Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00344)

All this started when they tried to "defeat" Radhaji by misrepresenting that
she is physically and mentally unfit to be elected. When, that did not work,
this is the second act.

Did you notice that none of the leaders outside India is talking about the
declining membership in their backyard as well as low retention rate? (No
one has dared to publish the info, which I am sure will shock everyone.)
Since each section is autonomous, the section leaders need to go and look at
themselves in a mirror, rather than complaining about the rules. Rules are
not the solution.

Now all of us see what is going on. We need to thank Internet, but for
which, it would be a done deal and then they would be arguing that it is for
the welfare of you and me and theosophy. With all the trickery and secrecy,
I am afraid, TS may go down as we know it today, if these changes go
through.

mkr
On 9/28/08, Anand <AnandGholap@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Only 1/6 the humanity lives in India. 5/6 of humanity lives outside
> India. If some members like John Algeo want non-Indian President, they
> should work hard for Theosophy. Fact that outside India membership is
> low and shrinking proves that things are not managed properly outside
> India. And Radha Burnier got considerable number of votes from outside
> India also. So anybody who reads the proposal can know that it is
> meant to grab power by unfair means.
> Very fact that elected leaders from America and Europe are removing
> voting powers of their own members show that leaders were unwisely
> elected by members in respective countries.
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, "Katinka
> Hesselink" <mail@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The Dutch section has sent a letter to all lodges and put on their
> > website which I take as a way of saying: this is our official
> > position. I know about this letter because it was my duty to put it
> > online.
> >
> > Since the Dutch section supports John Algeo's position, and the letter
> > includes a Dutch translation of a letter by John about this - this is
> > as far as I know the closest we've gotten to an explanation of the
> > proposal by those who wrote / support it.
> >
> > I'm not going to translate the English back into Dutch. I hope John or
> > Betty will issue some sort of statement in English himself.
> >
> > The reasoning is as follows and includes details about the election of
> > the president that I wasn't aware of. My comments between square
> brackets.
> >
> > The election had a 50% rate of response in the West. So 50% of those
> > who had a right to vote actually did. [when it's a government with
> > that kind of numbers, there's usually an attempt to get more people to
> > vote in future. but the conclusion of the Dutch section is to take
> > away our voting rights.]
> > The Indian voters however DID come out and vote. They also know Radha
> > Burnier better. So she won.
> >
> > John Algeo writes:
> > The Indian section has a majority of the members (would love to know
> > the precise numbers), so in practice they decide who gets to be
> > president. This is not democratic. [what he means is: it's not fair,
> > it IS obviously democratic]. Since the Indian section doesn't have
> > their administration in order and members of that section have
> > complained about this, it's best to just let the general council
> > decide who the president should be. Those who would elect the
> > president were themselves elected, so this is democratic.
> >
> > A note by the Dutch general secretary:
> >
> > The general council consists of:
> > - all the general secretaries of the sections
> > - 7 to 10 added members [ she doesn't mention how those get elected ]
> > - to be a section there have to be 7 lodges and 150 members.
> > - at the moment the council has 37 members.
> > -------
> >
> > John's last point sounds like they are fixing one hole with another.
> > Because the Indian section isn't run properly its members should not
> > get a say in who becomes the president of the TS.
> >
> > It's clear that the general council is a weird body. It represents
> > each section equally, whether it has the minimum of 150 members, or
> > over 10 thousand. It has added members which, as far as I can tell,
> > get appointed by the president, for life.
> >
> > As many have noticed: the Western sections just aren't very
> > successful. Most of them are shrinking. This is certainly true for the
> > Dutch and American section - two of the ones supporting this proposal.
> >
> > Not exactly the kind of resume that helps inspire confidence.
> >
> > Sorry this is such a rambling post. The message asking me to publish
> > that letter on the Dutch TS website accused me of acting too quickly
> > and not thinking things through. I just sent an angry letter to the
> > Dutch board explaining my position in more detail. I'm actually
> > starting to look forward to canceling my membership. Not a good sign.
> > I do still hope this gets resolved.
> >
> > Katinka Hesselink
> >
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]