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

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 an unspoken argeement: "I will let you do what you want, as long as you don't demand that much from me." Think about it. Is this really how a serious and purposeful group gets going? Or is this an indication of dysfunction?

Re: Oops

[isomeme]

We've had this argument in various forms and forums for a very long time, and I doubt we'll settle it here. But to my way of thinking, OTO is quite transparent. Our financial reports are open for members to read, our governing bodies and officers are very much in the public eye, and most importantly individuals are not merely allowed but encouraged to get involved in running things if they feel they can contribute to the organization.

I just don't see the nefarious conspiracy that is so apparent to (some) others.

By Laws?

[keith418]

Why cannot non members see the by laws? Do you want me to post the reasons I was given? Now see if any other non profit group would buy that that ruling was an example of transparency.

I would challenge you to see if a non profit consulting group would look at the OTO's practices and see if they were transparent. Take it from me, they would not. Read John's post. Look at the links. He knows what he is talking about.

Oh, btw, is someone 9an OTO leader) using the fake name "Adrian Leverkuhn" on official OTO legally-related emails an example of transparency? I waiting for one of the Bishops to cop to just how stupid and embarassing that mistke was.

Re: Oops

[irenicspace]

I just don't see the nefarious conspiracy that is so apparent to (some) others.

This is a disingenuous characterization, I expect more from you Craig. However, there doe not have to be a conspiracy to require transparency. Transparency helps stop abuse of position (like that has never happened in the OTO right?) It increases trust (which seems to be lacking in the order by the way many a person), it increases productivity because information flows freely and increases communication. None of these things are part of a conspiracy, however they are positive benefits of transparency.

Re: Oops

[isomeme]

I'm sorry for the rancor, but these accusations aimed at OTO annoy me. Yes, just like every other organization in the history of humanity, OTO has experienced abuse of position, lack of trust, deficits in productivity, and miscommunication. We have also experienced stellar displays of ethical clarity, startling fidelity under fire, prodigies of exertion, and miracles of organization and coordination. We have good days and bad days, good people and bad people, good plans and bad plans.

We're human.

To say "the OTO should be more transparent" would not raise my hackles. To assert that OTO as a whole is somehow broken or incompetent pisses me off. Note that you do not do this in the same way as keith418, and more of my annoyance is aimed at him than at you.

Re: Oops

[tristan_moore]

Whoa.. I think that stuff like what John is talking about and even much of what Keith says, if taken objectively instead of subjectively, would really prove to paint a picture that would show one ways to cultivate that holy rose that we see as our beloved order. To allow it to grow. Brighter, prettier, and even more sacred.

I don't like to hear some of the things said about the order, but to be quite honest with you, when I see things like what I've seen in this thread, I am truly reminded that folks love the order enough to make these kinds of considerations and observations. Some of which are difficult to make. It takes individuals with the ability to step outside of their shells and emotions to do something like this that any person looking objectively would see is a good step in the right direction.

I dont think that I see personal potshots at the order, I see a group of highly intelligent brothers that are trying to improve it. If they didn't care about it, or if they thought the whole frikkin orginization was broken beyond repair (it takes no rocket scientist to see there are issues with it that are fixable), why the hell do you think they would waste their time with it?

We are all human, we all do make mistakes. That don't mean we can't evolve.

Re: Oops

[isomeme]

All well put and (more importantly) absolutely true. Still, attitude and presentation really do matter. If I say "I believe you have made a mistake", you are more likely to be open to my criticism than if I say "You've screwed up. Again. Just like I expected." I hear more of the latter than the former style from many of OTO's more vocal critics.

I myself have frequently and vocally criticized aspects of OTO policy and implementation. But I've tried to do so with the underlying assumption that everyone has good intentions and is working just as hard as I am to make things work properly. Right or wrong, that attitude helps people hear me rather than react to me.

Re: Oops

[tristan_moore]

All of us could use a class in bettering our communication skills.

"Nefarious Conspiracy"

[keith418]

I think I'd be less inclined to see problems the way I do if I didn't see so many people in denial about the OTO's problems. Frankly, no matter how bad the mistake, I don't feel like I can trust people in leadership to do anything but bend over backwards to cover it up, deny it, or spin on it to make it go away. In fact, I've been in the OTO for a long time and I have seen any number of stupid mistakes and errors. But you'd never know it from listening to some people. they act like there has never been a mistake at all - that all the leaders are faultless marvels of humanity.

You may disagree with irenicspace and I about any number of issues but we, and a substantial number of other intelligent people, have criticisms that we do not feel are being honestly addressed. For example, I have never seen one OTO leader (yourself included), for instance, renounce the "Adrian" issue and admit that it was an error. If it wasn't, why did we stop using that name? When they (and you) won't do that - why shouldn't we look at the rest of what they (and you) say skeptically?

Re: "Nefarious Conspiracy"

[isomeme]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not see denial; rather, I see people making mistakes and then trying to fix them. We're humans engaged in a big, complicated, and at times daunting project. If we weren't making lots of mistakes I'd suspect we were not taking on challenging enough problems.

What's more, when such mistakes are made, the people with whom I routinely deal admit them and discuss them. I have seen this especially in the Grand Tribunal, where we have been struggling to create a consistent, effective, and fair system of justice for the OTO. This has been a tense and error-prone process, with a lot on the line. Our continuous discussions about both failures and successes has been essential to the continuous improvement of the GT.

Finally, on the Adrian affair: Yes; if I understand what happened correctly, that was indeed an error. I believe I said so in another forum you frequent at the time this came to light; now I'm saying so again here. Others have, as well. Now, do we harp on this, or recognize that humans sometimes make mistakes, and try to learn and move on?

Again

[keith418]

I think people would "harp" less if they saw less spin. This is what irenicspace is talking about with transparency. I still know people that do not know for sure who Adrian really was. Rather than carefully consider the ramifications of that whole affair, you seem determined to play it down and move on. This makes me think you, perhaps, haven't really learned the lessons from it.

Leaders aren't forthcoming. They only admit stuff like this when we back them into a corner. I know other leaders who still will not concede that Adrain was a leader in the OTO - let alone who was using that fake name. And this builds "trust"? No, it doesn't. Big surprise.

Re: Again

[isomeme]

While I disagree on the importance of exhuming the sad Adrian affair, I agree in principle that increased transparency would be good for the OTO.

I am less interested in confessions of guilt than in sharing of information about current actions and future plans. An occasional "I screwed up" from los jefes would definitely be good for morale, however.

One Coverup, Two Coverups... More?

[keith418]

When people will not cop to problems that get the play like Adrian did, I wonder what else they are covering up? Is that unreasonable? Are people sorry about Adrian, or just sorry they got caught? How can we know whether we learned from that error or whether we just resent getting caught out in it?

Re: One Coverup, Two Coverups... More?

[isomeme]

That's why an occasional mea culpa would be good for morale.

However in that *particular* case I can see reasons why any official statement on the matter could quite conceivably make things worse for the Order as well as for the individual responsible. That's why I'm willing to let that one die.

We have to give our leaders some leeway for necessary secrecy, not only about what we are told, but about why we are or are not told certain things. That's the nature of any organization. Personnel decisions are the obvious example here, but there are many others.

As I believe you have been arguing, the key is to establish a record of transparency whenever possible, so that when you (rarely) invoke the need for secrecy, people are likelier to accept that there is a real need rather than a CYA exercise at work.

Again...

[keith418]

I disagree. I think that the Adrain thing illustrates systematic problems both in the issue itself and in the coverup. When my friends are told they are forbidden from revealing who Adrian really was, I think that this takes the OTO's secrecy, which should be sacred, and uses it to protect the leaders from negative consequences that they need to feel. the whole thing gives me a "bad feeling" - like the feeling you get when you worry you are being led over a cliff.