The Direction of Management (DOM)
BY: SUN STAFF
Dec 16, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) —
Over the last several years the Sun has published numerous articles that make reference to Srila Prabhupada's Direction of Management document. The subject came to the forefront in connection with the temple bylaws issue, and before that in the context of the Long Island, New York lawsuit. According to Nimai Pandit dasa, in that litigation several members of the GBC relied upon the DOM as a legal basis for their governing authority on ISKCON's behalf. In his article, "Bylaw Adoption: A coup attempt", Nimai Pandit dasa wrote:
Badrinarayan Das, a member of the ISKCON GBC Society of West Bengal, passionately preached about the importance of the Direction of Management in the Supreme Court of New York in 2004, as part of his testimony under oath (under his legal name of Robert Morrill):
(Holding the Direction of Management in his hands)
Morrill: "This is Prabhupada, the founder of our Society, founding the GBC."
....
Morrill: "And I should mention that this document is quoted, it is referenced, it is well known. It's the basis of the decisions, the basis of our authority.
Attorney of Morrill: "It's a historical document?
Morrill: "Historical document that's referred to repeatedly."
Mr. Morrill and his Attorney go over the duties and powers of the GBC from the DOM, but manage NOT TO GO OVER points 2, 3 or 4 setting up the election of GBC from among the Temple Presidents every three years. The actual portions of the transcript of his testimony are downloadable here in a .pdf version.
In that court case, various members of the West Bengal Society repeatedly, over many years, have been positioning themselves as the great lovers of the DOM, dependant upon it with life and soul. That includes Hrdayananda Goswami, Romapada Swami, Bir Krishna Goswami, and the entire West Bengal Society represented by its then Chairman Pragosh das. Anyone can check their filings in public court records."
When the DOM discussion arose again, during ISKCON's initial public defense of their effort to introduce new bylaws in North American temples, the Sun Editors made an effort to become better education on the Direction of Management and subsequent documents, which had previously been completely unfamiliar to us. We made a preliminary study of the DOM, from a literal point of view, which raised a number of questions about the documents and what instructions from Srila Prabhupada were actually contained in them. We circulated this document to a number of DOM adherents, hoping to get answers to our questions, but little feedback was received.
As Rocana dasa noted in a recent article, "A Rtvik By Any Other Name", we have seen some support withdrawn from the Rtvik camp and refocus on the DOM, and we can expect more devotees to take this approach in the future. Therefore, it seems timely to share our analysis and questions on the DOM with a wider audience.
We have not arrived at a strong conclusion about the DOM, and do not have a position either for or against it. We would like to hear from other devotees as to their thoughts on our interpretations and the questions raised below.
In the absence of Srila Prabhupada's manifest presence, the DOM is now open to interpretation. Aside from the obvious questions it raises, various factors in ISKCON would make it problematic for the DOM to be instituted anytime soon as a viable alternative to the GBC's current failed management scheme, which is about to degenerate even further into a new corporate model of management. For example, how could a transition to the DOM model be made to work in the milieu of GBC's or gurus in charge of local temples, where their power is clearly leveraged by installing temple presidents, who would then vote? It seems unlikely that this particular problem would be solved by just waiting out a three-year election cycle, hoping to install new temple presidents who are neutral and independent of GBC influence.
While encouraging a technical analysis of the DOM and the Amendment document that followed it may prove to be as subjectively contentious as interpretation of the July 9th Letter has been, we nonetheless offer the following as food for thought, and look forward to hearing from supporters and critics of the DOM. We would particularly like to hear from the GBC members who have evangelized the DOM in the past in order to establish their bona fides for the Court… but of course, that will never happen.
The original DOM document signed by Srila Prabhupada can be found here. The images below are excerpts of text from that document.
An Analysis of the
DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT
(Emphasis added)
The "Direction of Management" was signed by Srila Prabhupada and witnessed on July 28, 1970 in Los Angeles. Srila Prabhupada states that he incorporated the Society, but in this document he doesn't mention where. After a brief introduction to the document, Srila Prabhupada listed the thirty-four branches (temples) of ISKCON that existed at the time. He goes on to say that while the temples are currently being managed nicely there is room for improvement, and he writes in the DOM:
"As we have increased our volume of activities, now I think a Governing Body Commission (hereinafter referred to as the GBC) should be established. I am getting old, 75 years old, therefore at any time I may be out of the scene, therefore I think it is necessary to give instruction to my disciples how they shall manage the whole institution. They are already managing individual centers represented by one president, one secretary and one treasurer, and in my opinion they are doing nice. But we want still more improvement in the standard of Temple management, propaganda for Krishna Consciousness, distribution of books and literatures, opening of new centers and educating devotees to the right standard."
Srila Prabhupada had obviously not established the GBC before this writing. He says here that he is instructing his disciples, not just the GBC, as to "how they shall manage the whole institution." This statement "whole institution" is all-inclusive, although Srila Prabhupada makes a distinction at the end of the DOM regarding separation between the GBC and the BBT.
In the next paragraph he writes:
"Therefore, I have decided to adopt the following principles and I hope my beloved disciples will kindly accept them. There was a meeting in San Francisco during the Ratha Yatra festival 1970 and many presidents of the centers were present. In that meeting it was resolved that an ad hoc committee be set up to form the constitution which is taken into consideration. My duty was to first appoint twelve (12) persons to my free choice amongst my disciples and I do it now and their names are as follows:"
The creation of the DOM obviously immediately followed the San Francisco Ratha Yatra. We know from a passage later in the DOM that the ad hoc committee was established, but we don't know what work they actually did on a constitution.
Srila Prabhupada says the ad hoc committee was being set-up "to form the constitution which is taken into consideration." This infers that the constitution had already been created, or at least formulated to the point that it could be considered as part of this document.
He then says that his duty was to appoint 12 disciples. Taken in context, this statement seems to infer that naming the 12 was his duty in relationship to the constitution and/or the work of the ad hoc committee,, as he says, "My duty was to first appoint…" In the statement above he infers that the constitution was already created to some degree, but given that he is only now naming the 12 appointees, it indicates that the constitution may not have been completed until the execution of this DOM.
Srila Prabhupada named 12 "direct representatives" who were to act as "zonal secretaries" while Srila Prabhupada was living, and were to act as Executors after his departure. So far, these individuals have not been called "GBC's".
Here, Srila Prabhupada specifies that the following text describes the GBC's function with particulars, i.e., in detail:
The GBC's first duty is to execute his Will. The word "Will" being capitalized indicates that he means his Last Will and Testament, not his "will" as in his determined wishes. In a preceding passage, the DOM clarified that the GBC will not act in this role until after Srila Prabhupada's departure.
Item #1 refers to the GBC's role during Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila, during which time they are also presumably acting in their role as "zonal secretaries".
In context, this statement indicates that the 12 individuals named above as "zonal secretaries" are not actually GBC members. Srila Prabhupada says he "will select", not that he "has already selected, as is the case above where he named the selected "zonal secretaries" and future "Executors".
The first sentence indicates that this process is to be carried out for the indefinite future: "In the succeeding years…"
The language in the remainder of this passage is somewhat open to interpretation. We can understand that the Temple Presidents will be doing the voting for 8 GBC's.
The sentence also states "…from a ballot of all Temple presidents, which may also include any secretary who is in charge of a Temple." This phrase might be interpreted in one of two ways:
1) those persons named on the ballot must be either Temple presidents or
secretaries in charge of a Temple; or
2) "from a ballot of" meaning the ballot was created by all Temple Presidents or
Secretaries, in which case GBC candidates might not themselves be serving as
Temple Presidents or Secretaries at the time of the election.
The 8 candidates winning a majority of votes will serve as GBC for "the next term". In item #3 below, we read that the term of GBC elected office is three years.
Srila Prabhupada also states that he will "choose to retain" four commissioners. These four, plus the 8 elected, form the 12-person GBC. Because he does not provide any distinction in this document between the roles of the 8 GBC members compared to the select group of four commissioners, the reader must ask whether he meant for there to be a functional difference between these roles, or whether he simply meant to have a small hand-picked group with greater longevity.
Srila Prabhupada has already stated that he will chose the entire first 12-member GBC body, and that 4 of these commissioners he will retain, while 8 members will come up for election. While it's not definitively stated, we assume that "retain four commissioners" means Srila Prabhupada will choose them and they will stay on, while the other 8 members rotate through elections. In this context, the word "retain" obviously speaks to longevity rather than engagement (e.g., "I have retained (hired) commissioners").
To our knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never actually chose these four commissioners. Perhaps someone can confirm this, and tell us if the reason is known?
"In the event of Srila Prabhupada's absence" appears to mean "following Srila Prabhupada's departure", but that is also open to interpretation. Less clear is the meaning of "the retiring members". One would assume that he would have named the 4 commissioners prior to his departure, given the intent stated in this document. "Retiring members" could mean those among the 8 elected GBC who either chose to retire, or who were "retired" by the electorate who voted them out of office, or it could refer to any of those among the four retained commissioners who choose to retire from their GBC service.
If "retiring members" refers to any among the four commissioners who choose to retire, it might be interpreted that such retiring members have the right to basically replace themselves, appointing a new non-elected commissioner who will stay until his own retirement. Because the term "retiring members" is plural, however, it could also mean that the selection of "remaining" commissioners is to be a joint decision making process.
If "retiring members" refers to the four commissioners, then it is not clear if the decision on appointment replacements of non-elected commissioners is to be an individual or a joint decision.
This item provides for re-election of the 8 GBC members to a second or subsequent term.
Here Srila Prabhupada adds further definition to the roles of GBC members. Each elected class of GBC, along with the four retained commissioners, appoints a Chairman who holds that position for a year.
Interestingly, with all the detail we can image Srila Prabhupada could have provided in the DOM about who will do what, this is a point he felt it necessary to establish legally, even with his own hand-picked four commissioners.
Obviously, the phrase "maintain the established Temples" is open to interpretation, and this aspect of the GBC's role has proven to be far more problematic than "organizing" the opening of new Temples.
We note that "advice" does not constitute absolute decision-making.
Srila Prabhupada does not specify whether it is the role of the GBC or the temple presidents to ensure that newly purchased properties are put in the name of ISKCON, INC., so one would assume that it's a cooperative duty between the two.
Perhaps of greatest note is the nomenclature Srila Prabhupada used in stating that new properties shall be put in the name "ISKCON, INC." He did not say ISKCON of _________, Inc., but rather that they were to be named a single corporate entity name. If we take the DOM literally in this regard, one would have to conclude that Srila Prabhupada directed that a single corporation named "ISKCON, INC." be formed, and that all property assets would be vended into it, including every new temple as it was acquired. Of course, this clearly seems to go against his expressed wishes for decentralization. Consequently, it seems fair to assume that he meant " ISKCON of _________, Inc.", since corporation law in most states would prevent two temple, being two independent incorporated entities, to have exactly the same name, "ISKCON, INC."
This instruction is quite clear, although it is regularly ignored by the GBC.
Here Srila Prabhupada clearly states that his books are not under the purview of the GBC. The meaning of "separate committee" is made clear in the paragraph that follows.
Srila Prabhupada uses an interesting format device, a line of asterisks, to emphasize and set apart this statement from the preceding portion of the DOM. Here, he further qualifies his instructions regarding how his books are to be handled. This statement sets forth his intention to establish the BBT and have it run by GBC members, while at the same time clarifying the division of powers between the two entities. But have the BBT trustees always been GBC members?
Srila Prabhupada does not clarify the relationship, if any, between ISKCON Press and the soon-to-be-formed BBT, consequently we must assume that no such relationship exists.
Given the number of Temples already open at the time of this writing, we would assume that Srila Prabhupada meant no one should live in 'his apartment' at any Temple.
While probably not important, it's interesting to note the typed signature line, "ACB" – not "ACBS", the abbreviation for his name as he actually signed it. To our knowledge, Srila Prabhupada didn't typically refer to himself as "A.C. Bhaktivedanta", but usually added "Swami".
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the DOM is what is not included – that is, more specificity regarding the actual activities to be performed, and not performed, by members of the GBC.
Tomorrow we will provide a similar analysis of the Amendments document, commonly referred to as the "Topmost Urgency" document.
