Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00347)

Hi Anand,

I would have loved to vote for someone other than the chair person who
just told me I should keep my mouth shut and stop abusing the internet
;) but the fact is - we don't have enough volunteers. All volunteers
who want to significantly change the way the magazine is run (for
instance) walk (or run) away pretty quickly from serious volunteer
work: there is just no chance with the current administration. 
Unfortunately it seems to perpetuate the current situation of decline.
Not sure what can be done about it - but passing this proposal
certainly won't help.

To Erica: the people in charge in the Netherlands are too young to
wait for. If I wait for them to die off - I'll be in my sixties or
something. I'd rather cut my losses and come back when (and if) the TS
is back in some sort of order. 
But hey, I haven't seen anybody defend this proposal other than the
people who proposed it. Also: the online poll is pretty conclusive. So
I don't think it will be passed. 

[this doesn't mean people shouldn't mail their local representatives
of course. let's keep them on their toes. this is important stuff.]

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> 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, "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
> >
>