Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00052)

Do you expect them to do it? You get a letter only when they need your vote
for their candidate. This proposal does not need members votes.

mkr


On 10/2/08, Anand <AnandGholap@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   After receiving such proposal affecting enormously ordinary members of
> the TS, what has TS top management done ? They did not even think it
> necessary to communicate members that such proposal is in the process
> ? Does relationship of members and top management end after dues are
> paid to the TS ?
> I expect that each General Secretary should communicate to all the
> members by post about this proposal. It is the duty of management to
> communicate to members all such serious matters.
>
> Anand Gholap
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, MKR
> <mkr777@...> wrote:
> >
> > Whatever the nitty gritty of the details of procedures, still most
> members
> > are still the dark about everything. All the "leaders" are keeping
> silent
> > and probably talking to each other (most likely by e-mail). Until
> they all
> > come into open and discuss these things in the public, members do
> not know
> > what is going on and will have to rely on rumors and grapevine to
> get info.
> > The divide between members and their leaders need to be bridged. The
> leaders
> > may have control of the organization and the money, but the real
> vitality of
> > TS lies in independent, motivated, enthusiastic members at the lodge
> level.
> >
> > So those who have come to know the recent happenings have to be vigilant
> > lest we wake up and be surprised.
> >
> > mkr
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Katinka Hesselink <mail@...
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Anton,
> > >
> > > I'm not HOPING that the Executive Committee will infringe on the rules
> > > and regulations - that's what they seem to be doing. Apparently the
> > > executive council decides what will make it onto the agenda, and the
> > > majority of the members there decided against it.
> > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I was not looking
> > > forward to three months of hoping this proposal would not make it. On
> > > the other hand it seems weird (to say the least) that it is not going
> > > to be discussed at all.
> > >
> > > Katinka
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, MKR
> > > <mkr777@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again, lack of transparency is at the bottom of it all. Have you
> > > seen that
> > > > none of the GC members have said anything about transparency in
> a public
> > > > forum? Looks like, having used to work in an opaque environment,
> > > they are
> > > > scared of transparency. Add to this, their avoidance of Internet
> > > discussion
> > > > groups like this says something about the culture in which they have
> > > been
> > > > operating. Let us wait and see.
> > > >
> > > > mkr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/1/08, Anton Rozman <anton_rozman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Katinka and all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you really hope that the Executive Committee will infringe
> the TS
> > > > > Rules and Regulations?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now the situation is created in which TS members encourage
> members of
> > > > > the Executive Committee to continue to act illegally. This is
> > > > > perverted situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless what we think about one of the amendments and
> about the
> > > > > way in which they were proposed the fact is that they were
> submitted
> > > > > according to the TS Rules and Regulations. If the proceedings will
> > > > > not be respected, than even greater chaos will be created.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we not rather hope and help that solid arguments are put on
> > > > > the table against the adoption of this amendment. But to
> achieve that
> > > > > some serious discussion must be encouraged, maybe some
> constitutional
> > > > > expert opinion acquired, instead of tons of emotional and populist
> > > > > words thrown in the ether - although it is understandable that
> > > > > members are afraid that they will lose their last illusion
> that they
> > > > > really have any influence in the present situation at the TS
> > > > > Headquarters.
> > > > >
> > > > > More over, results of your poll show that there is high
> percentage of
> > > > > support for other amendments in the package which tends to improve
> > > > > the management of the TS.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I am afraid that in this overheated situation we are
> missing some
> > > > > important issues: will the General Council discuss and adopt new
> > > > > policy for the coming years, will the General Council discuss and
> > > > > meet the demands for greater transparency and communication,
> will the
> > > > > General Council establish its own constitutional role and that
> of the
> > > > > Executive Committee, and so on. But maybe this is what all is
> about.
> > > > >
> > > > > Warmest regards,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "Katinka
> > > > > Hesselink" <mail@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of my informants told me the proposal we have been
> talking about
> > > > > > recently ( see:
> http://www.squidoo.com/theosophical-organisation-
> > > > > 08 )
> > > > > > is off the table. That is: it has not been included in the
> agenda
> > > > > for
> > > > > > the General Council meeting, even though it has been
> submitted in
> > > > > time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This gives us some idea of the way our officers in the executive
> > > > > > council work together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, it also means that our right to vote stands and seems
> > > > > > unlikely to even be officially contested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope my information is correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katinka Hesselink
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> 
>


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