters side by side, there seems to be no
> structural congruency to conclude that one is a response to the other,
> because:

It is not so much important to establish whether one letter was
response to other or not. Both Elvira Carbonell and Radha communicated
their views and information to people, and they had right to do so.
Whether one was response to other is not that important. Facts and
views are communicated, and that is important.


> b) Burnier in her letter shares information that is not relevant to the
> Carbonell letter.

What Radha writes need not be relevant to the Carbonell letter. Radha
has freedom to write her own independent thoughts.


> 3) the plausible genesis of the letter, and this is merely my
hypothesis,
> was that it started out as a private letter (as Pablo Sender
informed us),
> but through wide dissemination it became a de facto electioneering
letter,
> which then, implausibly, was construed as a response to Carbonell to
defend
> its legitimacy.

It has become necessary that both Radha Burnier and John Algeo should
state their position on various matters, their mission, vision, future
work for the TS on their own official web sites. As Radha is not
telling her vision, views officially on the web site, members are
voting based on rumors and incorrect information being circulated.
Both candidates must become more transparent and tell more and more
about their policies etc. 

> 
> 4) the responses that the letter solicited, especially Betty Bland's
letter
> to the GC, seem legitimate, because she perceived the Burnier letter
for an
> unprecedented act of electioneering and makes it clear that her own
letter
> was a response to that specific act.

As I said earlier, electioneering is not wrong in the election.

> 5) On the other side, Bland's letter to the TSA membership is
problematic,
> because:
> 
> a) she did not mention the Burnier letter to legitimize hers,

It is not necessary that Bland should mention Burnier's letter. 


> c) the Bland letter is obviously private, but then uses the official TSA
> mailing-list for distribution.

I think TSA National Secretary has right to make her views known to
members through official TSA mailing list.
 
> Ergo: all the letters here in question are highly problematic except
Bland's
> letter to the GC.
> 
> Peace
> 
> Govert Schuller

Letters are not problematic. Carbonell, Radha and Bland told others
their views and information. There is nothing wrong telling others
views and information. 

Anand Gholap M.B.A.