Transparency or Secrecy, is it an either/or question?
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
( Read more... )
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.
The Order’s administration is trying to have it both ways. They want MOE members to take up responsibility to do things like run the local bodies, but they don’t want to claim they have responsibility because that would give them room to make demands of Grand Lodge. If you tell me I have the responsibility, by your policy, to achieve X, is it not your responsibility to provide the resources to achieve X? If not, then what you are doing is called an unfunded mandate. It is how US Congress members kill initiatives all the time. The OTO often gives out unfunded mandates and then holds local bodies accountable for them. (examples: renters insurance, Lodges need a rented space, etc.) If the bodymasters start complaining that they need changes in the order policy to effectively meet these needs, the line, “MoE, we takes no responsibility for the governing of our Order” quickly is repeated. The result? Grand Lodge can say they are doing all they can to improve things and raise standards but the local bodies are failing to meet those standards.
If Grand Lodge was genuine in its desire for results, it would give the resources it has to the members to use. However, USGL does not trust the members to use those resources properly. So we are back to square one. The MOE does not trust the administration and the administration does not trust the MOE. Who wins? No one. How do we get out of this? Baby steps. And the first step is to start introducing transparency and accountability as well as state principles and stand by them. It is not an easy road, but the future does not look that bright otherwise.
Reply
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.
Reply
In all this discussion it is easy to forget that which is going right. In all the EC meetings I have attended, I have been impressed with how it operates. The agenda is made and kept to, for the most part, and people feel free to discuss things as appropriate, people are respectful, most of the time, and the issues do get examined in a more thorough way. Also the EC President has always been very prompt in supplying the minutes to me when I was Agape editor.
It is actually the minutes I want to focus on. The minutes are a perfect example of disclosure. It lists important information coming out of the EC meeting. However I feel it is very incomplete. There is a lot more it could list. For instance everyone knows that the EC is responsible for approving entry into the 5th degree. Why not have a line item in the minutes stating “X number of people were considered for 5th degree and Y were approved.” This would do a number of things. First it would show the EC is actively carrying out its responsibilities regarding advancement. Second it would show the MOE that people ARE being advanced and also NOT advanced. This would show that people are rejected from advancement to 5th degree and it is not a given to be advanced. Another thing the minutes could list are initiatives the EC starts, finishes and the results. In Austin a few years ago there was an initiative to compile the version numbers of the forms for USGL. This is complete and is now on the USGL website. However it would have been a perfect opportunity to show some progress. First it gets listed as an initiative, when completed it is listed as completed and then put on the website and should have been submitted to Agape for publication because not everyone has web access. Are you listening Joe? There is content for the next issue!
Notice how the examples disclose the actions but do not violate the privacy of the individuals involved? It does not say who was accepted for 5th or rejected, just that this is happening. It does not say who is doing the compiling just that it is being done. These are examples of how transparency adds to the communication pool, shows activity and functionality but does not compromise privacy or secrecy.
When electors come and go from the college, for what ever reason, this should be announced. If there is something big decided it should be announced and explained. If there was a commitment to transparency then some mentalities have to change. Right now it is a mentality of secrecy. The baseline is nothing is disclosed and decisions about what SHOULD be revealed must be made. If a mentality of transparency were in place, the baseline would be everything is disclosed. Then there would be decisions about what SHOULD NOT be disclosed, why and how things can be disclosed in a way to protect the privacy of the individuals. It is a different mindset. Also if mistakes are made they should be disclosed so that people know the EC is responsive and will admit to mistakes. People are much more willing to follow a leader who is strong enough to admit mistakes than one who pretends things are perfect when they are obviously not.
I encourage you to discuss this with the other electors and especially the EC president. I have had related conversations and he has always shown me to be open and well meaning regarding this topic.
In regard to me volunteering, nothing I am saying is new except for the examples. I have been saying these things for quite some time privately. For the most part I either have to be very confrontational to get acknowledgement or I get ignored. By discussing these issues in a public forum it does two things, it is an inclusive conversation verses email which only has a few parties and second it is a prime example of transparency.
Thank you again for your comment.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment