Transparency or Secrecy, is it an either/or question?

[irenicspace]

Esoteric organizations face a daunting task in the future due to the changes in society. As societal norms change, individual expectations of organizations and the individuals in the organization change. This means that members, potential members and non-members alike will look at an organization and expect it to operate in a socially known way

Comments

[isomeme]

I don't consider OTO to be a "secret" or "occult" organization. To borrow a Masonic saying, "We're not a secret society; we're a society with secrets." Our initiation rituals are of course secret. Membership status of individuals is kept private. Beyond that, we're about as open as any organization out there. For my own Grand Lodge office I have adopted the slogan "Secret societies don't have websites." :)

As such, this entire issue seems to miss the point. The Order certainly has its share of problems, but excessive secrecy does not strike me as being one of them.

[omegabaphomet]

The Masonic saying "we're not a secret society, but a society with secrets" is used to mean that masonic membership is a public record. Each jurisdiction publishes their membership roster and makes it available for public inspection.

In fact, masons are specifically contrasting themselves with organizations, like the OTO, that do keep their membership rosters secret.

[isomeme]

I've seen it used to address other facets of their activities, but that's an interesting point to consider. Why should any organization publish its roster? Do (e.g.) Catholic churches or Elks lodges do so? What motivates the Masons to do this?

public roster

[paradoxosalpha]

The Masons do it as a defensive measure, after centuries of bad press for private meetings and secret rituals. In some countries, they have been required by the state to do so. In the US, freedom of association still permits organizations to keep rosters confidential -- the last I checked. (The relevant test case was the ACLU defending the Klan in Jarrell, Texas in the 1990's.)

[omegabaphomet]

What motivates the Masons to do this?

I'm not sure, but I've heard a couple of theories:

1) To neutralize anti-masonic sentiment with the "we are not a secret society" jingo.

2) To emphasize that masonry has a civic component, and thus have nothing to hide.

3) In fact, au contraire, to emphasize that masons should be proud of being masons, so much so that affiliation is a matter of public record.

4) To try and keep out criminals, etc., who might "hide" in masonry to transact conspiracies or what not.

[irenicspace]

Beyond that, we're about as open as any organization out there.I have to disagree with this Craig

[libertasetlux]

"...and the expectation of openness will continue to demand more access to and information from our senior leadership cadre."

Do you see this as potentialy creating a lack of trust in regards to the way lower degree brethren look apon those with authority?
Does our Order ever address issues of trust?

Also, I believe it should be understood, that as a MoE, we take little or no responsibility for the governing of our Order. I believe this is addressed in our constitution.

Please don't get me wrong, I'n neither writing this to defend HB's decisions nor to defend the higher ups. What I am attempting to communicate is that I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to educate themselves and even to consider their oaths before they take them.

I also feel that as long as our Order isn't adhering strictly to the structure of our constitution, these discussions are more than necessary, to say the least.
But I'm no Revolutionary.

[irenicspace]

Do you see this as potentialy creating a lack of trust in regards to the way lower degree brethren look apon those with authority?
Does our Order ever address issues of trust?

You bring up the subject of trust. Trust relates to accountability and that to transparency. So yes trust is an integral part of the problem. As I noted in this thread, MOE does have a say in things with its feet and it money. It is also pretty foolish to say that the MOE does not take responsibility for the governing of our Order. As long as bodymasters, deputy bodymasters, and initiators are in the MOE, they do take an active role in the governing body. Try being a 3rd degree bodymaster, ditching your body and defending the act with that line that you had no responsibility. See how far it gets you

[elqahar]

I think you make some good points here, John. The EC has taken some steps in recent years to improve our communications with the MOE. I'm sure there is still more work to be done.
Perhaps you could volunteer your knowledge and time to the EC President...say as an auxiliary officer. EC PR and Human Resources Manager? Or something like that.
I would like to add that in my almost five years as an Elector, I've yet to see our decisions based on personal affinities. In fact, many of us recuse ourselves on matters where we might be biased. Similarly, we often have to vote against the (say) promotion of someone whom we personally like a great deal. I've heard a lot of speculation over the years about the EC being "power hungry" and "throwing their weight around". But I simply haven't witnessed this, although we've made our share of mistakes.

[irenicspace]

Thanks for the comment! Of all the USGL bodies, I think the EC has made the most effort on transparency; however I think it can go much further as you indicate

[tristan_moore]

... Im coming to your house for dinner

[isomeme]

I believe that the combination such documents as Liber CXCIV provide a pretty clear vision and structural overview, and these are all on public view on oto-usa.org. Sabazius even went so far as to add a commentary to Liber CI explaining how our current goals and ideals differ from those stated by AC.

Let me turn this around: If you were OHO, how would you phrase a concise mission statement for OTO?

[irenicspace]

I believe that the combination such documents as Liber CXCIV provide a pretty clear vision and structural overview, and these are all on public view on oto-usa.org. Sabazius even went so far as to add a commentary to Liber CI explaining how our current goals and ideals differ from those stated by AC.

If Sabazius’ memorandum of Liber CI is a set of goals, than yours and my definition of a goal seems to be radically different.

Let me turn this around: If you were OHO, how would you phrase a concise mission statement for OTO?If you expect a meaningful mission statement to be pulled together as a response to this LJ comments then you clearly underestimate the complexity involved with creating a mission statement. I advise you to go out and read a book on it or at least google it and look up the process. Any good statement should minimally take weeks and go through many revisions and be reviewed my many other people who are stakeholders in the organization. Talk to Sabazius about this, I discussed this with him months ago and sent him a

[ashkosis]

I'm sure John can answer this more fully than I, but I can say this. One of the docuements that is not available, if it exists, is a list of measureable goals. In organizations, this is paramount. Sure, OTO has a bunch of vague, esoteric, unmeasurable goals (i.e. "securing the Liberty of the Individual and his or her advancement in Light..."). Actually, I challenge anyone to present a public (or at least easily available to initiates) document that contains any of the following

[irenicspace]

It seems you also fail to understand that adoption of transparent practices are needed by all organizations, from government, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. So regardless if the OTO is a secret society or not, that does not change the need for transparency.

Oops

[keith418]

The group is not transparent. Until it is, serious people will just not commit serious resources to it. This should be pretty obvious. I have talked to many members and leaders about this and many will admit the need for more transparency of the kind irenicspace is talking about. The reasons for admitting it are obvious. One of the reasons people do not trust the OTO with large sums and property is because it isn't transparent.

Unfortunately, transparency requires the leaders to give up on some power. They cannot hide their mistakes and missteps. But they will gain more power in the long run - and I think this is obvious. If anyone cannot see why, tell me and I'll lay it out. I worked for a non-profit for 13 years and I know what I'm talking about. No one will trust you with any serious resources unless you commit to transparency.

True, the OTO doesn't have to be transparent at all. It could, if it wanted to, be even less transparent than it is now. But is that wise? Is it really a bargain it wants to make? I think what we see going on now is