Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00131)

Thanks for the quick reply.

I am not sure if the GC members have officially raised the issue of the
"illegality" of extending the voting time for the Indian Section. When I
say, officially raising the issue, it should be in writing asking how and
why the time extension was granted and how it was in compliance with the
rules governing the election. This is essential because, there was an
election committee consisting of long-time very experienced independent
theosophists of impeccable integrity which had the responsibility of making
sure the elections are conducted properly. I am sure that they would not
have extended the time without making sure what they are doing is legal.

Such a written inquiry will clear up the legality of the extension. All
large organizations such as TS have legal help to make sure that all the
laws and rules are meticulously followed. In this day of transparency due to
Internet, such a request from a GC member cannot be ignored and I do expect
not to be ignored and to be properly responded.

Once we have the justification reply, we can conclude if extension was legal
or not. The reason why I say this is because, in legal matters, only lawyers
who are familiar with all the rules and laws that apply are able to have a
final say on legality or not in matters such as this. In addition, since
Adyar is located in Tamil Nadu, India, the local laws will govern all the
proceedings that take place in Adyar and hence a local lawyer is in the best
position to make a judgement.

Even in my client's business dealings (I had to pass an exam on business law
for my professional license), when legal issues come up, I advise my clients
to consult a lawyer even though I have enough English language and business
law background to read a legal document.

Once we get a definitive answer on the question of legality or legally
justifiable basis for extending the voting deadline, we can then respond
from a sound basis. Until then, I would suspend my judgement on the legal
issue of extension of the voting deadline in India.  I think this is just
and reasonable approach to this question.

On Lindemann's case, while it is a done deal, what is of interest to members
is the fact that there were two equally divided groupings of GC members
which led to the tie vote. If we know who the GC members are in the two
groupings, this may throw some light on any underlying issue or issues that
no one may want to or dare to talk about.

Also on the other tie vote, again the groupings may tell more about the
underlying issues.

Since there may be other things going on behind the scenes, the above
information would give some idea of the secret goingons.

The GC votes are kept secret. Transparency is needed because, then the GC
members will be more careful because they know they cannot hide behind the
secrecy and vote in one way and if they know if their votes would be public,
they may vote another way. This is one reason that all votes in all the
public bodies in this country has to be open and not behind the closed
doors.

I believe that lot the problems TS ran into since early last year is due to
lack of transparency and secrecy of the GC. If GC continues to operate in
great secrecy like it had been doing for a long time, I am afraid we cannot
prevent a group creating a lot of trouble in the future. Transparency
combined with Internet is the bulwark to protect the TS in the future from
any moves by any groups.

MKR



On 2/5/09, sampsakuukasjarvi <sampsakuukasjarvi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   William Delahunt and M.K. Ramadoss: I respect very much all your work
> for transparency, dialogue and member rights. I think you have made
> remarkable work which will remain in history.
>
> My point is that we must protest the Adyar administration, too, if
> the rules of the Society are not followed. This unfairness and even
> illegalness happened in the last GC meeting. Also the Indian Section
> acted illegally as it lengthened its voting time â this event can't
> be denied. My GS wrote that this kind of acting can't be possible in
> the future.
>
> I won't translate the report of my GS into English, but I can quote
> it more later.
>
> Of course it is possible that Lindemann was opposed because of other
> reasons. There's a lot of politics on both sides. However, Lindemann
> was elected anyway, so we don't have to speculate about that anymore.
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "t_s_theosophist"
> <THEOSOPHIST@...> wrote:
>
> > Did Madame Kim-Diu have the consensus of the French Section? If so,
> very well.
>
> I must correct this. Miss Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu resides in France, but
> she is not the head of the French Section. She is the Chairman of the
> European Federation of the TS. So she doesn't have to have consensus
> from French members.
>
> Sampsa
>
> 
>


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