Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00233)

Dear Keith,

It seems that we have come to the end of designed discussion and therefore I would like to thank you very much for your answers, in the name of all who have sent me a message of appreciation for the effort we made to clarify a little past events and in my personal name. There is now available a lot of material for thought and analysis and I will need some time to prepare an overview of what have been presented here.

But if you don't mind there is still one related question I would like to ask. Namely, there have been allegations made that membership records at Adyar are not reliable. Also, when I was analyzing voting results I found few minor discrepancies between the number of votes received and number of members eligible to vote. And finally, in your elaboration you mentioned how certain not updated records have to quite great extend provoked troubles and doubts regarding the regularity of election process. Therefore I would like to ask you the following:  Can you give us your estimation of the condition of the Society's membership records and the capability of the Headquarters offices to keep them updated?

And at the end I have one special request for you. Namely, there are probably many members who, like me, don't know all the activities which are going on at the Society's Headquarters, how many people take care for these activities, how they are engaged and paid and so on. Therefore, I kindly ask you if you can present us an overview in regard to these issues.

Thank you very much in advance and warmest regards,
Anton



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "keith_fisher@..." <exsecy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Dear Anton
> 
> There is nothing in the Rules and Regulations to invite observers 
> to the GC meeting and I am not aware of any standard that has 
> been set down elsewhere, but it is definitely by invitation only.  
> I was told unofficially that applications had to be in writing, in 
> the form of a letter to the President, who then makes a decision 
> on who will be invited to attend.  Only three of the applications
> passed through my hands, these were forwarded to the President's
> office, I presume that the other applications were made directly to
> the President.  I don't know what criteria is applied to them.
>   
> 
> In the election of Additional Members the General Council had 
> voted in a postal ballot, each of them signing their name on a 
> voting paper indicating which way they wanted to vote, this was
> the usual procedure established over many years.  Members are 
> asked to send their votes in by 1 December, and the result is 
> announced and confirmed at the General Council meeting on 
> 25 December.  Item 3(c) on the Agenda.
> 
> While this Agenda item was in progress, and after the results had 
> been announced, Warwick Keys tried to move a motion to discard 
> the voting by all General Council members and take another vote 
> with only those present at the meeting plus the proxies they held.  
> He argued that the postal ballot did not conform to Rule 2(b).
> 
> *****
> 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.
> *****
> 
> After a long discussion on the legality of the postal ballot, Warick Keys
> read out Rule 2(b) and said he would like to move "That that procedure 
> be followed".  The Chairman ignored his motion on two occasions and 
> continued with the Agenda item, which was a motion to confirm the 
> voting in the election of the Additional Members.
> 
> I never for one moment thought that this motion was on the floor and 
> reported it in the minutes accordingly.  A chairman cannot accept 
> another motion when one is already on the floor, and a chairman is 
> not obliged to accept a motion that is obstructive.  Furthermore, the 
> Chairman did not indicate acceptance of the motion by calling for a 
> seconder, or asking for clarification of the wording, which would have
> been necessary to make the motion intelligible. 
> 
> However, Warwick Keys was under the impression that the motion was
> on the floor, and he decided to withdraw it "in the interest of harmony".
> 
> In considering the legality of voting by postal ballot, which has been 
> established and accepted for many years, we need to consider the 
> logistics of the year in question.  The Agenda was sent out by email 
> and airmail on 25 September 2008, three months notice being given 
> in respect of voting for Additional Members.  Although members were
> asked to send in their votes by 1 December, the results were not declared
> at that date and remained confidential until the General Council meeting.
> The three months notice expired on 25 December 2008, the day of the 
> General Council meeting, when the votes were declared and confirmed.
> 
> Best wishes 
> Keith