GBC authority and responsibility

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> >

> > The GBCs that I know do set a very good example themselves and they do

> > request the same of the devotees under their charge.

> Why is it so hard to at *least* understand what the fields of

> responsibility are there for the managing authorities? It seems

> like there is a kind of popular view of ISCKON's "ultimate managing

> authority" as some crippled touristic agency. No wonder it's a mess

> and chaos left and right.

 

I guess it boils down to the "love and trust" idea. It is just like the

border between Norway and Sweden. It is such a long border with so many

roads passing from one country to the other that the authorities can not put

up a custom on everly little forest road.

 

So instead they have put up a big sign in the beginning of all the small

forest roads crossing one country to the other saying: "if you have anything

to declare than drive back to the main road where there is a custom".

 

So in short if you are smuggling something from one country to the other on

some small forest road between Norway and Sweden then one is supposed to be

scared away by that sign put up by the authorities.

 

Those though who have some understanding off how criminals psychology works

knows that when a smuggler comes to the road and sees the sign he will just

have a good laugh and thank the government for informing him that on this

road there are no custom officers.

 

So similarly pedofiles, woman abusers and whatever abusers that have been

roaming around in ISKCON find it great to have such a field of activities to

work in and have not taken the "road signs" too seriously.

 

People who are criminals are not so much concerned about philosophies like

"love and trust", they are more concerned with finding a place where they

can perform their crimes in a comfortable, unrecoqnized and easy fashion.

 

Ys

Svarupa das