Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00096)

Dear Anton

Thank you for doing the math, when considering the high percentage 
of the return of Indian votes, one must also consider the difference 
in the culture compared to the west.  Many of the Indian members are
extremely devotional and literally worship the President, each year
groups of them travel long distances to attend the Convention even 
though they don't understand or speak a word of English.  

They form groups on the lawns and rely on interpreters to give a 
summary of the talks.  Some of them even go down on their knees
to touch the President's feet, she doesn't encourage this but they 
are usually too quick for her.
 
Western members who have spent some time in India will have 
noticed the high number of temples, and the tiny shrines that have
been placed at the side of the roads.  This devotional aspect is part
of everyday life, many workers visit a temple or shrine before going
to work.  In the TS compound there are many little shrines that are
hardly noticeable, in addition to the more obvious ones.

Considering this devotional aspect it is not surprising that there 
is a high turnout of Indian members voting, many would consider it
their duty to cast a vote in support of their President.
 
Please continue with your questions, the more we can bring out the
truth, the quicker the TS can return to the more important work it 
should be doing.  The untruths and misunderstandings are sapping
the vitality out of our wonderful society, if we can not be spiritual,
we can at least be kind. 

Best wishes
Keith




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Rozman" <anton_rozman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Keith,
> 
> Thank you very much. Please, do not understand my questions as sort of anticipated opinions from my part. They are based on mentioned allegations (using also related wording) with the intent to uncover facts which possibly support or actually dismiss these allegations.
> 
> To sum up again:
> 
> The sealed envelopes containing the voting returns were kept in a locked drawer and were only opened after the closing date, 28 June 2008.
> 
> Your documented opinion is that information about other Sections' voting results, if actually known, wouldn't significantly affect the voting attendance and results in the Indian Section. 
> 
> I would like to add that, if the voting attendance in the Indian Section would reach only the average attendance of the rest of the world, i.e. approximately 50 % of the members eligible to vote (4,530), there would be proportionally (89,0 %) 4,031 for Radha Burnier and (10,6 %) 453 for John Algeo, or in total 2,450 (rest of the world) + 4,031 = 6,481 for Radha Burnier and 3,594 (rest of the world) + 453 = 4,047 for John Algeo.
> 
> Warmest regards,
> Anton
> 
> p.s. If you agree I will continue with the questions regarding (2) Vice-President's election.
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "keith_fisher@" <exsecy@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Anton
> > 
> > The conspiracy theory you are presenting here seems much more suited to an
> > author of fiction.  However, as the allegations against the Indian Section have 
> > caused so much pain and suffering, I am willing to examine the theories logically
> > to see if there is any truth at all in them.
> > 
> > I was able to do my own investigation at Adyar where I viewed the correspondence
> > files and all relevant documents pertaining to the Presidential election.  I was also 
> > able to ask questions to satisfy myself that everything had been done according to
> > the procedure set down in the Rules and Regulations.  However, as the term 
> > `administration' has not been defined I must assume that this means any person 
> > living at Adyar, not just the members of the official Election Committee.
> > 
> > I was informed by a member of the Election Committee that all the sealed envelopes
> > containing the voting returns were kept in a locked drawer under the control of the
> > International Secretary, who was also the Secretary of the Election Committee.
> > These envelopes were only opened after the closing date for receiving them, which
> > had been set at 28 June 2008.
> > 
> > Is it possible that the International Secretary, after nominating the Vice President 
> > for the Presidency, would be in collusion with the Indian Section to bring about his 
> > downfall, or that another resident of Adyar had gained access to the drawer and 
> > opened the envelopes undetected?
> > 
> > The other theory is that by the end of the twelfth week, 7 June 2008, the Scrutineers
> > from all the Sections, Regional Associations, Presidential Agencies, and Lodges 
> > attached to Adyar, had communicated the results of the voting to a person or 
> > persons unknown at Adyar.  This information had then been passed on to the Indian
> > Section so that an intensive campaign to `recruit more votes' could be launched in 
> > the remaining three weeks.
> > 
> > Let us test this theory to see if it holds up to logical investigation:
> > 
> > The total votes received for each candidate were:
> > 
> > John Algeo:  4323 votes
> > 
> > Radha Burnier:  8560 votes
> > 
> > A difference in votes of: 4237 votes
> > 
> > The total vote of the Indian Section for Radha Burnier was:  6110 votes.
> > 
> > The theory suggests that by the twelfth week, on 7 June 2008, the Indian Section 
> > had less than 1873 votes ( 6110 minus 4237), in favour of Radha Burnier, placing
> > John Algeo in the lead. The other 4237 votes were somehow `recruited' in the next
> > two weeks, before sending the final result to Adyar on 23 June 2008.
> > 
> > A statement of Fact, or Fiction?
> > 
> > Keith
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Rozman" <anton_rozman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Keith,
> > > 
> > > Thank you very much for your answers and your readiness to continue to clarify the unclear matters concerning past events in the Society. The reason why I try to represent relative data and opinions is that probably the majority of the Society members does not know exactly the proceedings and established practice, myself included. Therefore, I am trying, as best as I can, to put these messages in a form which will be as instructive as possible for membership at large.
> > > 
> > > I will stick to your suggestion to post only one question at the time. So, I propose that we continue to deal with the (1) President's election first. 
> > > 
> > > In first place I have to apologize that in my first message I didn't use available information of the Indian Section. But I will correct this deficiency in a document I intend to prepare at the end of this discussion for the presentation on my web site.
> > > 
> > > To sum up:
> > > 
> > > The date of issue of the voting list by the Secretary was 15 March 2008.
> > > The expiration date of fifteen weeks from the date of issue of the voting list by the Secretary was 28 June 2008.
> > > The date of the voting returns of the Indian Section was 23 June 2008.
> > > 
> > > The date of the voting returns of the Indian Section therefore complies with the stipulations in the TS Rules and Regulations and therefore, in my opinion, the President's election process in regard to the voting procedure was legal.
> > > 
> > > But I think that there remains one another important question which has to be addressed. There were objections that on the date 5 June 2008 - expiration of twelve weeks from the date of issue of the voting list by the Secretary - the partial voting results were presumably available to the "administration" and that therefore it could make an effort to "recruit more votes".
> > > 
> > > 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? 
> > > 
> > > The second option for the Administration to know the voting results in other Sections besides Indian was to open the voting papers prior to the expiration date what would represent serious infringement of the election process and therefore seems quite unlikely. 
> > > 
> > > Warmest regards,
> > > Anton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "keith_fisher@" <exsecy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Anton
> > > > 
> > > > I realize I have not covered every little detail mentioned in your
> > > > text as it would get too involved and messy. I am willing to explain
> > > > and elaborate on any specific point. It would be helpful to me if
> > > > only one question is posted at a time if it is of some magnitude.
> > > > 
> > > > I am sorry for the delay in answering your questions, I sometimes
> > > > feel quite nauseous when I read the statements made by these two
> > > > General Secretaries, and this has slowed up the process.  I don't
> > > > like what I am doing here but think it is extremely important to
> > > > bring out the truth rather than just walk away, until this is done
> > > > regeneration cannot begin.  
> > > > 
> > > > Best wishes 
> > > > Keith
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > (1) President's election
> > > > 
> > > > The data provided in both reports of the General Secretaries is
> > > > false. It is obvious that the error in the first has been copied
> > > > to the second and that none of the General Secretaries checked the
> > > > information given in Circular 2 before writing the reports, which
> > > > seem to be based on assumption and distasteful opinions.
> > > >   
> > > > The date of issue of Circular 2 including the Voting List
> > > > was 15 March 2008
> > > > 
> > > > The twelve week marker was 7 June 2008, when the Secretary of the
> > > > Election Committee would contact the Sections and Lodges for which
> > > > the voting returns had not been received.  The Secretary would
> > > > request that a duplicate copy of the voting returns be sent
> > > > immediately and advise that only three weeks remained before the
> > > > closing date for receiving the returns. 
> > > > 
> > > > The fifteen week closing date given in Circular 2 was 28 June 2008.
> > > > 
> > > > The voting return of the Indian Section was received on 23 June 2008
> > > > and a further duplicate copy was received on 25 June 2008.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > (2) Vice-President's election
> > > > 
> > > > The Vice President was not removed from office.
> > > > 
> > > > Rule 3 is an expulsion rule and would only be used to remove an
> > > > Officer or Additional Member if they had committed an offence or
> > > > misdemeanour.  This did not apply to the Vice President in office.
> > > > 
> > > > A new Vice President was nominated in accordance with Rule 11(a)
> > > > which states:
> > > > 
> > > > `Within three months of assuming office the President shall nominate
> > > > the Vice-President subject to confirmation by the General Council.'
> > > > 
> > > > The same procedure for voting was used as in the re-election of a
> > > > Vice President in previous years, except the nomination was a
> > > > separate item from the General Council Agenda.  This was to conform
> > > > to the `three months of assuming office' in Rule 11(a) and give early
> > > > notice of the possible change to the Vice President in time for him
> > > > to decide if he would attend the General Council meeting after the
> > > > result was announced.
> > > > 
> > > > The meaning of `confirmation' in the rules is unclear, it could
> > > > equally mean confirmed by a majority vote or confirmed by scrutinizing
> > > > the ballot papers. 
> > > > 
> > > > Both these situations were covered by announcing the result of the
> > > > ballot when it was known, and tabling the ballot papers at the
> > > > General Council meeting so that members could scrutinize the voting
> > > > papers.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > (3) General Council Meeting
> > > > 
> > > > >It is quite unclear how four additional members of the General
> > > > >Council were elected; therefore it seems that an overall explanation
> > > > >of the whole procedure and the list of the GC members eligible to
> > > > >vote should be presented.
> > > > 
> > > > I am not quite sure what you are asking here and you may need to
> > > > rephrase the question.
> > > > 
> > > > Four Additional members had been nominated by the President.
> > > > 
> > > > The same procedure was used as in previous years, three months notice
> > > > given on the General Council Agenda, and a postal ballot which was
> > > > confirmed at the General Council meeting.
> > > > 
> > > > All General Council members are eligible to vote.
> > > > 
> > > > The General Council consisted of:
> > > > President, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary
> > > > Seven Additional members and all General Secretaries
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Rozman" <anton_rozman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Keith Fisher,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let me join Katinka in thanking you for your readiness to share your perspective concerning the events in regard to the election of the Vice-President and the General Council Annual Meeting 2008. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my view there are three issues which should be especially clarified in regard to the past events in the Theosophical Society, namely the legality of the: (1) President's election, (2) Vice-President's election and (3) General Council Meeting.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > While I was preparing this message you already answered the first one but I will post it anyway.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For the sake of greater clarity I am including some crucial (in my opinion) statements by Betty Bland and Warwick Keys and relative excerpts from the TS Rules and Regulations.
> > > > > 
> > > > > * * *
> > > > > 
> > > > > (1) President's election
> > > > > 
> > > > > In her public statement on the Theosophical Community - http://tinyurl.com/ctglmt - Betty Bland wrote the following: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "It seems that as of the deadline of June 6 the results were not to the administration's liking, so the deadline was extended until June 15 only for the Indian Section in order to recruit more votes."
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the same place Warwick Keys - http://tinyurl.com/dxag3n - wrote the following:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "On the official closing date for all votes to be in to Adyar, June 5, it would appear that the result was not to the liking of those in control. Knowing the result - in favor of John Algeo it seems - the voting period for Indian Section members was extended for another 10 days or so. Much highly suspicious activity took place leading to a large vote for the president being arrived at. The extension of the voting period alone was completely illegal and would not stand up to a legal challenge."
> > > > > 
> > > > > ????????????
> > > > > 
> > > > > TS Rules and Regulations / excerpts
> > > > > 
> > > > > 10. Election of President
> > > > > 
> > > > > f) At the expiration of fifteen weeks from the date of issue of the voting list by the Secretary, the voting results shall be totalled by the Election Committee and placed before the Executive Committee.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Within three days of the closing date of voting, the candidate who has received the largest number of votes shall be declared elected President and shall assume office not later than thirty days thereafter.
> > > > > 
> > > > > APPENDIX
> > > > > B. Voting Procedure for a Presidential Election
> > > > > 
> > > > > e) The small envelope containing the voting results of the Section shall be kept unopened in a sealed box by the Secretary until the close of voting.
> > > > > It shall then be opened by the Election Committee.
> > > > > The larger envelope shall be kept separately and shall not be destroyed until after the voting results are announced, and under the authority of the Executive Committee.
> > > > > 
> > > > > (f) If the voting returns have not been received by the Secretary within twelve weeks of the date of issue of the voting list by him, he shall cable the General Secretary concerned, informing him of this fact.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The General Secretary shall immediately send to the Secretary by airmail or other expeditious means a second (duplicate) voting return in a sealed enveloped marked `Duplicate'.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ???????????.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regarding this issue it therefore seems crucial the exact date of issue of the voting list by the Secretary, the exact expiration date and the exact date of the voting returns of the Indian Section.
> > > > > 
> > > > > * * *
> > > > > 
> > > > > (2) Vice-President's election 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the same statement Betty Bland wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "The general practice has been for nominations to be made known in advance but for confirmation voting to occur at the General Council meeting in accordance with the stated rules. However, in this case the administration required the unusual procedure of a postal ballot. ... Irregularities continued with the vice-presidential postal ballots in that after the voting deadline, General Council members were scrutinized with an eye to disqualifying various voters, such as those from Colombia and South Africa (South Africa being later reinstated), and then the approval of Greece post facto as eligible to vote."
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the same place Warwick Keys wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "The appointment of the International Vice-President was the first item on the agenda for the Council meeting. I questioned why the clearly stated rules for dismissing an officer of the Society were not followed, and why had no notice of any sort been given to John Algeo terminating his services or in any way acknowledging his years of devoted service to TS. A wrangle on rule interpretation followed, without resolution. Everything was simply swept under the carpet."
> > > > > 
> > > > > ..........................................
> > > > > 
> > > > > TS Rules and Regulations / excerpts 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 11. Nomination and election of Vice-President; his duties 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (a) Within three months of assuming office the President shall nominate the Vice-President subject to confirmation by the General Council. His term of office shall be at the discretion of the President but when the Vice-President has been three years in office that office shall become vacant by the passage of time and the President, within three months, shall again make a nomination and submit it to the General Council. Notwithstanding this provision the Vice-President shall remain in office and his term shall continue until a successor has been nominated and confirmed. The Vice-President in office may be re-nominated. It shall be his duty, among other things, to carry on the executive functions of the President in case the President is dead or where the Executive Committee finds that he is disabled by accident, serious illness or otherwise from performing the duties of the President.
> > > > > 
> > > > > (b) Notwithstanding anything herein contained the Vice-President doing the duties of the President shall continue to be the Vice President of the Society until a new Vice-President has been nominated and his nomination confirmed by the General Council. In case of death, resignation or disability of such Vice-President doing the duties of the President, the Executive Committee shall appoint a Vice-President who shall hold office until the new President shall have nominated a new Vice-President and his nomination be confirmed by the General Council.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 3. Removal of General Council members and officers 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It shall be competent for the General Council to remove any of its members, or any officer of the Society excepting the President of the Theosophical Society and excepting the General Secretaries of National Societies, by a three-fourths majority of its whole number of members, at a special meeting called for the purpose, of which at least three months' notice shall have been given, the quorum consisting, however, of not fewer than five members.
> > > > > 
> > > > > .......................................... 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that the President arbitrarily removed from the office the Vice-President and that then she nominated the new Vice-President and that the postal ballot was adopted to confirm the new Vice-President from the part of the General Council members.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > As also the proceedings of the postal ballot are contested it seems crucial to clarify what proceedings were adopted and by whom and how these were respected.
> > > > > 
> > > > > * * *
> > > > > 
> > > > > (3) General Council Meeting 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the mentioned statement Betty Bland wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "? censorship and favoritism shown as to who might observe the General Council meeting proceedings and who was excluded. ? Maria Widjaja, who had a letter from the Indonesian General Secretary requesting that, in his absence, she be allowed to attend the meeting, was denied entry, as was Els Rijneker, vice-chair of the Dutch Section. On the other hand, non-Council members from Brazil, Australia, and Greece were allowed not only to observe but also to speak quite freely, which had not been the norm in the past. (Both the Brazilian and Australian General Secretaries were present at the meeting.) ? The same procedure was followed for the appointment of four additional General Council members, with the president casting a second vote to break the tie concerning the vote for Ricardo Lindemann of Brazil."
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the same place Warwick Keys wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "The appointment of four additional General Council members saw another blatant twisting of the rules to suit the whim of those in control. I questioned this procedure and placed a motion on the table asking for a GC vote on the subject. It was clear that there was no way that even if the motion was agreed to that any notice would be taken of the result."
> > > > > 
> > > > > .........................................
> > > > > 
> > > > > TS Rules and Regulations / excerpts
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2. Members of the General Council 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (b) The General Council shall include not fewer than 5 and not more than 12 Additional Members, among whom all past Presidents while in good standing shall automatically have place. Other members shall on the nomination of the President be elected for a term of three years by vote of the General Council at its Annual Meeting, their names having been sent to the Members of the General Council at least three months before the Annual Meeting.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ???????????
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is quite unclear how four additional members of the General Council were elected; therefore it seems that an overall explanation of the whole procedure and the list of the GC members eligible to vote should be presented.
> > > > > 
> > > > > * * *
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks in advance and warmest regards,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Keith,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for giving us the opportunity to ask questions regarding the General Council sessions this winter. I think among all the innuendo there were only two points which cause concern:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1) Did the Indian Section get an extra week to collect the votes in the election for the TS presidency? (If you don't have an answer for this one, because it's about things that happened before your time as secretary - I understand that)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2) Was the election of the Vice President influenced by Radha Burnier keeping the representative of the South African section out of the General Council Meeting? [I fully understand that electing John Algeo was not a workable solution, but still, it would be nice to know there were no irregularities to the vote.]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Katinka Hesselink
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > http://www.allconsidering.com/
> > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>