Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00501)

Doss, are you suggesting that we behead the General Council?  If you  are, I 
can think of someone we can practice on.
 
Chuck the Heretic
 
 
In a message dated 10/17/2008 6:35:10 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
mkr777@gmail.com writes:

 
 
 
Erica:

When a handful of people try to make radical changes in great  haste and in
the darkness of night, it will lead to serious unintended  consequences
because the foundation of TS is not these few people. It  is
ordinary membership like you and me. When members are roused to action,  no
one can predict where it would lead to. All one needs to see what  happened
during French Revolution when public clamored for liberty equality  and
justice.

mkr

On 10/17/08, Erica Letzerich <_eletzerich@yahoo.ele_ 
(mailto:eletzerich@yahoo.com) >  wrote:
>
> Anand,
>
> I think on that you are quite  right. This is a good point. I dont think
> there is a possibility or  the majority of the members of the GC to approve
> the proposed change  to rule 10. At least I want to believe that. If they do
> so, it will  cause many problems.I dont think that only members would leave
> if they  approve such change, I also believe that some Sections may even
> break  their link with Adyar because of it. The members who propose such a
>  change are in fact playing with fire.
>
> Erica
>
>  ----- Original Message ----
> From: Anand <_AnandGholap@AnandGhol_ (mailto:AnandGholap@gmail.com)   
<AnandGholap%AnandGholap>>
> To: _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com)   
<theos-talk%theos-talk%<WBthe>
> Sent: Friday, October  17, 2008 10:25:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Electing the  PTS
>
> 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@yahoogro ups.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@yahoogro ups.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]
>
> 
>

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


 

**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out 
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)


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