Theos-Talk Archives (March 2010 Message tt00000)

Hi all,

Two members who don't want to post here, contacted me privately after I wrote the below. I don't think they'll mind me summarizing what they wrote here as well. 

It turns out the Brazil section has a very involved election process for it's general secretary. The board is appointed by the general secretary.

The General Secretary is elected by the regional board. The regional board consists of representatives from the lodges. These representatives are elected by the lodge members, BUT the national board decides who the candidates are. 

So this is not, by Dutch standards at least, a democratic process at all, though I'm told it's very normal for South American organizations. The problem is, clearly, that anybody who opposes the ruling family has no chance to get elected. So opposition has to either leave or hope that working through diplomatic channels might change things. 

The European situation is such that most sections are Associations, and as such the members directly elect the board. I'm sure about the Dutch Section, but I have no reason to believe the other European sections are any different. Please let me know if they are. This is also true, I think, for the American section.

Purely from a legal standpoint sections are independent from Adyar: Each section has it's own local legal format, and the only thing Adyar can do when sections don't adapt their rules and regulations enough to the international ones is to oust the whole section from the TS. This has happened in the past in Canada for instance. 

This also means that when a section decides to leave the TS Adyar, the International TS has no course in law to get the possessions of the local section. This too has happened in the past. Denmark comes to mind. The loss of libraries is of course most regretted by those who stay in the TS Adyar, despite their sections leaving the mothership. 

I've published a variation of the above on my blog:

http://www.moderntheosophy.com/2010/adyar-regulations/ 

As before, I welcome any information about local sections people are willing to give. I can be reached by email and on that blog. 

Katinka

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Spirituality" <mail@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
> 
> > 2. Autonomy of the Sections:
> > 
> > It is upto the section concerned as to how their constitutional structure
> > is, so long it does not violate the International Constitution. In Brazil
> > case, it is up to the member in Brazil how they elect their leaders and
> > neither the General Council nor the International President or anyone else
> > has any right to interfere with it.
> 
> Actually, all sections have to have their rules and regulations approved by Adyar. The Dutch section has gone through at least one such round since I joined the TS in 1993. Also - when the general council decides on a new rule for all sections, they have to implement it, or at least something sufficiently like it.
> 
> For instance: a few years ago the amount of time one had to be a member before being allowed in a board (of lodge or national section) was increased to three years. The Dutch section decided to implement that rule ONLY for the national board, not the lodges, as it would make our (usually very small) lodges unmanageable. 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm not being precise enough about these rules, but the general point is certainly correct:
> The sections are NOT completely independent. They have always been subject to the rules set out by 'Adyar'. 
> 
> Though of course local situations: laws and culture, have always also been taken into account. And generally speaking sections do have the freedom to organize meetings and magazines and publications and all that to their own liking. 
> 
> And let's face it: that's the kind of organizational stuff most people care most about. 
> 
> Katinka
>