Governance and Structure Workgroup Meeting

June 6th, 2004


Present: Debbie McCubbin, Esther Siebold, Tom Adducci, Arbie Thalacker, Joe Inskeep
Regrets: Jane Arthur, Brian Callahan, Dan Montgomery, Jan Watson, Michael Carroll

The meeting centered on reports from sub-groups on objectives.

Report #1

Debbie:
We posted invitations to center directors for two conference calls. May 31st was first meeting, with another 10-14 signed up for June 12th. The focus of the conference call was for center directors to identify important services required from a central office. The 1st call was great. Center directors suggested things I didn’t expect.
For example, they want to identify best practices and share those between centers.
June 12th is the next scheduled conference call. After that second call we’ll make a list of all identified services, and then ask center directors to prioritize the list.
We will see if Europe and SA can organize a similar parallel process on their own. Jane will follow up on that.
At the end of this, all centers will have the opportunity to weigh in about priorities, and we’ll have a prioritized list of central services created by the centers.

JI: We might consider forwarding a recommendation that peer leaders meet regularly in conference call format to share best practices, identify issues, compare notes, strategize on buying power, etc. Also, the representation of many local centers is the key element in getting the right priorities identified.

Report #2

Second sub-group includes Esther, Arbie, and Michael Carroll. They are focused on the mandala wide structure and governing processes.

We recently met for 2 hours face to face with Richard Reoch. It was a great meeting.

We went over the background, view, vision, why there isn’t a more defined vision just yet. We discussed the Sakyong’s role, our workgroup process, how it will proceed not only this year but over the next several years, etc.

PRR’s view seems to be that the center is SMR, PRR, protector principle, next to that are the Acharyas, etc. And there is a strong sense that this year long process is very much about the 3rd jewel, the sangha, the community. Richard suggests we keep the message in broad strokes for the July meeting.

Richard’s view is that the Congresses will be scheduled annually for five years or so.

He sees the center being SMR and PRR. Then there is a board of some sort, probably governing board, perhaps on a regional basis, on a partnership basis. I think he envisions the role of the Dorje Kasung and Acharyas as being on the board. The centers would have representation on those boards. They’ve got to have trust in central governance groups, so they have to have some sense of participation. How precise we are in July, we haven’t talked about.

Maybe a few other groups, like Council of Warriors, need to be described in our work.

Member: What’s the level of detail in the discussion of the board?

AT: He’s thinking of a more traditional board. Now, in effect, he’s running this place. The Mandala Governing Council is sort of his advisory board for the moment. SMR has the last say. I think he’s thinking of PRR as chair of board. PRR seems to want the board to have true board responsibilities.

Member: the whole thing is so unformed. We’re still thinking this through. He wants a set of broad recommendations. He doesn’t want a real limiting presentation: “this is our recommendation”.

Member: Geography is an important issue; we want to avoid a purely geographical structure.

Sub-group member: yes, that’s right. Regionalization is a part of board related issues. We need to focus on how people can be included in the processes of governance. So we’re looking at designing a system for the next 5 years. We are starting with PRR and SMR at the center; and then asking what the next level is.

JI: You are talking with PRR. Are you consulting with anyone else outside your sub-group?

Sub-group member: We were going to talk to lots of people. We feel we’re better doing this first cut without expanding the conversation too far. We’re shooting for shared ideas at the center rather than beginning with many people who might lobby for individual agendas. We feel that would be too cumbersome at the start.

JI: This is a consultative work; it seems that’s part of how this happens.

Member: That broader dialogue adds both conflict and creativity to the process.

Sub-group member: We were going to put some broad ideas forward in July, and then work to consult, refine them or develop them after the Governing meeting.

JI: Well, at that point you’ll have something already up on the board, hopefully something of substance, so it would be challenging to go back and change the fundamentals. Collaboration with key, informed people is really important.

Member: Is there a vision of central structures articulated yet?

Sub-group member: No, nothing yet, but several sentences about Acharyas, protector principles, SMR.

JI: I have concerns about not including others in the initial concept design portion of the work. There are many people with considerable experience in board and governance process.

Member: We might include expertise from outside the mandala, since they are not limited by our management style and might have a fresher view.

ES leaves the call here.

Sub-group member: the one thing we need to talk about was that RR wants more specificity than appears from the report we’ve just made.

JI: Yes. At this point perhaps we could discuss more specific project teams. I suggest we consider our work as evolving into the following 5 projects.
 

  1. Developing the overarching governance principles
  2. Defining the central office services and staff, including
  3. Recommending mandala central governance structures, including their roles and relationships.
  4. The role of the congress in governance process
  5. The membership/partnership agreement. This project team could describe the issues related to the potential charter agreement between SI and local/practice centers and other entities in the mandala, including

JI: What are we missing?

Member: Authority and empowerment to change core, symbolic aspects of our culture. Who has that? Can that be done as whim? The shrines are being changed. Who designs and authorizes pins? Some of these kinds of details are starting to drift. It is trivial, as well, but it is key aspect of identity.

Member: We haven’t included accessibility to teachers and continuity with relationships with Acharyas. Should we include that teachers should make relationships with centers? Not sure if we can include that in our work. Some centers figure it out for themselves, but in Minneapolis it’s hard to get going. Can there be a model or a form for how Acharyas can take responsibility for work with Centers.

TA will work with the membership/partnership project area. Joe will communicate with him on starting up, and who could join him.

Call concludes.