Not to be a jerk, but as I can be a jerk, sometimes, I did some fact checking. The CFA is actually both a governmentally paid staff of firefighters and a volunteer component, with a significant annual budget: " 2013–14 was $473m—$448m was provided by state government contributions, and $25m was internally generated (fees and charges, interest, donations, and sales of goods and services)."
Perhaps my analogy wasn’t a good one, and I don’t mean to pick on the CFA; I am sure in many ways it is exemplary. But I do feel that the BSWA ought to support Ajahn Brahm’s desire to have a paid executive in charge of these tasks that can be well managed by a paid executive, and relieve him of the stress of this work.
Are there other examples anyone can think of, of a theravada buddhist monastic support foundation (which per BSWA’s mission statement, seems to be what they are) hiring paid professionals to run things? I have honestly never heard of that. Everything at the monasteries here in California is donated, including live-in lay stewards who run affairs. Of course, large retreat centers/meditation centers have paid staff, but they also charge for teaching and events.
I think the Australian volunteer fire services is an excellent example. It has paid staff to do the things firefighters and their admin volunteers can’t do at a station (monastery or temple) level so that the firefighters can fight fires and comms people can direct them.
The CFS is not a town by town organisation (like in the US) but a large overarching one. Their paid staff take the load off the stations.
It saddens me to see abbots sitting in their offices at midnight writing emails, but this is what happens in these large and even not so large monasteries,
BSWA is not just a temple or a few monasteries. They one of the largest online content providers of Dhamma in the world. I believe, second behind FPMT according to last year’s AGM. Their turnover, all due to donations, is massive compared to most temples. To lessen the chance of corruption there would be so much admin.
No problems, I’m aware of all the issues, especially in the last 2 years where there has been a big push for a professional staff takeover. Also receipt of government support for operation expensenses is a long standing arrangement in australia.
Knowing all of this, my comments still stand exactly as they were stated.
Thanks, @mpac , and I feel An. Pasanna’s comment was a nice bridge between our views. And, I agree with what you have to say, and your comment about hiring paid staff, in general, when there are no competent volunteers at an organization is spot on. Metta
It’s not really comparable. The monastery remains as-is, and this is not about that. The BSWA is, in addition, a large city-based organization that runs all kinds of activities. Ajahn Brahm’s decision was effectively to step back from the running of the committee business for the city activities.
It’s common for such organizations to pay staff; like our very own Aminah, who works for The Buddhist Society. I’ve been saying for years that Buddhism needs more paid staff. We’re really bad at middle-management.
Note, however, as a matter of record, that the critical issue at the meeting was not paid staff per se, but the capacity for the committee to form subcommittees. It’s a related matter, as both are attempting to set the BSWA up in a manner more appropriate for its current status as a large community association.
I wouldn’t characterize the shift as “dana” vs. “corporate”: everything is still run by dana, and volunteers will still be a big part of how it all happens. The purpose of enabling subcommittees was, in fact, to encourage a wider range of volunteers to take up service in more narrowly defined spheres of interest.
As with most organizations—including SuttaCentral—the BSWA employs people to do various specialized tasks, be it plumbers, programmers, or accountants. I think corporate administration, governance, and compliance should be among such tasks. They are really complex issues these days, and require professional expertise.
I’m not really involved with the BSWA, and just happened to be there last night. But it was a bit tragic to see such events unfolding, over what is really just a simple administrative reform. Obviously the vast majority of those present supported Ajahn Brahm, and understood his concerns about feeling overworked and needing to lessen his duties, feelings that were expressed in his Spiritual Director’s report. I am sure the issues will be worked out in the coming weeks under the able guidance of the new president, Dennis Shepherd.
I was aware of this, and thought the sub-committee motion to be voted on was such a nice intermediate step. In fact, I didn’t contact anyone to be my proxy, as I really thought no-one would object to that motion… Even though I’m sure that many people would have explained the details of it - I am left thinking that this voting ‘block’ didn’t really understand it - as it didn’t involve paying anyone at this stage. As such, it seems to be more a reaction stemming from fear. Once a fear view becomes entrenched, it is quite hard to shift - Not impossible though
Well, exactly. The thing is, you can get away with this kind of vote-stacking strategy exactly once. But how do people imagine that this is a viable way to run a Buddhist organization?
Some people may hold too much on to their ‘tradition’ of doing things. “Selling dhamma books? NO!” “Paid staff? NO! Merit-earning volunteers only!”
My team produced some books for Ajahn Brahm and 90% of the work was done by hardworking dedicated volunteers, but graphic design is not something everyone can do. Our English-speaking graphic designer volunteer had her hand more than full, and it would take her unreasonably and unnecessarily much more time to do a Thai version. So, I decided to hire a Thai graphic designer to help her with the Thai-language version, but I tried to inform all donors of my decision. The Thai graphic designer said no to payment as he wanted to help, but knowing that he needed money to earn a living, I gave him some money anyway. (I much later learnt that what I gave him was 10 times less than what one would get from such a project!)
What I’m trying to say here is that hiring some competent professionals to do dhamma work should be allowed. A meticulous, careful selection process is what is needed! Choose good-hearted people who try to practice the dhamma and understand the mission of our organisation and the philosophy of our spiritual teacher, for instance.
I’m wondering if there is a mechanism for having each of the voting members of BSWA that submitted a vote by proxy (mine came as a single page stating that I could assign my vote to ____________________________ ; no agenda was identified, leaving a member with the only choice to give a blind proxy to a member who may or may not represent his/her interests.) I do not know anyone at BSWA through whom I could have voted, perhaps many of those that submitted and assigned their voting power to a proxy may wish to take that vote back, if their proxy voted against their interest. In other words, once having voted in a vote that results in a " Brahmxit " (Brexit), is it possible for members to have a revote and have an actual vote taken versus a proxy vote that seems to have distorted the actual will of the people? Did the proxies abuse or misuse their power and actually not represent the actual wishes of the members of the BSWA?
Who is the “bloke” (per the video) that accumulated 30 proxy votes and then used them to overrule Ajahn Brahm? Nothing against the gentleman, but perhaps 25 of those 30 votes would like to take their proxy forms back from him?
Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) on Proxy Voting:
RONR opines, "Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable. While Riddick opines that “proxy voting properly belongs in incorporate organizations that deal with stocks or real estate, and in certain political organizations,” … “Proxy voting is not recommended for ordinary use. It can discourage attendance, and transfers an inalienable right to another without positive assurance that the vote has not been manipulated.”
Item 4.1 – Constitutional change to limit number of Proxy votes held (Proposal to amend the BSWA Constitution Clause 13.17)
The above was on the Agenda I received via email. I wonder if a Meeting within which the methodology of proxy voting occurs ( and limits a proxy to 5 votes) can allow for a 30 vote proxy ? In other words, the proxy vote may not have been legal at the 2018 meeting if the Amendment passed.
I see the link to the Survey, but my email has only this: “The Report from the Resources Subcommittee Survey results will be discussed. This is available on the BSWA website at this link:”
There was no notice to me, as a member, that a vote woudl be taken on this issue. I suppose from a member point of view, if I am going to assign my vote to a proxy, I really need notice of what is going to be voted on, and this was really not done. In theory, I assigned my vote to a AGM in which votes were taken on an issue (couched as a vague subcommittee issue) that was not properly noticed.
I’m not trying to over-analyze this. I just feel there may be a way to have the issue resubmitted to membership and have it voted on properly. I am guessing that most members will support Ajahn Brahm overwhelmingly, especially if they truly understand the issue that they are voting on. For this AGM, it seems the Agenda and the Notice were largely vague and undefined, and with the Proxy rules being amended at the AGM, the vote itself may not have been valid.
I think it comes down to the problem with the proxy voting which they were trying to fix. Whether the proxy vote was even legal in accordance with the Associations act is something I’m interested in. As Drew mentions, in his presidents report, they need to make this change to the constitution to comply with the act. These acts are generally state-by-state. I have done lots of work on the BSSA constitution but I don’t know about WA specific stuff.
However, this was not the impression given by the outgoing president’s message on the website, which can be seen when you click on Brenna’s original link. Perhaps the complexities of the issue weren’t fully presented in his short message?
It would be good if people listened to each other better. I believe everyone wants to take the stress off Ajahn Brahm. Nobody likes to see him look so tired.
If Ajahn has resigned for reasons of workload - I think it could be about time. Let someone else do it for a bit. Perhaps he can spend his time teaching more retreats at Jhana Grove - currently I believe the demand for these is higher than the supply. It would be much better for his physical well being too and we all want him to be well.
Personally, my biggest issue with this entire saga has been consultation and transparency.
I feel satisfied now with both. I thought the survey was openly done, openly distributed and canvassed a range of views. Thus I did not see the need to attend this AGM, nor did I send in my proxy - though I had other reasons for not attending too.
I was concerned last year that the society didn’t have the available funds - literally - to pay another employee. It was right there in black and white in the Treasurer’s Report and was something that 2 past Treasurers gently pointed out at last years’ AGM.
I’m glad the matter has come out into the open and 'am disappointed that people are not listening to each other better. But we’re only human. Clearly all parties care deeply. If they didn’t care this wouldn’t have happened.
I don’t have an issue with paid staff per se.
I think it’s also essential for sub-committees to canvass more volunteers and to have a larger, sustained pool of them. Aside from the spiritual aspects, this is practical.
However, if we’re not listening to each other, if we’re just assuming things about each other - if we’re “taking sides” - I can’t see how we’re going to create a culture that is going to be attractive for volunteers to come into.
On the internet, it is easy to read something and make assumptions too. I urge everyone to do your reading and listening from a kind heart. If you have already taken a side, remember, there are no “bad guys”. We are all on the same side.
I’m confident the BSWA will be able to move through this. I’m sure all the people on the ground are able to come together in harmony.
Anyway, I think it’s a sign of maturity if we can still carry on without our beloved Ajahn at the helm.
Personally, I think we should give him the gift of time to just hang out on his own personal meditation retreats and then come out and teach more retreats for the rest of us. It’s a waste of time and energy to tire him out on admin tasks!
I would like to add that personally I have made the decision to withdraw from discussions/arguments on this matter.
I can’t see any benefit to anyone coming from any further comments made here on my part. I try - not always successfully - but I do try, to remember to ask myself if my speech is beneficial to myself/others.
Furthermore, I do trust those closest to this matter in dealing with it as best they can.
I said I wasn’t saying anything more but then this came to my attention!
Hopefully this is my last comment on this matter, but I should’ve known better than to give guarantees about my silence!!
Anagarika Michael, I don’t believe this is Ajahn Brahm’s wish.
I was there at last year’s AGM when he clearly said he did not think it was necessary to have a paid manager. But he did also (last year) talk about his workload and how it was really high.
He may well have changed his mind since then. I don’t know.
But I think Bhante Sujato’s clarifying comment elsewhere on this thread - he was present last night it seems - helps us to understand a bit better. As does @mpac’s comment about fear as a motivator.
I would suggest - and I don’t know for sure of course - that Ajahn Brahm was hoping there would be some solutions put forward and agreed to by the membership that was present; so that his administrative workload was eased significantly.
This is very good idea. Some times elected members inhibits the initiatives of non-elected members. However the powers of elected members can not be delegated to non elected members. Ultimately every sub committee should have a some link to a elected member. Without this the law and order cannot be maintained.
This what Ajahn Brahm said at the AGM yesterday (1.56.20 mins)
"One of the people who’s been most burned out, looking after this centre for even longer than…, is myself. I was hoping to lessen the burden, but according to what’s been voted on, putting down against my advice, to have delegated authority in subcommittees, I would express such disappointment that I have no choice but to resign as Spiritual Director. I’ll still be the abbot, I’ll still come to talks, but what is the point being a Spiritual Director when I feel that my concerns are not taken seriously.
"I have a lot of concern about my own health and well-being and I thought that by allowing some delegated authority across the board, that that would take away a lot of my burdens. And the idea of the lack of trust and fears that things would go wrong, which I do not agree with, I think it’s not Buddhist, that we mistrust one another… and so I feel that the role of SD is to give advice and for that advice to be taken seriously. And basically I’m getting burned out.
“So its up to you to think about that afterwards. Maybe Ven Hasapannya can take on that role and still be abbot, and you can burn her out!” (Joking)
