Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00073)

I would like to add one more explanation.
On the question of transparency and the need for the tallying in sections to
be done openly in the public, let me add another example why transparency
helps.

For example, in Adyar and Sections since the days of Olcott, the accounts
are audited annually by an independent external auditor. We all know that
everyone who handles funds at all levels are highly ethical and honest
individuals. The audits are done not because we do not trust the people
handling money. In many jurisdictions, there is also no legal requirement
that accounts be audited annually. External audit provides assurance that
everything is done right and no one can allege that any improper handling or
misappropriation of funds. Allegations are easy to make even without any
proof. In a similar manner, at section level, we should have open vote
tallying where anyone interested can witness it and of course soon after
tallying it would be public information without waiting for the formal
announcement from the HQ which would come later.

MKR


On 4/5/09, MKR <mkr777@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Anton:
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Events since the early part of last year, have brought the issue of
> transparency into close focus. In my opinion, total transparency can
> only help TS in the years to come. Once the election closes on the same date
> in all countries, then the tallying can be done transparently. The members
> in each section should be notified when and where the ballots would be
> counted and anyone should be able to witness the counting.
>
> TS is not a secret organization and hence I do not see any problem in the
> votes counted in public. Once the votes are counted, everyone will know the
> tally. The paperwork communicating the tally to HQ can follow and official
> announcement of the world-wide results can be made on a pre-determined date.
>
> Total transparency cannot hurt anyone or any organization. On the other
> hand, it can only help.
>
> My 0.02.
>
> MKR
>
>
>
> On 4/5/09, Anton Rozman <anton_rozman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Dear Ramadoss,
>>
>> I wouldn't use any public elections in the today world as a model to seek
>> after. Rather it should be the other way round if the TS would respect and
>> apply in practice the principles which underlie its Constitution.
>>
>> Regarding the elections of the TS officials the leading constitutional
>> principle is to elect those persons who will execute commonly accepted
>> policy at best of their possibilities. Therefore no personal contest of
>> candidates is designed. Their ability to contribute to the work of the
>> Society is meant to be the only prerequisite which qualify them for the
>> nomination. Therefore the whole election and voting process is designed in a
>> way to exclude the promotion of any partial or personal interest.
>>
>> Now, we know that through the history the TS didn't succeed to assert
>> these principles and that it rather represented a battlefield of various
>> partial and personal interests. They especially burst out in daylight in
>> rare moments when more then one candidate has run for the office of the
>> President as it was the case last year.
>>
>> In my opinion these partial and personal interests can flourish because of
>> the absence of commonly accepted Society's policy which in turn is due to
>> the members' willingness to give up their individual creativity and freedom
>> and subdue themselves to various hierarchically structured organizations
>> which co-exist with the TS.
>>
>> Therefore, in my view, the solution is not to be found in the transparency
>> of the contest of potential candidates but in the regaining of each
>> individual member power to contribute to the work of the Society and in the
>> learning of art of collaboration and of reaching consensus.
>>
>> But, if I try to address your thoughts more directly then I would try to
>> give answer to the following question: who has and what is the interest to
>> have the partial voting results available before the conclusion of the
>> overall voting process. From the part of members it is probably only to calm
>> down their impatience and curiosity. From the part of running candidates it
>> is probably only to have room to try to change unfavorable course of
>> elections. And you can even the availability of the information to all
>> candidates only if you block the information otherwise there will be always
>> one candidate in a better position then other.
>>
>> Warmest regards,
>> Anton Rozman
>>
>> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, MKR
>> <mkr777@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > How the sections' voting results are handled/processed brings up a
>> serious
>> > transparency issue brought about the electioneering that took place last
>> > year. Once a world-wide deadline is established, if each section has the
>> > same deadline, the results from each section should be made public as
>> > soon as the votes are tallied in each section. The same deadline
>> applying to
>> > all sections is meant to prevent one section's results influencing any
>> other
>> > sections members. For example in all public elections, once the votes in
>> > each state is tallied, the results are not kept secret till all the
>> states'
>> > results reach a central place and totalled.
>> >
>> > In TS election, there is unnecessary secrecy and the national results
>> are
>> > not disclosed to the members and kept secret. It is known to some in
>> each
>> > section and possibly the section leaders and from the events of last
>> > year, no one is sure that these numbers are not leaked to other sections
>> > and/or their leaders. In today's world, everyone expects the sections
>> > results announced as soon as the tallying is complete and there is no
>> reason
>> > why this cannot and should not be done.
>> >
>> > Normally, no one would bring up these issues. It is the actions of many
>> > section's leaders last year in the electioneering has brought this into
>> > focus.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > MKR
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/4/09, Anton Rozman <anton_rozman@...> wrote:
>> > As the voting results of each individual Section are in first place
>> > processed by Sections' Election Committees the voting results of each
>> > individual Section are known to the members of these Committees. The
>> > question therefore is: do/did members of these Committees share their
>> > knowledge of the voting results of their Sections with the
>> Administration in
>> > Adyar before the closing of the election process or do/did not?
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>> 
>>
>
>


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