Democratizing NPOs and Churches - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > Democratizing NPOs and Churches
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Should Free Registered User (4/13/02 2:36 am) Reply ezSupporter	Democratizing NPOs and Churches Written on 04-12-02. Please forward. Let us create awareness -- Thanks Democratizing NPOs and Churches Do you know why NPOs and churches have a board of directors? Board of directors in corporations for profit give fair representation to shareholders who are in minority. If you own only thirty three percent of a corporation you have the right to designate one third of the board members to represent your interests. Is this a smart system? Perhaps; but what about NPOs and churches? They do not have shareholders, so there is no compelling reason for these type of organizations to have a board of directors. In NPOs and churches, when a board member dies or resigns, the board replaces him /her by the approval of its majority. In other words, NPO’s board members are elected by NPO board members! Often, potential candidates are presented to the board by the CEO. In this way -- which is unethical -- the CEO increases his/her influence in the board and secures its job. This system is not democratic in nature, in fact, it is oligarchic. People with influence and money are more likely to be selected by the board. To be a board member is a prestigious position. Often board members are volunteers; they are not paid. However, the position gives them abundant prestige, business contacts and eventually... money. Additionally, board members often get a free lunch once a month in a prestigious country club.” So, this positions are about prestige, power and culinary experiences. Few are the board members who are really committed to the organization and willing to put extra effort to help it attain its goals and mission. Making use of their contacts and influence in the community, board members should -- in theory -- do fund raising for the organization. However, often this is not the case, and they are most interested in enjoying the prestige and of course “the lunch at the country club.” In churches the situation is not oligarchic but even worse -- theocratic! Again, board members choose the new board members, over and over. Church’s members (devotees or whatever) and its employees have nothing to say in regard to the administration of the church. The power is concentrated in a theocracy that self feeds itself over and over. As we see, although we live in a democratic country, when it comes to NPOs and churches, democratic principles are simply brushed off and “conveniently” ignored . However, democracy would work wonderfully in NPOs and churches because such organizations have no shareholders or ownership of any kind. In fact, democracy is the only fair way to run a non profit or a church after the founder is gone. As long as the founder is in charge, the power should rest on him or her. However, after he/she is gone such power should be shared democratically among the people that are most interested in the well being of the organization -- its professionals, employees and workers. Furthermore, the present system breeds serious abuses to the employee, and those in power can often stay there indefinitely, even if they are doing a poor job. The present system violates the spirit of the constitution of the US and the most cherished values of this country. I have worked a good part of my adult life for NPOs and Churches, and I have witnessed abuse of power over and over. A democratic system to elect the CEO would put an end to this shameful situation. If the CEO is elected by the organization’s employees he or she will be careful not to abuse its people. CANDIDATES Anyone should be allowed to apply for candidateship. However, candidates should be approved by a government NPOs regulatory entity. This entity should have specific prerequisites for candidates -- college studies, years of experience, seniority etc. WHO SHOULD VOTE In NPOs should only vote those people working for the organization and active donors contributing with money or goods. Employees work eight hours a day, five days a week, year after year, for the benefit of the organization; for its goals and mission. In the name of fairness, they should elect the CEO, and not strangers (board members), whom for the most part are disconnected from the organization. I work in a mental health clinic. In this organization board members are real state people, lawyers, accountants and so on. Although the institution has been in serious financial difficulties for years this people refuse to do fund raising. They know little or nothing about mental health, but they do know about prestige and their culinary monthly pleasures at the country club. This may sound socialistic but it is not necessarily so; it is just common sense. In fact, I have been a republican most of my life and lately I have drifted towards the Democrats for obvious reasons. I have always had a deep dislike for communism and socialistic, bureaucratic ideas. However, in the case of NPOs, although power should obviously rest initially on the founder when he or she is gone it should go to the employees and donors. Any other alternative goes against basic democratic principles. In regard to churches the members of the church or congregation should vote and choose the CEO. Employees should also vote of course. MAXIMUM PERIOD The CEO should last four years and then could be reelected for a second four years period. After that, the CEO should be replaced by a new individual. I have seen an NPO’s CEO becoming entrenched in her position after sixteen years in power! Although she is obviously doing a poor job there is no way to remove her. Limiting the time to four years, and to a maximum of eight years with reelection, is a basic democratic, sanitizing measure. Let us look at my church for example. I’m an active member, and have donated considerable amounts of money and time to this church throughout more than twenty years. However, a new CEO has been recently elected by the board of directors and I had NOTHING to say about it. The same is valid of course for thousands of dedicated members all over the world who are being imposed a new CEO. Personally, I would have never voted such a conservative individual. I would have voted a creative person, with the courage to challenge old, outdated dogmas, and with the communication skills to convey old ideas in a modern, meaningful language. So, who chose that individual? The board of directors. This is theocracy at its worst! Under the present regulations such board will continue self electing its members and imposing their CEOs endlessly. Whatever the members of the church think or feel simply does not count. Is this democracy? This is happening in our country, which we have always considered “the champion of democracy.” If you have power to do something about the issue presented above, please help --that our beloved country may continue to be proud of such label.
username Registered User (4/13/02 7:22 am) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches unlike npo where the IRS and state agencies can come in and regulate or close them down if they get really out of hand, churches are not so regulated. According to the IRS, it is up to CHURCH MEMBERS to regulate the church. That must be why abusive churches resort to brainwashing their members. Pay attention to the Catholic Boston Archdiocese. Lay members are calling for the resignation of the Cardinal. He doesn't want to step down. Watch what happens when the donations stop. He will step down then.
redpurusha Registered User (4/13/02 7:04 pm) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches Should Free, I also have thought about the most efficient and ethical way to govern a church once the founder is gone. In the case of SRF, the second president (Saint Lynn) and the board of dir. was chosen by Yogananda himself. He chose those who he believed would be best for the work as guided by the Spirit. I don't think anyone here has a problem with this. But later after he was no longer around, Daya Mata was chosen by the board after the most senior disciple Durga Ma had declined the position. I've also read here that Dr. Lewis was 'upset' about the outcome or something like this. Can anyone of you guys tell me when or if did P. Yogananda institute the procedure of electing the president of SRF? and what kind of procedure exactly did he institute? (if he did not then who did?) We know that in the ideal understanding of the society it is God who is the president (since Daya Mata or whatever the president at the time, is fully guided by God's will). But in everyday terms there has to be someone living representing the leadership of the society. I've never personally met Daya Mata or even heard her speak or read any of her books) So the most I can go by to understand her character is by the procedures and direction the society is going. (I can't really get any real impression of her by the seasonal letters). My perspective is that she is no better than the other long time disciples of P. Yogananda. She could be a great disciple and she has my respect for her efforts to maintain masters legacy but I don't see her as being some leader who stands out. P. Yogananda said that "truth cannot be voted into existence" basically saying that it is not democratic. So, if we go by the idea that a most democratic society is the best society then we are making a mistake, no matter how noble our democratic constitution is. Then who is supposed to make that decision -who else but the almighty God or one of his representatives (such as Master). But what if the Master is gone, then what? Then the best option is democratic elections. Your writings (Should Free) try to figure out the best way to set up those elections and who is to be included. I personally don't have a problem with the board (originally elected by P. Yogananda) electing the president and other members, but my concern is how is it that at the time of P. Yogananda the board was so diversified with both monastic and householder disciples, men and women (truly representing all the disciples worldwide) and now it is all monastics and some 7 women and 2 men? Did P. Yogananda want this? Can you guys tell me if Yogananda wanted only monastics on the board and also that the presidency would be for life? I can accept that the presidency of P. Yogananda and of his personally chosen second pres. (St. Lynn) is for life, but the presidency thereafter, chosen democratically by the board, being for life is what I question and disagree with. I believe to have a most efficiently running society there should be a limit on the lenght of the presidency and also a way for the board to vote down a president if she/he is not acting to the benefit or best interest of the society.
Spirit88 Registered User (4/13/02 9:21 pm) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches This is interesting. I liked the quote: "Additionally, board members often get a free lunch once a month in a prestigious country club.” So, these positions are about prestige, power and culinary experiences. The power leaders have is quite profound when you realize they have the power to remove people from the organizations. I have had a few positions of power and it's amazing how differently you are treated once you have power. Many religious groups seem to equate power with spiritual development. That is, those with higher positions with more power are believed to be more "spiritual" or developed than those with lower positions and less power. Other religious groups and philosophies teach a high position in the religion is meaningless as far as judging spiritual development goes. Their teaching is the newest member may be more advanced than the leader. I would think the philosophy the religious group has about this would determine somewhat if they could use a more democratic system of rule or not. If the group equates leadership with spiritual development, they would probably never go to a democratic system. If the leader was seen as more of an administrator and not a Master, then the group could probably go to a democratic system. Edited by: Spirit88 at: 4/13/02 9:25:56 pm
username Registered User (4/14/02 7:14 am) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches To: Red purusha Do you believe that the Catholic Pope is infallible? And that all the decisions they have made over the years were exactly what Jesus would have done? So, now, do you believe that Daya Mata is infallible? And that all the decisions she has made over the years are exactly what Yogananda would have done?
redpurusha Registered User (4/14/02 9:51 am) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches Username, I don't believe neither the pope or Daya Mata is infallable. I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly, I said in an ideal situation the society is guided completely by the will of God, but that is not the case. I think Daya Mata does her best (has best intentions) for the direction of the society, but I disagree with some of things SRF is doing with Masters work. I love the pope, I'm sure he's a great and intelligent guy. He has his own agenda to run and he knows what he's doing and I think he knows he's not infallable.
chuckle chela Registered User (4/16/02 4:35 pm) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches Now this is an interesting topic. How compatible are SRF and democracy? After reading all the stuff on this board, and based on my own observations, I don't think it's likely we'll see democracy practiced in any form at Mother Center any time soon. But here's the irony. Master--at least, as he's portrayed by SRF--is a great lover of democracy. He comes to America, valuing our Constitution, our freedoms, our innovation and "can-do" spirit (made possible through democracy). He idolizes our leaders such as Washington and Lincoln; he idolizes American writers such as Emerson and Whitman, both staunch advocates of both democracy and the integrity of the individual. He has his own somewhat rebellious nature, repeatedly flaunting organizational fiats and minutiae in favor of the spirit of openness, freedom, acceptance, spontaneity, and equality. And one would think that such a democratic spirit was still manifested in his organization. Alas, we see that this is not so. The BOD is not democratically elected and it rules the SRF kingdom autocratically. Because of the structure of the monastic order-which may well be unique among monastic orders in the major religions in the degree of its demand for unquestioning obedience-and the significant role given that monastic order in carrying out the wishes of the BOD for the SRF work, the chance for the development of democracy within SRF is limited. More than one minister has claimed that SRF is a theocracy, governed from 3880 San Rafael Ave. Indeed, it seems to me that the closer one is to Mt. Washington, the less chance one has of encountering any democracy in action within SRF. This leads me to chuckle's hypothesis of inverse democracy: "The closer one is, either physically or psychically, to the controlling influence of the BOD and the controlling mentality it represents, the less chance one has of seeing democracy in action. Thus, the amount of democracy practiced is inversely related to the distance from or control exerted by the BOD at Mt. Washington." Thus, we have seen that there is virtually no spirit of democracy at Mt. Washington, with the demand for unquestioning obedience from monastics and employees. The temples have somewhat more freedom in their operations, but even they come under the rigid control of the BOD. The meditation groups and centers have the greatest opportunity to develop and practice democratic principles. This is because they are not legally affiliated with Mother Center and also because guidelines from Center Dept. necessarily demand that group members work together in operating their groups and solving problems that inevitably arise (they're just not physically able to keep that close a watch on the groups and centers). Even meditation groups, as posts from rayuna and others have shown can sometimes function autocratically. This is not meant to be, if one examines the guidelines from Center Dept., but arises, I think, because of the ability of people with martinet-like personalities (devotees who get sucked into power and control trips and who think they know best or have all the answers) to exert an undue influence over a group. (Note that this possibility is covered in the hypothesis). It can be argued that SRF attracts people who are into exerting power, and one could probably make a good case that those who stay in SRF are more likely to accept the unequal power dynamics in the organization. A large part of the reason for the lack of democracy in SRF is, of course, because its operating principles are derived at least in part from the principles of the disciple-guru relationship, where the guru is the one with the knowledge and power and the disciple willingly accepts this fact for his own betterment. The leaders in SRF have assumed guru-like powers and postions of authority. Two comments may be made about this. First, it is not clear that this is a good or desirable thing-that the organization should be run on similar principles, and, second, it is not clear that the disciple-guru relationship is wholly undemocratic. One can make a convincing argument that operating the organization in an autocratic fashion based on the disciple-guru relationship does not offer optimal opportunities for spiritual growth for either those with the power or those without. This message board is filled with legions of stories giving support to this idea and, indeed, illustrating the harm that comes to the recipients: the monastics and employees and lay members who have suffered. Moreover, it is apparent that much current thinking in spirituality puts a premium on democratic principles, dialogue and questioning, equality, and inherent worth of the disciple/devotee . But what about this crazy notion that the guru-disciple relationship may be at least somewhat democratic? Consider these quotes, the first from Sri Yukteswar, the remainder from Yogananda: "If ever you find me falling from a state of God-realization, please promise to put my head on your lap and help to bring me back to the Cosmic Beloved we both worship." "Teachers who slavishly control their students after a dogmatic pattern destroy in them the power of free will. Such teachers want the student to see only as the teacher sees. Obedience to a true guru, however, does not produce any such spiritual blindness in the disciple. On the contrary, it develops the disciple's 'single eye' of wisdom and intuition whereby he may act wisely out of his own free choice." "[The guru] makes a spiritual soul-contact with the disciple that signifies: "Let our friendship be eternal, and let us help each other through incarnations until we are both completely emancipated in Spirit." The guru-disciple relationship is not wholly one-sided; sometimes an advanced disciple may help his guru." I seem to recall, too, that Master was not averse to disciples asking questions; indeed, there are stories of him discussing and debating topics with disciples such as Daya Mata and Dr. Lewis. Questioning is the basis of democracy. Moreover, Yogananda encouraged free thinking, critical analysis, discussion and dialogue, working together to problem solve. Has this spirit of democracy disappeared from SRF? It would appear so. One of the things that is unfortunate about this-aside from all the obvious suffering that has resulted on a personal level-is that SRF will lose relevancy in a world increasingly connected, increasingly aware that the principles of democracy-openness, equality of all members, dialogue and questioning, free and open elections-are vital in solving increasingly complex issues and maintaining increasingly complex societies. The attitudes and rigid practices of SRF leaders do not offer members the skills necessary in today' world. I suppose one might say that SRF could merely publish the books and Lessons, and not have much influence on society in general, and that is one possibility; then democracy in the organization wouldn't matter nearly as much. But it seems evident that SRF wishes to have a far greater role in the lives of its members and in the communities in which it is based. It is in these settings that SRF's theocracy is irrelevant, indeed somewhat dangerous, both as an example and in practice. But aside from this societal concern, perhaps it's okay for SRF to practice theocracy. It can be argued that it's an efficient means of getting things done, since there's no one objecting to anything or asking questions, and the wise leaders presumably have all the right answers anyway. But as we've seen in the "Obedience" thread and in numerous other postings on this board, this practice of concentrating all or most of the power and decision-making in the hands of a very few does not go a long way in producing mature devotees who manifest objective and critical thinking, who are given the best cognitive tools with which to make decisions in their lives; indeed, the outcomes for individual members can be rather negative since absolute power tends to corrupt and lead to all sorts of abuses. Moreover, there are no mechanisms in place to stop any abuses since questioning and whistle-blowing are not held in high regard but instead are rather actively discouraged. A final thought about democracy. As Winston Churchill said: it's a terrible form of government...it just happens to be better than all the other forms of government. One of the key elements of democracy is its recognition of the value and virtue of the individual. As followers of a spiritual teaching which recognizes that each individual is not only valuable and virtuous, but is indeed a child of God, it would seem to me that democracy would be a form of governance we would wish to institute at every opportunity. I make these points, not to be merely critical of my spiritual organization, but in an effort to understand the consequences of its actions. I'm told that SRF membership is not growing in North America, but that it is rapidly growing in South America and Europe. It will be interesting to see how long this growth continues. It could be that these people will be more in tune with the SRF climate than some of us democratic radicals in America; perhaps they're not so hung up on the individual and individual freedoms and rights. Then again, many South Americans have abandoned the Catholic Church because of its rigidities, or have embraced liberation theology that a number of Catholic theologians promulgated in South America; the same can be said of the Europeans. One wonders how long it will be before they discover the power structures in the organization. The possibility also exists that these devotees, if they form groups, will be much more democratic if chuckle's hypothesis of inverse democracy holds. It will be interesting to watch (although many of us may be long gone by then).
Should Free Registered User (4/17/02 2:15 am) Reply ezSupporter	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches I want to praise Chuckle Chela for his/her excellent posting. Every paragraph is great!. And perhaps , this is the best one: "But here's the irony. Master--at least, as he's portrayed by SRF--is a great lover of democracy. He comes to America, valuing our Constitution, our freedoms, our innovation and "can-do" spirit (made possible through democracy). He idolizes our leaders such as Washington and Lincoln; he idolizes American writers such as Emerson and Whitman, both staunch advocates of both democracy and the integrity of the individual. He has his own somewhat rebellious nature, repeatedly flaunting organizational fiats and minutiae in favor of the spirit of openness, freedom, acceptance, spontaneity, and equality." This issue about lack of democracy in SRF is central to its problems. We are really dealing here with the very core of the issues presented in this board. A theocracy based on "we know it all" is bound to make, sooner or later, serious mistakes. God will show them that they are not being humble.
aVulcanThinker Registered User (4/21/02 2:57 pm) Reply	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches As others have pointed out, there are many parallels between the situation the Catholic Church finds itself in, and the organizational reality of what SRF is like and how it is run. (For the squeamish out there: no, I am not accusing the SRF leadership of pedophilia. But their reactions to wrongdoing by those in authority within SRF, including themselves, follows the same pattern.) The following is from the March 11 issue of National Review. *Quote:* The news informs us that the vote in favor of Cardinal Law staying on in Boston is about 50-50. Those who are opposed to his resigning are moved by many motives, one of them, evidently, the sense that when the Church is attacked, one stands by the Church. The awful error here is that to stand by the Church precisely means to cause the defective prince of the Church to stand aside. John O'Sullivan, the brilliant head of UPI, got it exactly right in his column in the Chicago Sun-Times in which he said that the right thing for the Church to do here is to take seriously the word of Christ, that it were better for him who attacks the innocence of children if a millstone be tied around his neck and he be cast into the depths of the sea. This was written by William F. Buckley, Jr., who, among other things, is deeply and prominently Catholic.
AumBoy Registered User (4/24/02 2:49 pm) Reply ezSupporter	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches "In true democracy every man and woman is taught to think for himself or herself." --Gandhi
Should Free Registered User (4/26/02 1:18 am) Reply ezSupporter	Re: Democratizing NPOs and Churches Great quote Aumboy! Too much for SRF, isn't it"? People thinking by themselves? No way, that's too dangerous. Democracy? no, no! "We need sodiers, like the ushers!"
KS Registered User (4/26/02 5:53 am) Reply	Jonestown & Democracy at SRF? At Jonestown, at the Peoples Temple, the leadership was thought to be different than the membership, much closer to God. The membership allowed the Temple leadership to put themselves between them and God and took direction from them as if the leadership was divinely inspired. Bad things happen when we do that. www.csj.org/infoserv_grou...estown.htm When are we going to learn? When a leadership claims to be something better than we are that needs to be a red flag!
Should Free Registered User (4/29/02 2:27 am) Reply ezSupporter	It si all Sri Yuktesswar's fault I very much agree. We thought that the SRF Monks, were something extraordinary, that the organization was unique and pure. Were we young and naive! Unfortunately, or fortunately, depends on how we look at it, this world will contimue to be full of many naive young people. Is SRF really helping the world, or it is contributing, as so many organizations to create more frustration, anger, dissapointment, and pain? When I look at my personal life I see that I have received about 50% of positive things and 50% negative, during my long association with the church. I created a list of positives and negatives and they were about the same in number and in both groups there were some very significant issues. In the ultimate analysis, everything is the way it should be of course, but the relative perspective is also important to consider. Is SRF an organization that really helps the world? Would you donate money to SRF now, in order to help improve this world? How should a church or spiritual movement be then, to make sure that it is really a positive force in the planet? I challenge whoever wants to answer this question. Perhaps we could make a brain storming about it. How it should be a wise church, spiritual organization or movement? Perhaps true spirituality and organizations do not go together, and the right way to diseminate spiritual teachings is completley different. Perhaps Master was right and Sri Yuktesswar was having a bad extasis that day when he thought of creating and organization, to torture his disciple and also all of us.

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Core Issues -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.