The heart of the matter...
In a recent post, ash93 suggested the creation of a position or committee within the OTO that would “hear, review, and make recommendations on grievances from members” of the MOE. ash93 states that the MOE members, when coming in conflict with those of the lovers or hermit triad often get the short end of the stick or the case gets whitewashed. ash93's solution
( Read more... )
As to your list of criticisms of specific problems we have faced: Yes, we have had problems. The ones you list are all very serious, and reflect badly on us. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find an organization similar to ours which does not have similar problems. This is no excuse, but it might adjust our evaluation of the degree of our misdeeds.
What's more, we are working our collective asses off trying to fix the problems we have. I myself misapplied my powers as an SGIG in a local situation recently, and was very properly and very quickly called on the carpet by a fellow SGIG who pointed out my mistakes and helped me work through scenarios on how I could have handled things differently. So I can vouch both for our making mistakes and our very real (and painful) mechanisms of self-correction, informal as well as formal. I see these mechanisms at work in every governing body of the OTO, in every office, in every successful local body. We may have problems, but we have fewer each year -- or so it seems to me.
As to your last paragraph, I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that we make disputes and their resolutions public. Nearly all of these involve extremely sensitive personal information which we go to great lengths to keep private. Indeed, our ability to act effectively is sometimes hampered by the need to maintain privacy, but privacy trumps other concerns. Do you really want an OTO where we publish a list of disciplinary actions, with civil names of those affected, in Agape?
In my experience, the leadership of the OTO stands behind its principles. These leaders are human, so they make mistakes, but (again, in my experience) they are working very, very hard to correct mistakes already made, and to avoid making the same ones again. Can you ask more of them (of us) than that?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
First, the OTO considers membership to be private. Without permssion from a member, we will not divulge their civil name, nor will we confirm or deny a person's membership if asked (except on a need-to-know basis within the Order itself). I have been trying to encourage a culture in which people use their civil identities in OTO work, but this remains a matter of personal choice, and many (perhaps most) members are strongly in favor of continued anonymity. Unless we stretch the definition of "need to know" quite far, this would preclude wide publication of dispute resolution information, even if it could be kept within the Order.
Second, a secure login system for members has been much discussed, but unfortunately it wouldn't do much to help this problem. If all members have acccess to the information, all it takes is one disgruntled member -- or former member who saved information to his local disk -- to punch a hole in our security.
I actually like the fact that we are discussing our non-secret policies and initiatives in public. This seems to be a sterling example of the transparency everyone is looking for. Why are you against it?
Reply
I wouldn't have any objection to having names blacked out, to protect the privacy of the people concerned. A system of pseudonyms could also be used. Those who need to know probably will have little trouble keeping up with who's who. And those without the need to know could still get to the facts of any given case. The privacy issue is not an insurmountable problem.
Personally, I think that this question is important enough in terms of membership trust in the governing bodies to go to pretty extensive lengths to make it happen. I'm willing to volunteer for the job, if my degree would make that feasible.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Friends-Only LJ is at best semi-public and I am significantly restraining from giving you graphic, detailed examples because it is semi-public.
Reply
My resignation was based more on a lack of this. If I had been explicitly told what was wrong, helped to fix it possibly -- things would have been fine. Instead much is hidden and decisions were made by Int'l officers before finding out all the details of a situation. This is what finally caused my 'loss of trust'.
What you describe sounds ideal, but unfortunately, rare.
Reply
It does not have to be if the people are committed to making a culture to the contrary.
Reply
However, complex issues require a lot of time and effort. In general terms I'd institute a culture of transparency, honesty and integrity. I would state the operating principles in which the order operated on unconditionally. I would consistently repeat them, make them the cornerstone of things like a vision, where the OTO should be on the next 1,2, 5, 10+ years. I'd clearly articulate the concrete goals to meet that vision, again on a time line, and institute ways in which we could gauge our success in meeting those goals, metrics. I would make sure that everyone within the organization knew what the principles, vision and goals are. I would institute programs that support the local bodies not leave them hanging or with unfunded mandates. I would use the resources of grand lodge to move those goals forward both on a local and grand lodge level. When conflicts arise I would make sure the parties within the conflict had good opportunities to present their position. I would not hide the fact that conflicts are happening. If officers were found to be inconsistent with policy and/or the principles, I would not hesitate to inform the necessary people, working with other determine an appropriate way to disseminate the information without unneeded embarrassment or public ridicule.
Those are the first few things off the top of my head. They would require a lot of work for a large number of people and of course the devil is in the details. ;) But the first step is to build a firm foundation, then a framework and then start filling it in. Initially I recognize a lot of people would leave the order, but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I do believe that the resulting framework would be one that would attract serious, capable and dedicated persons who would want to dedicate themselves to something meaningful and would be willing to put in the time, effort and money to do so. I see it all around every day so I see no reason why to OTO should be any different.
I don't doubt to try hard, but you are not trying smart. Everyone is acting in reactive modes. No one is addressing the underlying issues proactively. No one is looking at patterns. No on is asking why X event happened; not on the personal level, but in principle. When a person levels grand lodge, does grand lodge look at the merits? If grand lodge had a part in it, does it hold itself accountable or dismiss it as that person is a flake, loser, liar, [fill in label here]. Every time the OTO loses a long term member, it should ask why? The answer may be as simple as "they choose to become a Buddhist." OK, do what thou wilt. But maybe the answer is "the LBM abused their power and an SGIG was complacent." How does the OTO process this stuff to get the signal from the noise?
I am glad to see that you admit mistakes have been made. Why doesn't grand lodge? If the Vatican can apologize, why not grand lodge? And if grand lodge does decide to apologize, lets hope it is on a shorter timeline than the Vatican.
"Do you really want an OTO where we publish a list of disciplinary actions, with civil names of those affected, in Agape?"
I never said that. I said there should be ways of letting people know disciplinary action is happening and there are consequences for inappropriate behavior. It is called consistent, visible enforcement. Today it is inconsistent and when is enforced, it is hidden. What was the result with the Colorado situation? Was a member of Grand Lodge out of line? Was there disciplinary action? I am a member of the lovers triad and I don't know. For all I know the issue could have, to use the term of , been "whitewashed."
"In my experience, the leadership of the OTO stands behind its principles"
In mine it does not. It always depends on who the people involved are, when it happened, who knows and how will it look. Principles are NOT conditional.
"Can you ask more of them (of us) than that?"
Obviously I am.
Reply
Leave a comment