Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00369)

Dear Keith,

You wrote:

>Although the circulated letters may be deemed unethical in some respects, I don't believe that any rule has been breached, providing no material was distributed with the voting papers and biographical data.<

How you then comment the following passages from the TS Executive Committee declaration on "Communications from the French and other Sections and a Lodge to their members":

>The Executive Committee members are of the view that the National Board of the French Section in issuing their communication dated 29 March 2008 to their members had acted wrongly and illegally. The official body should not have taken a position on the merits or demerits of candidates. The National Board of the French Section had violated Appendix B of the Rules which states that, apart from the voting papers together with the nominators' names and candidates' biographical data, 'other material concerning the candidates shall not be circulated'. Rule 10(e) specifies that the votes should be taken in accordance with the instructions in Appendix B.

>The Executive Committee also noted that there were communications in other Sections and a Lodge, notably the USA, Brazil and Singapore, where officers signing or writing in their official capacity had indicated preferences for one of the candidates.

>The Executive Committee was of the view that action could be taken to countermand the votes from the Sections/Lodge mentioned above and to direct repolling after suitable clarification had been sent to their members.<

Thanks in advance,
Anton


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "keith_fisher@..." <exsecy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Dear Govert
> 
> The analyses draws a completely wrong conclusion that 
> Rules and Regulations were violated by the letters which 
> were circulated, without giving any reference to the rules 
> which were actually violated.
> 
> The second paragraph of 1V/1 Rules and Regulations, 
> which is repeated again at V/1, is made up of extracts from 
> two different rules, placed together to completely distort the
> intention of both of the rules.
> 
> ***
> Other material concerning the candidates shall not be circulated. ...
> Other information may be included but must be factual and shall not
> contain statements of opinion or policy. The biographical data for
> circulation shall be drawn up by the Election Committee on the basis
> of the information supplied by the candidates, and shall be approved
> by the Executive Committee (excluding any candidates for election)
> before being issued.
> ***
> 
> The first line of the above is included in the following extract 
> from Appendix B(a) Voting Procedure for a Presidential Election
> 
> ***
> It shall be the responsibility of the General Secretary to ensure 
> that the voting papers together with the nominators' names and 
> candidates' biographical data in full are sent to each member.
> Other material concerning the candidates shall not be circulated.
> ***
> 
> It is clear this extract only places a restriction on material sent out
> with the voting papers, and does not relate to any other material.  
> I don't think any of the circulated letters breached this rule.
> 
> The rest of the paragraph is an extract from Appendix A 
> Biographical Data of Presidential Candidates
> 
> ***
> Each candidate shall submit to the Secretary biographical data 
> not exceeding two hundred words.
> The following information shall be included: 
> (a) date and place of birth (b) education (c) past and present 
> occupations (d) date of joining The Theosophical Society 
> (e) work done for The Theosophical Society.
> Other information may be included but must be factual and 
> shall not contain statements of opinion or policy.
> The biographical data for circulation shall be drawn up by the
> Election Committee on the basis of the information supplied 
> by the candidates, and shall be approved by the Executive 
> Committee (excluding any candidates for election) before 
> being issued.
> ***
> 
> This rule is only concerned with the information included in 
> the biographical data of the candidates, it does not relate to any
> other correspondence which would need to be approved by the 
> Executive Committee.
> 
> Although the circulated letters may be deemed unethical in 
> some respects, I don't believe that any rule has been breached, 
> providing no material was distributed with the voting papers 
> and biographical data.
> 
> Best wishes
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Keith,
> > 
> > Thanks you so much for taking the effort to clarify some of the issues around the 2008 GC Meeting that weigh on the conscience of any informed TS member.
> > 
> > One of the earliest issues was regarding the legitimacy of 'election letters.' I tried to make sense of it and posted my thoughts on this forum. Anton Rozman posted his analysis and concluded with a call for an independent inquiry into the election. Later, I added some more thoughts. 
> > 
> > My request to you is if you can comment on the proffered analyses in light of your knowledge of the by-laws and the accepted practices at Adyar. 
> > 
> > The 2008 PTS Election Letters
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/44374
> > 
> > Independent Inquiry into the TS Election
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/44582
> > 
> > Independent Inquiry into the TS Election
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/44590
> > 
> > Govert Schuller
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>