Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00488)

You have hit on the Achilles heel. None of the brilliant stragists inside
the GC has brought out all the ramifications of tampering with the rules.
Add to it is the need for transparency. Keeping the GC meeting matters super
secret should end. Continued secrecy gives the GC members an opportunity to
create mischief on an on going basis. We do not know what is going on inside
today! We are where we are primarily due to this.

Not a single one of the GC members have ever brought up the secrecy issue.
They like it. It serves them.  It is to their advantage and helps them to
manipulate what goes on. None of the sections would know about what stands
their reps took in decisions and what horse trading went on behind the
scenes. All decisions taken are kept as top secret. For example, we hear
some changes were made in 2006 or so and no one has talked about it. None of
us know who are behind them and what was their motivations and what were the
arguments for and against.

It is one reason why in all democracies, all discussions and voting takes
place in the open.

Again let us know forget the warning to AB from one of the Founders -
Unnecessary secrecy has killed many organizations.

mkr


On 10/17/08, Anand <AnandGholap@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   There is one big problem in current constitution. Present constitution
> gives full rights to the General Council to change any rule. Because
> of that it is possible for the GC to take so big decision as to
> disenfranchise members even without consulting members. It is
> dangerous to give the General Council so many powers. There should be
> restrictions on the powers of the General Council.
> Certain important changes should require referendum i.e. voting by the
> members of TS. For example in constitution itself there should be rule
> that "any change in the procedure of the election of the President
> shall require referendum and approval by minimum 65% members"
> Similarly in all most important matters constitution should make
> referendum necessary. Such rules should be there in the constitution
> itself.
> This will keep some control over the General Council.
> Even now there is great danger. If many members of the General Council
> become greedy, they might try to disenfranchise members of the TS and
> enjoy limitless power for themselves. It can become a condition like
> Pakistan where some officers at top like General Musharraf destroyed
> democracy in Pakistan and then he gave himself limitless powers for
> unlimited length of time.
> Members of the TS must try to bring about changes in the constitution
> so that rules themselves will make referendum necessary for most
> important changes in the constitution.
> Best
> Anand Gholap
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, "Govert
> Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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]
> > >
> >
>
> 
>


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