Governance and Structure Workgroup

Minutes from 5.23.2004

Present: Debbie McCubbin, Joe Inskeep, Michael Carol, Dan Montgomery, Esther Siebold, Arbie Thalacker, Jane Arthur, Brian Callahan

Regrets: Giovannina Jobson, Jan Watson

The first half of the call was a first discussion of the overarching principles of governance. We did a go-around so each member could offer ideas, and then had a group discussion on what we’d heard.

The second half of the call was focused on discussion about setting up sub-groups to work on specific objectives.

Principles

Each participant presented their ideas on principles of Shambhala Governance.

Member:

• First I value a firm infrastructure for accountability and authority. How are people held accountable? Who has authority, how and when is it used.
• Who has accountability in relation to outside authority, for example: law and taxes. We had a local scam involving money where there might have been legal liability for a member. We should ensure fiduciary responsibility, reporting relationships and fundraising.
• Second is mandala principle. My experience is that mandala principle is conservative, it is hierarchical. Mountain, with a top. Mandala principle is actually more conservative than we recognize or discuss.
• There should be a firmly established method for grievances. Negativity is often over-amplified. If we could manage mistakes through a process, so it doesn’t get over amplified and kidnap the agenda.

Member:

1. A statement that the principles of governance should both reflect and promote our Shambhala vision for an enlightened society.
2. A statement that defines the principle of mandala. What are we governing: a mandala, a society, or an organization, a church?
3. A statement of principle which expresses the view we hold of the individual: that we view and respect all members of society as having basic goodness, individual insight, personal competence, and self determination. 
4. A statement of principle of the role of monarchy in our governance.
• This principle could express the place of the Sakyong lineage.
• We might offer a view of the principle of monarchy as we understand it in our mandala.
5. A statement of the principle of participatory process in our governance.
• We respect and value the role participatory governance plays in building social vision, social competence and social involvement.
• Participation is not voting, it is not deciding, but it is having an active, respected voice in the process of governance.
6. Principle of earth. The earth decides what sustains it, what nourishes it.

(This #6 is added from a conversation which occurred outside the conference call.) A principle that affirms leadership, natural hierarchy, vertical leadership.

That is, within the larger context of appropriate consultative participation, leaders make decisions. That is what they do. Join heaven and earth.

7. (This #7 is added from a conversation which occurred outside the conference call.) A principle stated in relation to loyalty and devotion. In the name of such things egregious behavior can occur. Individuals are responsible for their behavior, for the choices they make, for the safety and well-being of others. Loyalty and devotion do not mean you abstain from the social and individual responsibilities of responsible action.
8. We value the principle of the open exchange of information in relation to policy, decision making, culture and accountability. Such openness builds trust and participation.

In certain circumstances, openness could obstruct the exchange of information. In such cases, confidentiality may be valuable.

9. A clear separation of the Buddhist church and governance of Shambhala International, separation of church and state, allows various religious persuasions to more freely and openly participate in Shambhala society.
10. We wish to preserve the unified identity of Shambhala International as well as encourage appropriate local autonomy as offering communities opportunities to develop social competence and involvement.
11. Including differences is an expression of openness and confidence in society.

Member

• Participatory involvement
• Transparency
• Inclusion, but clear boundaries about what we can and can’t do. More support for these mental health situations.
• The principle of leadership as service, rather than control or managing.
  

Member

• Notion of holding paradox. The principle there is that you acknowledge differences, and there’s always an element of chaos and order both. Don’t struggle to resolve paradox. Doesn’t mean not paying attention to business and caring for detail.
• The Chaordic Commons website has a set of principles. One is: “Cannot be managed, can only be led”. This accommodates the monarch who doesn’t manage details.
• Another is “Powered from the periphery, unified from the core.”
• Allowance for diversity.
• Respecting the individual. That’s a big one. Talking circles are powerful: the person has space to speak from the heart and then listen fully.
  

Member

• Clarify organizational structure. Mandala is different from conventional structures. Clarify mandala and how does communication occur in such a system.
  

Member

• Likes Joe and Dan’s comments, plus Michael’s concreteness.
• Governance involves partnership of the various elements of the mandala, particularly in North America and the center.
• Cannot be managed, only be led, resonates completely with me. All these centers are different, and our cultures are different.
• Powered from the periphery, unified from the core.
  

Member

• Serves the promotion of society. If it’s all sowed up, we’ll put a lid on society. Promote a societal view.
• Needs to promote training and succession planning, so that whoever is coming along has a shot at succeeding and has the tools. Could be mentorship or some other.
• Needs to promote connections, so that the parts don’t feel their operating for themselves, but they see the connections and see how actions affect the whole mandala.

Discussion

• Related to Dan’s memo, two things. A principle that takes one beyond opposites. Something in my training that says secular actually includes everything. Secular means the entire city of Rome. Go beyond secular verses sacred: this is a principle of mandala.
• What’s the scope of the organization that we’re governing? We can’t presume to visualize the whole world, what is within the walls of this Rome. That’s a really important issue. We need a principle that addresses that. What are the practical boundaries?
• Mandala: Rome’s mandala was the city of Rome plus the distance you could fire an arrow from the wall.
• Moving from the center managing to the center leading. That’s the transition we are in.
• The fringe has to be supported.
  

So, what are the critical issues in all this?

• How to define the mandala, including the boundary.
• Partnership amongst the inhabitants.
• Powered from the periphery, unified from the core.
• Cannot be managed, can only be led.
• Practical also, need to pay attention to details, and legal issues. The attorney general is paying attention to this too.
• That’s where my mind is, the fundamental issues of structure and legal concerns, and a basic infrastructure of accountability. Do we know our liability? We have to behave in a certain way to govern ourselves.
• I enjoy the principles, but we do need to come down out of the clouds and answer the questions about what are the bounds that can address the practical and legal issues as well. The fundamental 3 Yana journey keeping a clean house, being accountable, dealing with sexual harassment and so forth. We need to balance that with local autonomy.
• In terms of governing principle, we are preserving and cultivating and passing on a tradition. That’s happened for centuries. We have an obligation to the future practitioners. There should be some acknowledgment in governance of that.
• Joe, I wouldn’t be adverse to you organizing principles and cutting out tactics.
• Yes, take a good shot at it and we can react.
• Yes to that also.
• We need a parking lot for tactical things also. So separate tactical from principles.

The group agrees that for the time being, we will not work on Principles.

Member

In our sub-group, we’re going to be working with Centre Directors: what support do they need from Central office, what are the real priorities. We’ll start there, and think later about the “how”. Our assessment questions are not nailed down, but they are being discussed. It might be that we are going to do practice centers also.

I sent out 20-30 emails to centers who are not often heard from, inviting them to participate.