GBC authority and responsibility

[Guest guest]

> Until I see that such and similar enforcement is in fact

> happening, it is very hard for me to understand how the GBC can be seen as

> a managing authority.

 

although you have made some valid points if one is really wanting to

understand how the gbc can be seen as a managing authority then one needs to

start accepting what the *GBC* decide and not what he/she or some other

bodies may want. Charity begins at home. I hope you understand the point I

am trying to make. Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

A point of clarification:

 

The issue is not exactly why did the GBC not follow its own law, since

this action was taken by the Executive Committee and the GBC body was

apparently not consulted at the time. To my mind, the question is what did

the GBC do about its EC betraying the trust placed in them and unilaterally

deciding to ignore a clearly stated law? Were the EC members disciplined?

Did the GBC, in full session, reverse this decision and rectify this

apparent wrong?

 

 

 

 

Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:20 PM

Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN); Granddisciples (of Srila

Prabhupada); India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum); Varnasrama

development

Re: GBC authority and responsibility

 

 

At 03:17 AM 7/27/2000 +0630, Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) wrote:

>although you have made some valid points if one is really wanting to

>understand how the gbc can be seen as a managing authority then one needs

to

>start accepting what the *GBC* decide and not what he/she or some other

>bodies may want.

 

I'm not sure I understand. Maybe we can take a concrete example and you

can clarify what exactly it is I should simply accept.

 

The GBC set up the Office of Child Protection. One of the sentences in the

orginial resolution is that the GBC has to accept what the OCP decides. It

also said that a convicted devotee could file a formal appeal with the GBC

EC within 6 months (I think that has been changed to one or two months

now). Finally (in terms of appeals), it said that the GBC could make

*minor* modifications to the sentence in collaboration with the panel

judges. If Danurdhar violated any of these judgments, the OCP stated

that he had to be suspended.

 

The OCP conducted a long and involved investigation of Danurdhar. They

decided (among other things) that he was not allowed to initiate for 2

years and that he could not give classes in North American

temples. Danurdhar decided that 6 months was enough and that he wanted to

initiate a bunch of aspiring disciples in NY this past spring - in

violation of the judgment. Please note that he did *not* file an appeal,

even though he had the right to do so. Ravindra Svarupa was informed about

this and contacted Dhira Govinda (director of the child protection office)

and asked what could be done to avoid suspending Danurdhar. DG informed him

that they could treat this as a "minor modification" providing that the

panel judges agreed. None did. Danurdhar made it very cledar that he would

initiate regardless of what happened and that he would not file an appeal

(there was no time before the initiations were scheduled to take place).

The EC then decided on their own, to reverse the initiation prohibition

this one time - even though the judges disagreed and even though this was

not the way the process had been set up - the very same process they had

voted to implement in Mayapur 1999. However, since they did approve these

initiations, they didn't have to suspend him.

 

According to Dhira Govinda, Danurdhar has also violated other parts of his

judgment (e.g. by giving class in the Boston temple) and has not sought GBC

permission for this. He still has not filed an appeal, but is simply

showing that he doesn't take the OCP judgment very seriously - and why

should he? *There has been no enforcement* of any of the judgments and he

is able to do whatever he likes.

 

Now, in terms of this example - what do you mean by having to accept the

GBC decisions? How can I possibly take a body seriously that ignores or

violates the very resolutions they voted to implement and who let child

abusers violate their sentence? Many OCP judges are very discouraged,

feeling that they are being disempowered and that their hard work was for

nothing. Several gurukula alumni have stated that this was the straw that

broke the camel's back as far as they were concerned and what convinced

them once and for all that the GBC just didn't "get it" and thus left them

with no other choice but to join the law suit to get some justice.

 

Is this the behavior of a true "managing authority"? Is it really the duty

of ethical devotees to simply "accept" this unethical behavior? Should we

really be surprised that the GBC can't get abusers to adhere to their

sentences when no consequences are provided for following them?

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi