Ratification of the Revised CPO Manual

BY: SANAKA RSI DAS

May 23, 2011 — ITALY (SUN) — Hare Krsna Tamohara and Anuttama Prabhu, Please accept my obeisances, All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. Given that you have not responded to my last three letters, at this point I feel the best option left for me is to address you in a public forum.

Early in 2010 the GBC, through Champakalata Mataji (the current CPO Director), requested me to partake in the revision of the CPO Manual along with Prana Prabhu from New Zealand and Champakalata Mataji herself. Given that the CPO Manual had not been revised since its inception, a revision was overdue. As it turned out, due to pressing engagements, these two devotees were not able to contribute a significant amount of time to the project, and I ended up doing most of the revision work.

I submitted the revised CPO Manual to the GBC Secretary on the 15th of December 2010, it was due to be ratified at this years' GBC meetings, Gaura Purnima 2011. Unfortunately the GBC had more pressing matters to tend to, and the ratification of the Manual was postponed indefinitely.

Though I can imagine that you are probably not accustomed to requests for clarity and accountability, and clearly you did not appreciate my attempts to obtain the same from yourselves, still, I regard your "hiding" behind silence as childish, and unbecoming the service you occupy, and the importance of the matter at hand.

Given that you have been selected to oversee the ratification of the CPO Manual, and that the work is not finished, your silence is unacceptable, it reminds me of the temper tantrums of children when they say "If you don't play by my rules, I will not talk to you anymore, I'll pick up my toys and go home".

In my interactions with Tamohara Prabhu over the years, he has lied to me on a number of occasions, I have outlined this in my article published in 2009, "What is the Real Purpose of the CPO?. Iin the article I also detailed his attempts to remove the victim's right to a rebuttal from the CPO Manual.

Given that I raised these issues with several GBC members, I was surprised when I discovered that he had been appointed to oversee the ratification of the revised CPO Manual. But perhaps I should not have been...

I find Tamohara's lies, Anuttama's perhaps deliberately unclear replies, and their subsequent silence as a indicator that they may be attempting to avoid the responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Sadly we seem to have turned into a society that is more concerned with appearances than substance. So in appearance it looks like the GBC cares, but in fact, the CPO is likely to remain at the bottom of their priority pile, at least until there is a new lawsuit or a new scandal of some sort. The GBC have made a half-hearted attempt to make a show of being concerned with the future of ISKCON's children, but you need not search for long to discover that the lion's share of what used to be the CPO's annual budget has been redirected to "more important" projects and that the GBC is not willing to give the protection and care of the children the necessary priority.

The choice of Tamohara Prabhu as one of the two GBC members appointed to oversee the ratification of the CPO Manual, after I informed several GBC members of his misconduct, coupled with the carelessness Tamohara and Anuttama Prabhu have been affording to the ratification process itself, is another sad indicator of the lack of importance the GBC body places on the protection of the children in ISKCON, on the lack of vision the GBC has for the future of ISKCON.

It is baffling for me to see how time and again, the GBC just doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that if we do not care, protect, nurture, guide and inspire the children of ISKCON, the very survival of ISKCON comes under great peril.

It seems like the GBC always has something more important, urgent and pressing to tend to, some other "really important" temple or project to direct funds to. It appears that the GBC as a body is oblivious to the fact that if the children are neglected, we are not going to have a future generation to inherit all these bricks. I am afraid that one day, when it will be too late, the GBC may discover that all those "very important" matters they have been so busy tending to are useless, because ISKCON is no more.

I expect Tamohara Prabhu will make renewed attempts to achieve his sinister objective of removing the victims' right to a rebuttal from the CPO Manual. Even if he will not succeed, I am concerned that by the time the CPO Manual is ratified and approved, it will have been altered and compromised to such a concerning degree that I will not want to be associated with it. I therefore request that you do not include my name in the ratified document that will eventually be made public.

I continue to pray that one day, in the near future, the GBC body will understand the vital role today's children will play in tomorrow's ISKCON, and afford them the necessary care, protection, resources and adequate priority in their busy schedules.

Yours in the service of the Vaisnavas,

Sanaka Rsi das

P.S. Below I have included some relevant correspondence for the benefit of those that are not familiar with the topic.

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, sanaka rsi wrote:

Dear tamohara and Anuttama Prabhus,

I sent you the letter below over a week ago, as I have not heard back, I am resending it just in case it was not delivered. I will appreciate if either of you can respond.

Thank you

Sanaka

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sanaka rsi
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: Champakalata dasi
Cc: "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)" , AD, tamohara

Dear Anuttama and Tamohara Prabhus,

Please accept my respectful obeisances, All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In the days gone, I was thinking about the CPO Manual and I estimated that to date I have dedicated somewhere between 500 to 600 hours to its revision. It is a project that I regard to be of the greatest importance, this is why I have been so dedicated and persistent.

I have only recently realized that in the revision of the CPO Manual I did not to address the eventuality of an individual who does not comply with CPO sanction.

If you do not have any objections, given that we are only just starting the ratification of the document, I would like to request the permission to add a paragraph or two to cover this possibility.

I wish to request the permission to explain and discuss any topics or points, I have included in the revision, which you may find unclear or unacceptable in their current form. I would like to look into the possibility of clarifying or rewording any such points so as to find a satisfactory alternative. I am concerned that important aspects may otherwise be removed from the manual due to possible shortcomings in presentation.

Thank you

Yours in the service of the Vaisnavas,




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sanaka rsi
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)"
Cc: AD, Champakalata dasi, tamohara

Dear Praghosa Prabhu,

I am very appreciative of your willingness to assist in getting the revised CPO Manual ratified asap. I support this wholeheartedly and am happy to assist in any way that will be deemed appropriate. I would be delighted, if somehow we ensure that the document is ready and presented for ratification at the October GBC meetings.

What I find disheartening is that to date I have not heard Anuttama Prabhu or Tamohara Prabhu make any such commitment, all their replies have been rather vague, devoid of any time frames. To this end I will renew the question I asked in my last email.

What can and needs to be done to ensure that the ratification of the CPO Manual is concluded without further delay and with the necessary care and attention?

Also, I don't want to come across as a pain, but I don't fully share your perspective when you state that the GBC is doing everything in their power under the circumstances to assist and empower the CPO...and where you wrote..."I also have no doubt that both Anuttama and Tamohara prabhus do not have the time they wish they did to give to this issue".

Of course in writing this I do not have the benefit of knowing any details of what you refer to as "the massive time constraints the GBC works under".

Still I will share my understanding from my limited perspective.

Most healthy families rightly invest a substantial amount of their resources in their children (it is an investment in the future). On the other hand, I regard ISKCON's investment in this department to be dangerously inadequate.

The GBC have much on their plate, they are managing a complex and a relatively big international society, their time is naturally limited. If I understood you correctly, from what you wrote I got the impression that you either believe, or would like me to believe that, the manner in which the GBC dispose of their precious time is out of their control.

This is where I disagree with you. I actually think that this view is dis-empowering as it suggests that the GBC can't do anything about the situation. On the contrary, I believe that how they allot their time is very much their choice.

My opinion is that the GBC has chosen not to afford sufficient priority, time and resources into the CPO and the future of ISKCON in general. I see this to be very much a choice, and a regrettable one at that.

I believe that acknowledging this will be instrumental in assisting with the completion of this project and in giving the CPO the necessary support and resources.

I pray you can forgive any offenses and inadequacies that may be in my presentation,

Yours in the service of the Vaisanvas,

Hare Krsna

Sanaka




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)
Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: AD, sanaka rsi
Cc: Champakalata dasi, tamohara

Hare Krsna,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I of course try to live in the real world and hope that one day that reality (world), will result in me residing in Goloka Vrndavana.

In the meantime, while trying to live realistically I am aware that while the perception maybe that the GBC is not giving due attention and time to the CPO review, the reality is that they are doing their best under the circumstances of the massive time constraints that they are under.

I also have no doubt that both Anuttama and Tamohara prabhus do not have the time they wish they did to give to this issue. So... understanding of that is a very important factor.

That said I want to assist in whatever way I can in getting this revised CPO manual ratified asap.

To that end I am not aware of anything in the revised manual that prevents ratification at the next GBC meeting in October. Due to a dehibilitating migraine, I was not present when this was discussed at the recent AGM, hence I am not wholly aware of the issues that prevented ratification, although I understand they were of a legal nature.

It would be MOST useful if those concerns could be clearly delinated via this exchange and then we can all seek to have them satisfied. Thus clearing the path to ratification in October.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa

Pls visit www.dandavats.com




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sanaka rsi
Date: Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: AD
Cc: tamohara, "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)", Champakalata dasi

Dear Anuttama and Tamohara Prabhus,

Please accept my respectful obeisances, All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am confused; and I am afraid, as much as I will try, I will struggle to word what I need to say in a pleasant way.

In reading the correspondence we have exchanged over the last few days; its contents strike me as incongruent and a bit sloppy. I am afraid that either:

1. Both of you may be too busy to take the time to come up with thoughtful responses,
2. And/or give the ratification of the revised CPO Manual adequate attention,
3. Or that neither of you is well aquainted with the topic of discussion,

or perhaps all of the above.

Tamohara Prabhu wrote that the revised document was submitted late and that the deputies only had a couple of days to look over the 60 page document, and that for this reason it was not ratified at the last GBC meetings in February.

I submitted the revised CPO manual on the 1st of December, so I am not sure why Tamohara Prabhu believes that it was submitted late.

In the letter dated 18/04/2011 Anuttama Prabhu wrote that "...about 4 years ago. Significant changes were made in procedures at that time to fix some "kinks" in the system, including the appeal process". In the 20th of April letter Anuttama Prabhu changes the 4 years to a "few years".

As far as I am aware Tamohara Prabhu becoming the Director of the CPO (and more recently Champakalata Mataji) have been the only major changes that has been made to the CPO since its inception. No changes whatsoever have been made to its policies and procedures, the current CPO Manual is the same that was compiled at the very beginning. Tamohara Prabhu did not become the CPO Director 4 years ago, and he certainly did not "fix" the appeals process.

Then further down in the same letter of the 18/04/2011 Anuttama Prabhu writes:

"This year the GBC expressed a desire to assure, in the next round of assessment, the participation of those who created the office and those who made adjustments last time around to assure we benefit from that history and practical experience of what worked well in the past, what didn't, etc. Also, those involved this time should understand that Tamohara prabhu was the CPO Director for about 5 years, and he played an instrumental role in the CPO's history of effectiveness, including bringing Champa mataji on board."

I appreciate that Tamohara Prabhu has a wealth of experience to offer, still I don't understand the logic that has brought the GBC to invite Tamohara Prabhu (Who made an active effort to remove the victims' right to a rebuttal) and not Dhira Govinda Prabhu who made a substantial contribution to establish the office in the first place, served as the Director for several years and undoubtedly can also offer a wealth of suggestions from his years of experience.

I want to emphasize that though I believe that Dhira Govinda Prabhu can offer a valuble contribution, I am not particularly attached to his participation. What I do not understand is the inconsistency of inviting Tamohara Prabhu and not Dhira Govinda Prabhu.

In the last letter Anuttama Prabhu writes that he has no idea regarding the forecasted time frame that will be required to complete the ratification of the revised CPO Manual.

Considering that both of you are GBC members, and that you happen to be THE GBC members who have been appointed to oversee the ratification of the CPO Manual, I am at a loss. I am left with five important questions hanging in the air.

1. If you do not know who does?

2. How can I have some reliable, congruent and adequate information?

3. Is there somebody else I should be writing to?

4. How much of the information you have given me is attendible?

5. What can be done to ensure that the ratification of the CPO Manual is concluded without further delay and with the necessary care and attention?

I am concerned that the GBC has placed the ratification of the revised CPO Manual on the back-burner. It seems to me that the GBC is not affording the necessary time, attention and resources to the CPO in general, I believe this is an oversight ISKCON can not afford to make.

Hopeful, looking forward to some clarifications,

I remain,

Yours in the service of the Vaisnavas

Sanaka rsi das

P.S. I have included Praghosa Prabhu and Champakalata Mataji as recepients of this letter.

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |

Copyright 2005,2011, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.