Iskcon Inc and centralization of power

[Bhakta Mark]

This is a new thread being created in response to a discussion that
was ongoing at Prabhupadanugas.eu regarding Iskcon Inc. and their so
called "decentralization" efforts.

On 1/2/13 Gaurangasundar dasa posted a thread onto this Istagosthi
google forum entitled "Dear Bh. Mark Prabhu" which contains a letter
from Nimai Pandit dasa, which he wrote as a reply to a post I made in
the abovementioned discussion from Prab.eu.

In addition, Gaurangasundar dasa began a thread on this Istagosthi
entitled, Decentralized Iskcon Inc. In that thread he reproduced the
original Iskcon Incorporation certificate from NY state, as well as 2
amended certificates including the “final” certificate amended and
adopted on Feb 22, 2005. He also reproduced a new manifesto entitled
"decentralized Iskcon Inc." Which contains newly proposed changes to
the already heavily amended version from 2005. It was this very
manifesto that caught my eye, and my criticism, when it was printed on
the Prabhupadanugas.eu forum the other day. At the time I was under
the impression that this manifesto was proposed to amend Srila
Prabhupada's ORIGINAL Incorporation certificate from 1966. I already
knew that in 2005, Nimai and crew amended the original 1966
certificate to indicate that their Long Island temple was the new
"principle place of worship" associated with Iskcon Inc. and chose new
trustees loyal to their ideology. I had NO IDEA that they had made
the drastic amendments (12-22). Upon learning that yesterday and
reviewing them, I was inspired to offer this analysis of the situation
those amendments have created.

I will reproduce those certificates in .pdf format in this post for
easy reference.

The purpose of this thread is to objectively indicate the actual
result of these amendments, and the implications for any devotee, or
group of devotees, who wishes to have their temple/preaching center
become a branch OR affiliate of Iskcon and reap the benefit and
privileges that Srila Prabhupada meant any such center to obtain from
such a relationship.

ORIGINAL 1966 Cetificate of Incorporation.pdf
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Cetificate+of+Incorporation.pdf?hl=en&part=7&view=1
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Cetificate+of+Incorporation.pdf?hl=en&part=7

Cert. of Inc + Amedment.pdf
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Cert.+of+Inc+%2B+Amedment.pdf?hl=en&part=5&view=1
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Cert.+of+Inc+%2B+Amedment.pdf?hl=en&part=5

Fully amended 2005 Certificate of Inc..pdf
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Amendment+to+Article+of+Incorporation-Final.pdf?hl=en&part=6&view=1
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Amendment+to+Article+of+Incorporation-Final.pdf?hl=en&part=6

Decentralized ISKCON, Inc.(newly proposed manifesto)(1).docx
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Decentralized+ISKCON%2C+Inc.(1).docx?hl=en&part=4&view=1
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Decentralized+ISKCON%2C+Inc.(1).docx?hl=en&part=4

[Bhakta Mark]

PART 1

According to the original act of incorporating Iskcon, Srila
Prabhupada allowed the legal codes of NY to govern Iskcon Inc. of 26
2nd ave. and any of its branches. These were codes that needed to be
followed regarding choosing of trustees, including who is eligible to
vote, and who is eligible to be nominated as trustee,
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/10/192 (among other codes and
regulations). Such trustees were very limited as to their power over
any official activities within the center, unless they were also an
office holder. These religious legal codes were created to facilitate
the relationship between the church and the state, including financial
arrangements and civil rights issues.

It is also important to note that according to Article 10 of Iskcon's
original certificate of incorporation, Articles 1-8 were determined
at the official meeting held in 1966 with Srila Prabhupada present,
pursuant to code 191 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/10/191).

These included
1. Naming.of the religious corporation (Iskcon)
2. a-g; delineating the purposes for Iskcon (constitution)
3. declaration of powers, both allowed and prohibited, to Iskcon
4. statement of financial purpose and disposition of assets in case
of dissolution of Iskcon
5. a statement that Iskcon would conduct operations PRINCIPALLY in
the state of NY. (not a true limitation on operations)
6. Naming of 26 2nd ave. as the principle place of worship. (A
formality necessary to incorporation)
7. Choice to have 9 trustees as opposed to the allowed 3, 6, or 9.
8. Naming of trustees to serve until the first annual meeting at
which point elections would be held pursuant to code 192

Fast forward to 2005. Nimai Pandit das and associates not only
managed to wrestle the incorporation certificate from New York county
and register it in Nassau county, amending the principle place of
worship to read 197 Ocean ave. Freeport Long Island NY, but went on to
make made many other amendments as well.

I will not ascribe motive to the creation of these additional
amendments. I will simply point out what these amendments actually
mean if they are to be enforced. In general, these amendments create
a specific criteria for anyone who wishes to run a spiritual center
and call it an Iskcon center, and derive the benefits from Iskcon
other than the name, including a special financial relationship with
the BBT trust, and an equitable consultation relationship with senior
Iskcon members who are meant to comprise the GBC.

Among other things, these amendments seek to conclusively define what
group and under what conditions, may affiliate with Iskcon, what a
member of Iskcon is, what an initiated disciple is, the role of
officers of temples/centers, and the powers of GBC in relation to
independent temples.

The first new amendment I will treat here is #15. The first 3
sections of this amendment are a bit confusing and somewhat poorly
worded. They introduce terms whose definitions are crucial to
understanding their MAJOR implications. Here they are verbatim.

15a: Religious or non-profit foreign corporations, named Iskcon, Inc.,
may be registered in the respective states in USA, by the permission
of the GBC. These foreign corporations, including any existing ones,
shall be known as BRANCHES of ISKCON, Incorporated in the State of New
York. (Ref: Srila Prabhupada – “This institution is already
incorporated in New York State, and we are opening different branches
under different states” ANNEXURE F). Each of these corporations may
conduct various independent operations, to further the purposes of the
Society, including maintain Temples.

15b: Religious or non-profit domestic corporations, named Iskcon, Inc,
may be incorporated in the respective states by adopting or, if
already existing, **by amending their Certificate of Incorporation (or
equal document) to be made to be the same as the Certificate of Inc.
of Iskcon Inc. NY, including this Certificate of Amendment** – but
adapted it to the local laws. These corporations will be known as
AFFILIATES. Each of these corporations may conduct various
independent operations, to further the purposes of the Society,
including maintain Temples.

15c: Any organization, whether or not named International Society for
Krisna Consciousness, Inc., whether in the State of New York, in the
USA, or in any other country in the world, who wish to be AFFILIATED
with International Society for Krishna Consciousness Inc., may do so
**by adopting or amending their Certificate of Inc. (or equal doc.) to
be made to be the same to the Cert.of Inc. of Iskcon Inc. NY.,
including this Cert. of Amendment** – adapting it to the local laws
(Ref: Annexure G). These organizations will be known as AFFILIATES.
Each of these organizations may conduct various inedpendent
operations, to futher the purposes of the Society, including maintain
Temples.

In 15a the term BRANCHES is introduced. According to Black’s law,
Branch = “An offshoot, lateral extension, or subdivision”. In finance
law, this is a term used to indicate a relationship between
corporations. A branch is “A smaller, remotely located office that is
separate from a company’s corporate headquarters.” A branch manager
is “The person who is responsible for the smooth function of an office
or subsidiary that exists and conducts operations in a place other
than where the company is headquartered.“

In 15b, the term AFFILIATE is introduced. In Law, Affiliates = noun
“Companies that have a shared resources, interests, or business
dealings. (refer to subsidiary)” In ecclisiastic law affiliate= “A
condition which prevented the superior from removing the person
affiliated to another convent.” Commonly, an affiliate (noun) is one
who affiliates with an already existing entity. As a verb... “To
associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or
member”.

A lawyer could and would reference other mentions of the two words in
order to contrast or make them similar, according to their agenda.

In our case at hand, a BRANCH is associated with a foreign based
Iskcon center who wishes to gain privileges through association with
of the Parent Iskcon Inc. NY. While both domestic Iskcon centers, and
any Vaisnava sanga NOT already named or incorporated as Isckon, are
offered AFFILIATION to gain privileges through association with Parent
Iskcon Inc.NY.

But there is no explanation of the differences between a branch or
affiliate in terms of privileges derived or terms of association.
Strangely enough, the condition that a foreign based Iskcon may become
a “branch” is backed up by "Annexure F", a letter where Srila
Prabhupada mentions that his Iskcon Inc. NY is making branches in
OTHER STATES (meaning USA). Poor evidence indeed for the use of the
word branch.

In 15 section f, there is some hint as to the differences. It states
“the association of AFFILIATED organizations and the various BRANCHES
of ISKCON INC., is generally known as ISKCON." This seems to indicate
that branches are indeed more intimately part of the trunk, while
affiliates are more separate organizations.

Aside from these semantics, the MOST OBVIOUS RAMIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
15 is that those wishing to become branches of, or affiliate with,
Iskcon Inc. NY, may do so ONLY "by adopting or amending their
Certificate of Inc. (or equal doc.) to be made to be the same to the
Cert.of Inc., of Iskcon Inc. NY., including this Cert. of Amendment.
adapting it to local laws"

NOTE: (“adapting it to local laws” is offered as a "condition" but I
will show that most of these new amendments have no relation to
material laws whatsoever).

In order to justify amendment 15c, Nimai cites "Annexure G". which is
a letter SP wrote on 10/1/68 to Mukunda das who was seeking to
incorporate locally as Iskcon LTD. in London. In this letter, after
citing his concerns that the devotees not form a separate organization
in London, SP qualifies that their center should be a branch of Iskcon
in that the basic principle of preaching work, methods, and management
be the same.

He then clearly allows them to register in London as ISKCON LTD, but
to take precautions that they register the full name and that the aims
and objectives "in our prospectus" be mentioned.
There is no mention that a group must come under any particular rules
and regulations other than 1 and 2 which could be considered “the
prospectus”.

Otherwise, each temple president was responsible to keep track of
rules and regulations that Srila Prabhupada instituted over time for
his centers, including changes, to include of course who is a member,
what it means to be an initiated disciple, the powers and limitations
of officers, of GBC members, etc.

But we will find in the subsequent amendments that Nimai and crew gave
strict summary criteria for these subjects related to rules and
regulations, and are demanding compliance with THEIR VERSION.

Before you dismiss this as a harmless effort by a few Bhaktas who
cannot enforce such compliance in order for you or I or our associates
to call our center Iskcon, and gain the privileges that go along with
that.

Realize that this is an large organized and consolidated effort
consisting of many centers with great resources. Enough that they
have been litigating in court against APA Fiskcon for a decade. I
personally was assisting them, (before I thought better about it) in
compiling Srila Prabhupada’s orders regarding the BBT, in order that
this group might be able to win legal rights to the BBT assets again.
They are intellectually acute business minded devotees, mainly from
India, with many supporters, and could feasibly succeed in gaining
stewardship over more than the original Iskcon Inc. corporation, the
Long Island temple, and the formidable Bangalore Group of temples that
they have now formed. In amendment 15 sec. e, these new trustees of
Iskcon Inc. have empowered themselves to create newly elected GBC.
And now that GBC is empowered by 15 sec. d. to “authorize and be the
final judge of which organizations consititute BONA-FIDE BRANCHES AND
AFFILIATES OF ISKCON INC.

With this fully understood, I suggest that any interested devotee read
amendments 16-24 to see exactly what ideology you will need to comply
with in the future if they have their way. And then check out the
newly suggested amendments suggested by Nimai Pandit Das in the
manifesto that he supports.

Whether or not anyone needs me to analyze them to understand them, I
will analyze them and post my findings here in case it might be of
service, and as an exercise for my own understanding.

And for anyone who thinks I am just being critical in a destructive
manner and not interested in constructive dialogue or coming up with
solutions, you are wrong. I was late to the game during my 6 week
tenure at Iskcon Long Island 4 or 5 years ago. The new GBC was being
elected and new rules were being created while I was on the phone to
India with Nimai Pandit das each day. It took me six weeks of
attempting to give advise and input and being shot down each time to
realize that an agenda was set in stone, and they were quite sure of
themselves, I was to cooperate (follow orders) or go away. So I went
away. And sometimes the only way to be constructive is to point out
errors. It is up to them whether they are willing to change, they
have the power.

Hare Krsna

Ys

Mark

[Bhakta Mark]

Further analysis of amendment 15 section e has led me to understand
the following sequence of events.

After the coup in 2005, wherein Nimai Pandit das and others replaced
Iskcon Long Island as the principle place of worship on the
Incorporation Certificate for Iskcon Inc., they chose new trustees for
Iskcon Inc and signed a heavily amended version of the original
articles of incorporation.

These trustees considered themselves as an "ad hoc" GBC. Why?

Using the power granted to them in amendment 15e, They used the
criteria of amendments 15 a, b, and c, to select centers loyal to
their agenda.

They conducted elections for GBC from among those centers.

These centers who were hand selected by Nimai and the new trustees of
Iskcon Inc. were REQUIRED to adopt these new bylaws, in the form of
amendments 16-24. They were required to amend them to their official
documents, in the same way Srila Prabhupada wanted the DOM (1970) and
the Topmost urgency(1974) documents and the directives therein made as
"AMENDMENTS TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADDED TO ALL OFFICIAL REGISTRATION
DOCUMENTS, CONSTITUTIONS, INCORPORATION PAPERS,etc"

Yet the process Srila Prabhupada set into motion for such changes that
he did not order himself, was that the GBC would meet yearly and
suggest, vote on, and perhaps adopt resolutions. Not to mention Srila
Prabhupada was there to oversee such meetings, or at least partially.

For example, in 1976, the first resolution of 3/15/76 reads as
follows.

1. Since several resolutions under "ISKCON Organization" passed at the
March 9, 9 a.m meeting, caused a great disturbance among the temple
presidents and thus with our spiritual master, the GBC acknowledges
that they were mistaken proposals and hereby rejects them. This was
ordered by Srila Prabhupada, and refers specifically to resolutions 1,
2, 3, and 10.

My point is that these amendments to the incorporation document are
serious rules, tantamount to GBC resolutions in that they MUST be
adopted formally by every temple. Yet the duly elected GBC never got
to vote on accepting them. You could say that the presidents of each
center who agreed to go along with Nimai and the new Iskcon Inc.
trustees voted with their decision to get together under the new
Iskcon inc banner. And the new GBC was chosen (generally) from among
those presidents anyway.

Some of these amendments appear hastily compiled and do not exactly
represent a complete understanding of the subject.

For example in Amd.17 "Temple Members". The first secton (a) refers
to "annexure I" which utilizes a flier/mailer from 1966 that is
grossly outdated, as is easy to see by the following.
a. All these principles are fully embraced by our members: Iskcon
actively practices these principles...
2) developing bliss in the individual through the rituals and practice
of HINDUISM under the guidance of a spiritual master.
4) Singing and playing INDIAN music (instruments provided)

The remainder of amendment 17 is fairly constructed, yet this is an
OFFICIAL LEGAL DOCUMENT, and should reflect careful consideration.

In Amd. 19 "initiated disciple" part d refers to "annexure K" which
was another very early hand written notice posted on the door of 26
second ave in November 1966 giving general guidelines for "initiated
disciples". The principles listed are very vague and require much
clarification. They are NOT suitable for a legal document.

The other parts of Amd 19 appear sound at first glance, yet consider
part a, which states all disciples must be following these 4
regulative principles, and names the 4.

In 1974 initiation was opened up to all varnas. While true that all
varnas must follow the 4 rules and regs, the criteria for meeting the
essence of those regulations is different for each varna. For
example, Srila Prabhupada gave direct sanction for meat eating to
Ksatriyas and sudras, as well as sanction for intoxication, among
other sanctions. Yet he also explained the strict guidelines to be
followed to allow such, and that they were still to be considered to
be following the rules and regs. In the same way that someone working
in a factory is in essence considered a sanyassi if they are initiated
and giving the results of their work to Iskcon.

So, if you are going to go so far as to define discipleship in a
legally binding document, it needs to be thorough!

Also conspicuously absent among these new Iskcon laws (amendments) is
any mention that the new centers are required to follow all applicable
GBC resolutions accepted by Srila Prabhupada between 1975 and 1977.

An example of applicable resolutons.

1975:
5) Openings of an ISKCON temple must be done at Gaur Purnima after
consideration of entire GBC at annual meeting. Once opened, a temple
should never be closed.

1976:
1) Anyone who wants to recommend a city for a temple first open a
preaching center there for a year without installing deities, and next
year it can be approved as a
temple.

2) A main criteria for making a preaching center into a permanent
center is whether the center has gained the local support.

1977:
1) Preaching centers in the US can be opened by GBC members, even
when in another GBC zone, up on approval at the yearly meeting of the
GBC, or during the year with consultation of 3 GBC members. But when
the zonal GBC is prepared to open a permenant center in that city, its
jurisdiction will be transferred to the GBC in whose zone the city
lies.

6) 6. Resolved: All devotees are expected to shave their heads once a
month. If there is necessity to keep hair,it shall not be longer than
it would grow in one month.

Yet we will see in amendment 16 "Temples and Temple presidents" we see
no reference to these resolved laws.

The truth is that the more I read over these amendments I can't help
but sense there were truly good intentions behind this entire coup,
yet half way is not enough, and my experience in trying to work with
these devotees left me with the sense that they were putting the cart
ahead of the horse, just slightly, and acting precipitously. I don't
have the impression that any serious damage has been done, and there
is nothing that cannot be "amended", yet the question is will a group
of devotees who obviously have a great deal of initiative and passion
be willing to take a second look at the past, and consider mistakes
may have been made? To consider that they did not have a FULL view of
things?

Time will tell.


Hare Krsna

ys

Mark

On Jan 6, 3:44 pm, Bhakta Mark <markmac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PART 1
>
> According to the original act of incorporating Iskcon, Srila
> Prabhupada allowed the legal codes of NY to govern Iskcon Inc. of 26
> 2nd ave. and any of its branches.  These were codes that needed to be
> followed regarding choosing of trustees, including who is eligible to

> vote, and who is eligible to be nominated as trustee,http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/10/192(among other codes and

> stewardship over more than the original Iskcon ...
>
> read more »

[Bhakta Mark]

Part 2: Analysis of Amendment 16, and a novel solution to the problem
of separation of powers between trustees of Iskcon Inc. and the new
GBC.

Amendment 16: Temples and Temple Presidents.

Using this amendment, Nimai and his “coup crew” attempted to define
the role of temple presidents, and some particular items in regard to
the opening of temples and management of temples.

Cited as the reference to support 16 part b. is the DOM article 8 :
"removal of a temple president by the GBC requires support by the
local temple members.“

It would have been advisable to cite DOM article 6: “The primary
objective of the GBC is to organize the opening of new temples and the
maintenance of existing temples.” Which as you will see is most
pertinent to the entire 16th amendment.
16a: The society maintains temples, to further propagate the seven
purposes of the society – mentioned in Section Two of the Cert. of
Inc. – in the State of New York and in the USA.

Note: another example of lack of editorial review, as the temples
outside of the USA should be included in this list.

16b: First defines the offices of a temple as Pres. Sec. Treas., and
declares the President to be in charge.

The rest of 16b consists of 4 statements.
- The TP is decided amongst the beginning members of the temple in
consultation with the GBC.
- If there are no other members, the single member is automatically
recognized as the TP.
- For existing temples, the TP is not to be changed in principle.
- He can only be changed by the vote of the temple members, the
election being conducted by the GBC.

These appear to address 3 things simultaneously. The admission of new
temples into the newly reformed Iskcon Inc. The opening of new
temples by an existing temple, and how a TP might be changed.

Part 1. "the TP is decided amongst the beginning members of the
temple in consultation with the GBC”
It is unclear to who this amendment is directed to.

In one sense this could be referring to a group of devotees who have
their own loose preaching group (as referred to in amendment 15c) and
are now applying to be affiliated with the newly reformed Iskcon Inc.
But such a group would already have a natural leader, and the current
GBC would have NO idea of the qualifications of the members of that
sanga.

For a temple as defined in Amd-15a or b, they would already by
following Iskcon guidelines (more or less) and would fall under 16c
(GBC has no power to change).

For an already existing Iskcon Inc. temple that is considering
starting a new mission nearby, the regional GBC man would already
have likely been involved in the inception of such an idea in the
course of his regular conversations with the President, and this
amendment would be redundant.

Part 2: “If there are no other members, the single member is
automatically recognized as the TP. “
This is obviously associated with a single person attempting to form
at temple, and that they would be the president by default goes
without saying.

Part 3: For existing temples, the TP is not to be changed in
principle.
For newly applying temples, this is appropriate across the board.

Part 4: He can only be changed by the vote of the temple members, the
election being conducted by the GBC.
It is my assumption that this is the portion of this amendment that
was meant to be (very loosely) supported by the citation of DOM
article 8.

However, I have not found a single direct reference as to the
necessity for the GBC to conduct elections. Nor a reference that the
local/regional GBC man must conduct an election. Only that they have
the authority to remove a TP under certain conditions.
A crucial side point to make here is that upon reviewing the body of
Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for the GBC in relation to temples, it
is very important to make a distinction between the duties of the
local/regional GBC man and the GBC as a body. Their assigned duties
and procedures are quite distinct.

As far as the removal of a Temple President by local members. It is
most likely that they would not be privy to the evidence necessary to
conduct a proper trial to convict the TP of wrong doing. If they had
suspicion, they would have recourse to approach their Local GBC, who
has certain authorities in relation to the TP, as per GBC resolutions
which I will show below.

1975: 1) Resolved: Each Temple President should submit a monthly
report to the GBC, containing an itemized account of income and
expenditure. The report should include number of books sold, and
inventory of books. A GBC member can go to the center and see and
correct any unbonafide expenditure.

3) Resolved: If a devotee wants to change temples, his present
President should agree as well as the new temple president. The GBC
member may be consulted if there is disagreement.

4) Resolved: There should be no change of Presidents but difficulties
should be worked out. In the case of an incorrigible President who
a. doesn’t submit reports or submits false reports
b. who mis-spends money
c. who doesn’t follow regulative principles he must be changed. Three
GBC men may decide on this in an urgent case and in a non-urgent case
it may be done by majority vote of GBC by letter.

1976: 4) Resolved: We suggest that the GBC resolve that aside from
the local GBC man and His Divine Grace, no person or group has direct
authority over a temple president. In the case of some disagreement
regarding practical policy or practical philosophy, a travelling party
leader, sannyasi or non-local GBC man must respect the integrity of
the president's authority over his temple. He must defer to the
president's position and can initiate change only via the local GBC.

1977: 7) Individual GBC members are responsible for their Presidents
signing the oaths for Srila Prabhupada.
So, as can be seen, the Local GBC is the only one with the authority
to demand things from a TP that might support his removal.
Simultaneously, a local GBC cannot begin proceedings to remove a TP
even if he finds evidence to show that he should be removed. He must
gather at least 3 GBC men to condone the decision, AND they must have
the support of the local members. Which means the GBC must produce
the evidence and reasons why the local members should support the
removal of the TP.

GBC were meant to be consulted WHEN NEED BE. They are meant to travel
from center to center and "SEE that the spiritual standards are being
kept." And if all is well, they are not to butt in and
micromanage.

If a GBC happens to be visiting a center, they have every right to
make general inquiries according to their powers of inquiry enumerated
in the resolutions above. They might even resort to public
chastisement as persuasion if they notice a TP making bad decisions or
breaking rules, and give them a second chance. But if the leader
insists on choosing the wrong path, that is their free will, and the
GBC man must walk away and seek the remedies given in the resolutions.

Section 8 of the DOM is strictly a liability clause, restricting the
GBC from unilaterally deciding to remove a TP from any center.

And as far as conducting the election, that is not an authority
delegated to the GBC. There are 2 officers other than the TP who are
perfectly capable of conducting an election. They may or may not
request the assistance of their regional GBC. Their regional GBC has
every right to suggest to the congregation who he thinks would make
the next best TP, but of course the election is up to the members,
including nominations. The local GBC man has no vote unless he is a
member of that temple.
Should the GBC decide upon a resolution that all elections be
conducted by the GBC, this would send the signal that the GBC does not
trust the local brahmanas to do their own thing. The regional GBC
should be present at the election as he likes to “oversee”, and if he
is a member of that congregation he should vote, and the GBC should
only “conduct” the election if requested by the temple officers.

Everything I just wrote is supported very nicely by the excerpt from a
4/22/72 letter from Srila Prabhupada to all TP’s, the body of which
makes up the entirety of the next amendment 16c: “Relationship of
Temple and Temple President with GBC”

“The formula for ISKCON organization is very simple and can be
understood by everyone. The world is divided into twelve zones. For
each zone there is one zonal secretary appointed by Srila Prabhupada.
The zonal secretaries duty is to see that the spiritual principles are
being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise
each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting. Let every Temple
President work according to his own capacity to improve the Krishna
Consciousness of his center. So far the practical management is
concerned, that is required, but not that we should become too much
absorbed in fancy organization. Our business is spiritual life, so
whatever organization needs to be done, the Presidents may handle and
take advice and assistance from their GBC representative. In this way
let the Societies work go on and everyone increase their service at
their own creative rate. “

Enough said.

Amendment 16d: Relationship of Temple and Temple Presidents with the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., NY.: The
trustees and officers of Iskcon Inc., NY have jurisdiction only over
the principle place of worship. The rules governing this control is
laid out in the Bylaws of the corporation. Apart from that, the
trustees of officers cannot interfere in any administrative or
financial matters of the Temples maintained by a BRANCH. They have no
jurisdiction over the BRANCHES. They cannot remove a TP of any of the
Temples maintained by the corporation and its BRANCHES. The
administrative and financial affairs of all the Temples will be
overseen by the GBC.

Regarding 16d. The Trustees of Iskcon Inc. by law, have complete
jurisdiction over financial decisions involving acquisition and
maintenance of various types of properties of any Iskcon center who
becomes an “AFFILIATED BRANCH”, and adopts the Iskcon Inc. bylaws in
full.

In addition there are limitations to how these new Iskcon Inc.
branches may govern themselves even if they incorporate locally.
Nimai and the trustees may not wish this to be so, but the NY state
codes governing Iskcon Inc. state otherwise.

Property of unincorporated society transferred by its incorporation:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/2/4
General powers and duties of trustees of religious corporations:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/2/5
Acquisition of property by religious corporations for branch
institutions; establishment, maintenance and management thereof:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/2/6

After conducting this analysis today, I have some thoughts on some of
the proposed “new changes” that were included in the anonymous
Manifesto, specifically 6 and 7, that I originally criticized.

6. Also, it is proposed that the Certificate of Incorporation of
ISKCON, Inc. be amended to have trustees of ISKCON, Inc. to be GBCs
for a true representative management.

7. The post of President of ISKCON, Inc. is sought to be removed with
the amendment so that the GBC and the Trustees of ISKCON, Inc. become
the true drivers and controllers of ISKCON, Inc.

As is often the case, local properties owned by an independent center
may include lands and buildings that can be leased or rented to
members of the household order. The use and disposition of such real
estate and their conveyances are governed by local laws, and the
trustees must be aware of and involved in these local situations.
Which is why, generally, each temple was encouraged to incorporate
locally.

This is why provisions were made by law (see code 15 below) to
incorporate Governing bodies with no requirement of a “principle place
of worship” with a separate membership that they need to contend with.

** Corporations with governing authority over, or advisory relations
with, churches or synods, or both**: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RCO/2/15

Excerpt from link- “The trustees of every incorporated governing
or advisory body and their successors shall hold their offices during
the pleasure of such body, which may remove them and fill
vacancies in accordance with its rules and regulations. Such
corporation may hold its meetings and elect its trustees annually
or biennially,and may hold its first and any other meetings outside
this state if any of the churches or synods governed or
advised by it are located outside of this state. Such corporation
may take, administer and dispose of real and personal property
in and outside this state for the benefit of such governing or
advisory body or of any parish, congregation, society, church,
mission, synod, religious, benevolent, charitable or educational
institution existing or acting under or related to it, or of any
religious work or activity. Such corporation may elect the
members of unincorporated or incorporated boards to carry on
particular lines of religious work or activity. Such corporation
may have in addition to its by-laws, a constitution; and such
constitution may be adopted or amended in such manner as the
corporation will determine.”
-------------------------------------------
Thus the evidence shows that it would be better for the GBC to be
incorporated separately as Iskcon Inc., allowing the independent
temple “Iskcon Long Island, NY” to reincorporate under a different
name as a simple “Branch” of the GBC entrusted Iskcon Inc. This would
clear up the conflict of interest and keep proper separation of powers
without trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I intuitively knew something was missing from the getgo when I read
this last round of changes being suggested. I was just uninformed as
to the progression of events that occurred ever since my assistance
was “no longer needed”.

Glad to be of service anyway.

Hare Krsna

ys

Mark

> ORIGINAL 1966 Cetificate of Incorporation.pdfhttps://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Ce...https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Ce...
>
> Cert. of Inc + Amedment.pdfhttps://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Ce...https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Ce...
>
> Fully amended 2005 Certificate of Inc..pdfhttps://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Am...https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/Am...
>
> Decentralized ISKCON, Inc.(newly proposed manifesto)(1).docxhttps://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/De...https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/attach/c97bb7eb3b705160/De...

[Bhakta Mark]

Hare Krsna!

Hmmm.

It is so quiet here now that if a speck of dust hit the ground, we
would hear it.

let me recap what just occurred.

Gaurangasundar dasa published a document entitled "Decentralized
Iskcon Inc." on both this website, and the Prabhupadanugas.eu
website. This "manifesto" was endorsed by Nimai Pandit das, and
certainly reflects his collaboration with other of the new leaders of
Iskcon Inc, if he did not write it himself.

The document was published without identifying the author.

I criticized certain items proposed in the document, and indeed
declared it unbonafide in its entirety except for where it quoted
Srila Prabhupada.

Nimai Pandit Dasa entered into the discussion, claiming direct
affiliation with said manifesto. Then, besides making unnecessary
assumptions about my motives and my character, he declared that I was
unaware of the sequence of events that led up to the need to publish
this manifesto, and that I needed to educate myself before making
criticisms.

So it took me 3 days to catch up on all the changes Nimai and company
made to the original document I familiarized myself with 5 years ago
when associating with those devotees.

I went back and read my original criticisms that I made at
Prabhupadanugas.eu on the thread titled "Srila Prabhupada instructed
that all of his temples be independent" where the new "Decentralized
Iskcon Inc." manifesto was first published on January 2. My comments
were NOT AT ALL far off the mark for someone who didn't even know the
entire history of what had led up to the current moment, but my
comments did need clarification.

Anyone who took the time to read the previous posts in this thread
should realize that....

It took me 3 days to counter the false assumptions about my criticism
of the new manifesto.

It took me 3 days to demonstrate my true objective motivations and to
hopefully put to rest the false assumptions about my motive and
character,

Most importantly, it took me just 3 days to figure out a solution to
the dilemma that these new Iskcon Inc leaders have not been able to
figure out in 7 years. A solution that, if they had come across,
would have made it unnecessary to make the mistakes reflected in their
new manifesto, especially in items 3, 6, and 7.

Our resident representatives of Iskcon Inc. were very quick to reply
at length to criticize my offerings on Jan 3rd.

I am surprised they wouldn't be even MORE swift to reply after all the
positive assistance I just rendered to their cause.

Perhaps they are assuming that I am one to gloat, one looking for
power, or some other poor intention?

The truth is that if I had taken some time to think about it, I would
have realized that anonymous manifesto was a product of Nimai's and
Iskcon Inc's ongoing efforts to do a service to Srila Prabhupada to
their best ability. I could have made patient inquiries as to the
author, and taken the time do the research that I wound up doing
anyway, and then approach the authors of that document in a more
formal and respectful way, instead of just shooting from the hip as
soon as I saw it published.

So I apologize if my approach was unwittingly harsh or caused any
embarrassment.

My time associating with this group of devotees 5 years ago left me
with reservations. I was happy with the spiritual advancement I made
due to the conflicts and difficulties we had with one another, but
unhappy with injustices that I suffered. If I suffer injustice at the
hands of karmis, that is my bad karma. If it happens at the hands of
devotees, and they are not willing to rectify the situation to both of
our satisfaction, then it causes me to pause.

But here I am anyway? That is because, although I have strong
criticisms of many of their activities, I do believe that they are not
entirely selfishly motivated, and are sincerely attempting to serve
Srila Prabhupada. But good intentions are not enough. In my
experience, my perception has been that my advice and efforts were
rejected unjustly, as I did not make any suggestions that were not in
line with what I was instructed by Srila Prabhupada's vani. This left
me with the impression that these devotees and I needed time away from
one another, and they from me for whatever flaws I had that may have
caused them to ignore me, even when I was right.

Otherwise the fact remains that in order to gain temporary support, we
cannot for too long neglect to implement certain instructions just to
appeal to trends popular with our Karmi base, for that only gives Maya
leverage to drag us down to a place we may not be able to recover
from. Disneyland is a waste of time, and the law of diminishing
returns is unyielding.

I remain pessimistic, yet with a glimmer of hope. I am not looking
for any special position of power, prestige, fame, or adoration. I
only wish a forum to speak the truth as I know it, and all I demand is
that it be recognized for what it is. If that is too much to ask,
then a second attempt will not be made at reconciliation. And I will
employ my talents to independent efforts which over time will
inevitably and strongly oppose any and all who only superficially
accept Srila Prabhupada yet use his name and assets improperly despite
their best intentions.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada

ys

Mark

> Temples maintained by the ...
>
> read more »