Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00480)

Thanks, MKR.

To a lesser extent the question is also regarding motivation: on whose or what's behalf did 
these proposals come from? The idea being that the proposals were made intentionally or 
not, as stategic policy changes on behalf of a sub-set of the TS. My list of possible 
candidates and evaluations is the following:

1) A higher principle of fairness moved the proposal. Possible

2) The GC, as it will gain considerable power. Very possible

3) The Algeo-bloc, to insure future electoral success. Very, very possible

4) The ES as it will gain considerable power as most GC are part of the ES. Seriously to be 
considered. 

5) The membership. Not impossible, but improbable.

The obvious 'winner' seems to be 3), with possibly the GC and ES throwing their weight 
behind it.

I think that the GC can not be the body to decide about the proposal because of the 
obvious conflict of interest. Though it might not be in the international by-laws, I think 
that the proposal, if not withdrawn because of the current outrage, will have to be 
submitted to the entire membership as a referendum and only to be passed by a super-
majority of 60%. If not, I will ,like Katinka, vote with my feet. 

Govert





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@...> wrote:
>
> Well said, much better than anyone else has responded so far. We all should
> be involved and vigilant because we are not privy to what is cooking behind
> the veil of secrecy, if past is any indication, nothing should surprise
> anyone.
> 
> As I have said repeatedly,  but for the Internet, we would not have known
> none of the facts we know today. Thanks Internet.
> 
> mkr
> 
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Govert Schuller <schuller@...>wrote:
> 
> >   To whom it may concern,
> >
> > Regarding the proposed change of electors for the PTS position
> >
> > For me the obvious solution to the problem that the membership is not
> > sufficiently
> > informed about candidates is NOT to restrict electorship to those who are
> > supposedly
> > informed and thereby transform the TS into an oligarchy, but to make a
> > better effort to
> > communicate any and all relevant information to the membership and thereby
> > expand its
> > original democratic nature. It seems to me so self-evident that when
> > confronted with the
> > choice of restricted electorship or expanded information-sharing, the
> > latter is the way to
> > go.
> >
> > I'm also opposed to the proposed change on principled grounds, because the
> > proposal
> > does not respect the unique souvereign status of each individual member,
> > but treats them
> > as merely members of a national sub-group. It will disproportionally dilute
> > the voting
> > power of any member belonging to a big section, like the American or
> > Indian, and
> > disproportionally increase the voting power of any member belonging to a
> > small section,
> > like the Norwegian. This is a form of collectivism and discrimination. I am
> > first and
> > foremost an individual Theosophist, not a Dutch Theosophist nor an American
> >
> > Theosophist. My membership in any of these sections is in this regard to be
> > treated as
> > merely a contingent fluke of history.
> >
> > On top of all this, the proposal reeks too much of a transparent
> > opportunistic effort by the
> > Algeo-bloc that lost the last election to skew the PTS voting procedure in
> > favor of itself,
> > because it carried more sections than Radha, who had the popular vote, and
> > would
> > therefore increase its chances of winning the next time around. With all
> > respect: Nice try,
> > guys. 8^)
> >
> > In short, I'm opposed because the proposal seems to be in its intent and
> > effect oligarchic,
> > collectivist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, discriminatory and
> > opportunistic, for it
> > seems to be based on a low respect for the intelligence and souvereign
> > individuality of the
> > majority of TS members.
> >
> > The counter-proposal would be that if there is a contested PTS election
> > there will be at
> > least a 3 month period in which freedom of speech will reign supreme and
> > any and all
> > members and candidates can campaign to their hearts' content through any
> > and all means
> > of communication. The only rule would be that all candidates will be
> > provided a web site
> > on which they will have to post all of their background, public
> > announcements, policy-
> > proposals and speeches and that all these documents will be fully blogable
> > with comments
> > by members only and in accordance with generally accepted standards.
> >
> > Yours daringly
> >
> > Govert Schuller
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>