Governance & Structure Working Group

May 9, 2004 - minutes

Present: Tom Adducci, Brian Callahan, Joe Inskeep, Debbie McCubbin, Dan Montgomery, Esther Siebold, Arbie Thalacker, Jan Watson 

Declined: Jane Arthur 

We began our call by taking one step back to catch up, integrate and draw out the most important points we’ve heard/discovered in the interviews and documents so far. In a go-around participants offered the following points as most relevant:

1. The principle of mandala, rather than non-profit organization or church, is the most appropriate view of this interdependent living system.
2. We should try to tap the energetics of the mandala. This involves fully understanding underlying issues, rather than the “presenting problems” that appear on the surface.
3. The principle of partnership among entities in the mandala is critical. We should look for ways to strengthen connections between various parts of the mandala, and to build trust and mutual support.
4. The view of Sakyong and Court are central to this mandala and should be clearly articulated, as well as which administrative roles and responsibilities are held there.
5. We should explore the principle of the Sakyong. If the Sakyong is at the center of the mandala, what impact does that have on our mandala’s ability to embrace and support all the diversity? If church and state are not separate, can we fully promote open society?
6. Central services are key elements, but so are autonomy and responsibility for leadership throughout.
7. If government is the Man principle, we should look for ways for it to connect Heaven and Earth. How can governance facilitate the flow of information up and down, in and out?
8. The principles of connectivity, inclusivity, and simplicity are keys now.
9. Look for the least amount of structure that works.
10. The formal structures and roles are important, but perhaps more so are the qualities of the people who serve in those positions.
11. Central services are important, but equally so is participation and involvement in the fringe.
12. In tapping the underlying energetics, we should promote open exchange, so that points of resistance and conflict can find the light of day.
13. Designed models often are top-down, technical solutions. We should embrace the diversity that exists in this society by providing venues for differences of view and opinion. What are the simplest acupuncture points we can touch to free energy.
14. We should rely on the frameworks in the teachings, particularly the principles of Heaven, Earth and Man, the 3-Yana view of development to guide our models.
15. Our final product might be an interim step, the next relevant step, rather than a long term solution.
16. We should propose with the intent of impact and change. 

An energized conversation sprang up which centered on the role of the Sakyong. Points discussed include: 

On separation of church and state

• The separation of church and state is important. The Sacred Secular Government document seems to join church and state. If we present that as the underlying principle, do we fully understand the long-term impact?
• What are the questions we are asking? It is perfectly OK to be a member of SI and not regard the SMR as your personal teacher or guru. This question is different from whether the Sakyong has final word as Director of the First Class.
• The principle of mandala, according to the Treatise, leaves lots of room for inclusiveness.
• Individuals control their relationship with the Sakyong. And he controls how he enters into relationship with others. We might use words like “heavenly appointed”, but it doesn’t matter if there isn’t space for people to choose. But he is given Director of the 1^st Class designation in our governing charter documents. That’s just the way it is. 

On lineage

• Some people have concerns about the Sakyong and his role, but isn’t it a given that we are a mandala based on lineage? The issues don’t just revolve around the current Sakyong; we are also discussing a Lineage of Sakyongs.
• Students who studied and took oaths with the Druk Sakyong have concerns when core elements of his transmission are changed, for example, when the Vajradhara thanka is replaced or the School of Shambhala Buddhism becomes the central curriculum. In our mandala we should find a way to bring a lot of people into dialogue, or parts of people’s connection get excluded and it undermines the energetics.
• What seems like another undiscussable: there is something unsettling when an Acharya openly disagrees with what the Sakyong is saying. That occurred in our center.
• And when the Sakyong says something substantially different from what the Druk Sakyong said, that is unsettling for me as a student of the Druk Sakyong.
• In terms of an Acharya’s difference of view or opinion, if the underlying intention is exploring and presenting differences, that is one thing; if the intention is to undermine or express negativity, that is another.

Power and Authority

• These sorts of questions evolve in part from a dynamic in our recent history with the Vajra Regent. He was the lineage holder, so whatever he said goes. What are the implications of that final power and authority?
• We could try to delineate a little here. There are some areas where the SMR doesn’t have final authority. For example, I regard the Sakyong as my teacher, but if he told me to invest in a particular stock, I might say NO (laughter).

On transparency and openness

• A great deal of power and authority is invested in the Sakyong. To what extent is the role of the Sakyong discussable in open forums?
• We have to clarify the view and implications, at a minimum, in our work with governance. It is such a fundamental aspect of our “constitution”.
• We will put this set of issues on a list to explore further with Richard Reoch.

Next, we harvested key concepts which group members identified as criteria for designing recommendations for governance and structure. These concepts come from the recurring themes that keep emerging in interviews and documents. They will provide guidance in design and be criteria against which to test recommendations.

Criteria for design

1. Let everything flow from a set of overarching principles of enlightened governance.
2. Simplicity is a foundation.
3. Design for connectivity and communication.
4. Design to promote inclusiveness and participation.
5. Identify the core central services around shared needs.
6. Organize around energy and competence where it exists, rather than focusing on a geographical center for leadership.
7. Design for partnership across the mandala.
8. Design to encourage the social competencies that foster participative, learning communities.
9. Design for efficiency and cost effectiveness.
10. Design for practical organizational effectiveness, the business basics.
11. Incorporate the frameworks of Heaven, Earth and Man, and the 3-Yana approach.
12. Present recommendations in two forms: a high level report for the community; a document of greater detail for central office use.
13. Recommendations should express heart and values, rather than feeling technocratic.
14. Identify areas of high risk: for example, where one loan default could jeopardize the entire mandala.

Next Steps  

1. First, we decided the workgroup as a whole will make a first pass at developing the overarching principles of governance (Governance Objective #1) in the first hour of a conference call scheduled for May 23^rd, at 5pm EST. These will be reviewed and refined before final adoption.
2. Second, we divided into sub-groups to do further assessment required for specific objectives. Sub-group work involves developing interview questions, conducting interviews (or gathering other data), organizing the findings, and presenting them to the larger group. Progress reports and discussion on this is scheduled for the second hour of the May 23^rd call. The groups formed as follows:
   1. Arbie Thalacker and Esther Siebold will take responsibility for Governance #2 and Structure #2, since they are linked.
   2. Dan Montgomery and Brian Callahan will take responsibility for Governance #3.
   3. Debbie McCubbin, supported by Jan Watson and Brian Callahan, will take responsibility for Structure #1. It is assumed that Jane Arthur will join this team.
   4. Joe Inskeep will provide coordination and support for the groups, and continue to expand our membership by inviting Martin Evans, Giovannina Jobson, Michael Carroll, Jane Stevens and perhaps others to join our work. We will not conference during the weekend of May 16^th, so all communications will be by email or individual calls.

We concluded with the dedication of merit.