Mandala Governance and Structure
June 27, 2004
Present: Tom Adducci, Jane Arthur, Debbie McCubbin, Dan Montgomery, Arbie Thalacker, Joe Inskeep
Absent: Brian Callahan, Michael Carroll, Giovannina Jobson, Jan Watson
The agenda focused on reports from the sub-groups.
Membership Group
The first group reporting is the membership group. This group arose in response to developments in the mandala over the last few years. On the one hand, the central government has had a period of diminution, while at the same time some local entities (from city centers to organizations like the Shambhala Sun) are developing their own autonomy. The question is: how to provide a container that balances the needs and benefits of local autonomy and maturity with the need to maintain a coherent, identifiable international mandala centered on a shared vision.
Participant (P): There seems to be a convergence about views on governance. The basic membership model seems to align well with the New Economic Mode (nem) group. In terms of central governance structures, the Court is represented through President Richard Reoch (PRR), and there is a larger, more representative group contemplated in the Governing Council and Board. It is laid out briefly in the Structure Group’s Model A that will be presented to the Mandala Governing Council in July. Model A made more sense to me than Model B because it has the larger representative element that seems to be important at this time in the mandala.
JI: On this SI Membership/Partnership model, is there any overlap with Mary Whetsell’s membership group? She is mainly discussing an individual, a single person’s, membership in Shambhala International. We are focused on what rights and responsibilities an organizational entity (a city center, a practice center, the Shambhala Sun, Naropa University) might agree to in being a member and partner in a thriving, healthy international mandala.
Particpant: Yes, we should check for how our groups interface, if at all.
Participant: We say membership when you look at the issue from Shambhala International’s perspective (ie., entities are members, can use the Shambhala name, would uphold key elements of Shambhala vision and path, might offer monetary support, etc). It looks like partnership when we view it from the perspective of the local center. In other words, local centers are partners in this work. They have a role to play in its vibrancy, and an ownership in and participation in its success.
We’re at a place of identifying rights and responsibilities. Alex Halpern has agreed to work with us. He is going to put a list of issues we’ll need to address. We’ll also want to coordinate with Denny Robertson from NEM group to work in parallel.
Questions
P: Is anyone else besides Alex setting the questions? Can we broaden the conversation?
P: We’re thinking of using Alex to help develop a draft document to get us started, and then we’ll get input from a variety of sources.
P: The NEM group’s been getting lots of input on this area. It impacts on the financial model. Alex’s model’s been discussed a lot, and there’s lots of support for it.
The Review Group
This is the first report to workgroup members about the Review Group.
P: There are 58 people that originally signed up in the group. The Shambhala web preparation was delayed, so I went ahead and organized the first calls and sent out the objectives to the review group members. Then I sent a reminder call when I noticed that the minutes were posted. We scheduled 2 calls; one weekday, one weekend. Only 2 people called in for the Wednesday call, none for the weekend. I want something concrete to put to them before I schedule another.
P: Yes, they need some concrete reason to come on the call, it’s true. We don’t want to be a closed system.
JI: Can we give the Review Group the same output that we’re giving to the Mandala Governing Council? We could send that out to review on about the 7th or so, and then schedule review group calls some 2 weeks later, on about the 21st-25th?
Outcome
Call one: Thursday, July 22nd 8 EST. Members present: Esther, Jane, Tom.
Call two: Saturday, July 24th, 4:30 EST. Members: Debbie and Arbie, maybe Dan.
Esther Siebold, who is chairing the review group, will set up the calls and the invitations.
Arbie Thalacker and Esther Siebold
Mandala Structure subgroup
Member: Let’s talk about the document our sub-group prepared. We are just at the first stages of the work and a document. So far, we talked a lot about court principle, the Druk Sakyong’s view and SMR’s view. They’re different.
On Court
JI: You use the name President Richard Reoch in the document, instead of simply President. Why not just allude to the position, since the people in positions change over time?
Member: That’s an interesting question. PRR says he’s in for 5 years or so. This particular plan we’re thinking about is probably idiosyncratic to his involvement. Next iteration may not at all the same. A lot of what’s here comes from intimate conversations with RR. SMR wants to step back to practice/write, and we don’t know what’s going to come later. When Richard leaves, this may all have to look different.
Member: We don’t want to get too codified. There is a lot of room for growth and change.
JI: Maybe we should just say that simply in the document. Why not, if this may change after PRR’s term?
Member: Yes. It says what we are thinking and also signals constant openness to change.
Member: The document says the court is wherever the SMR is. I don’t agree necessarily. The Court emanates whether the SMR is there in person or not.
Member: He doesn’t want a solid court, he wants to move and have the court move along with him.
Member: Well, we have inner and outer court. Even Shambhala Centers should have a court presence. Outer court is the physical manifestation.
JI: You say here that only SMR and PRR are in the Court.
Member: PRR said the SMR has actually suspended court vision for the time being. The words were: "The detail of Court Vision is in abeyance". For the moment, that’s in suspension.
On Board and Mandala Council
Member: There are two models because we’re trying to balance board functions with representation. In model A, the focus is on lots of representation, particularly from city centers and practice centers. Then from that group, we are hoping that a few Council members have specific skills sets for a formal board.
In model B, the Board is the higher body, and the representative aspect is less formed. So for city and practice centers to get representation there has to be more emphasis on effective regional organization.
Michael’s view is model B is more functional from the point of view of organizational effectiveness. AT sees the representation and regional view of model A as addressing current representational needs in the mandala.
In model A, the Mandala Council governs on everything except the hard financial and legal issues of a classic board.
Member: These are good starting point, but my concern is when I talk to Center Directors, they are exhausted volunteers. If there are Mandala Council meetings for local Shambhala Center leaders beyond their own jobs, people get too stressed and performance falters. And you’ll get a stratification of centers that can marshal more people, pay staff. How do we foster more centers to have paid staff? You just can’t have the center directors be on the council as well; it’s just too much.
Member: We thought of having a separate board first, made of individuals not on the Governing Council. But you don’t want your key Board members to be out of the information loop. Board members need to be on the Council as well.
Council Structures
This area refers to other Councils such as the Acharyas, the Council of Warriors, the Youth Council and so forth.
JI: Is there a sense of where these councils connect or report, what their relationship is to the mandala governing council?
Member: I didn’t think this was part of our workgroup, really. I’m not sure we should be trying to focus on these various councils. We need to deal with the Board, the court, the congress, the governing council, and central administration.
JI: These kinds of councils somewhat float out in the larger space of the society. They come up in order to express specific constituency needs and perspectives or as containers for specific bodies of knowledge (Arts or Council of Warriors). They need to be acknowledged, and maybe we should think of how they are tied to our other governing structures. It’s not quite like they report to any group. They are just out there, fulfilling their own missions.
Member: The purpose and function of these groups needs to be better defined and communicated.
Member: Some of these need to be on the Board, but at some point, you could get the energy and focus diverted by the special-interest nature of these aspects of community.
Critical Tasks and Services
Member: We sent out a survey to leaders asking them what services they most needed from outside their local centers. We had 28 responses to our survey. I’ve done some analysis, both weighted and unweighted.
Here are their priorities, from the highest down.
- teacher and MI training
- sharing of best practices between centers
- more visits from SMR and Acharyas
- marketing materials and publicity
- the help desk
- ongoing curriculum development and support (without Carolyn that might have been higher)
- updated procedures manual
- central database
- new curriculum for everyday life
- curriculum for tantrikas
We should recommend regular, perhaps annual, assessment to see if members feel the priorities should change. These should not be cast in stone.
Let’s recommend that we implement the top two or three really well, and then move on to the next several.