The inevitable happened and Resolution 311 died on the delivery table.
Resolution 311 was an ISKCON GBC resolution that recommended that the BBT annotate Srila Prabhupada's as a strategy to deal with two issues facing ISKCON today: weak preaching and outreach, and internal cultural issues.
H.H. Jayadavaita Swami released an official statement from the BBT on his blog.
The statement is credible. It's got sound logic and shows evidence of a process of investigation and consideration behind it. It acknowledges the drivers behind the GBC's recommendation, but then rebuffs their proposed solution as inappropriate and "unwise".
The statement is actually a chastisement of the GBC. The Resolution should never have been made. As I pointed out in several places, aside from being unwise and inappropriate, it was an obvious suicide charge from the word go - a last desperate move by an encircled and confused body.
The obvious questions now are:
- How was such a doomed resolution ever made and published?
- Why were the implications of making this resolution (the public backlash, the disconnect from and division of the society's membership, and the loss of leadership credibility of the GBC) not analyzed and identified ahead of time?
- Now that this resolution has failed to address the internal and external issues that ISKCON is facing, how is the GBC going to respond without making another monumental misstep?
- How is the GBC going to address its leadership capability deficit?
- How is the GBC going to address its loss of leadership credibility pursuant to Resolution 311?
Making a mistake as a leader or a leadership body does not have to be a negative thing. It can be turned into a positive event, if you learn from those mistakes.
Sincere followers are not unforgiving. They do not expect invulnerable and perfect leaders. If they are treated as partners on a common mission then they appreciate commitment to the common mission and an obvious (and effective) effort to increase in service to that mission.
Within the last year I went through a leadership test of my own. By a combination of factors I made a misstep. As a result there was a disconnect with the people I lead, and a loss of confidence, similar to the situation with Resolution 311.
Coming out of this involved sitting down in a face-to-face meeting with the people I lead and addressing the situation. People want to know that you understand how the mistake was made, and that adjustments have been effected to avoid falling into the same trap again. Leadership, and life, is a learning experience. People need to have confidence to follow you.
Here is what I would do if I were on the GBC:
Form an independent commission headed by H.H. Jayadvaita Swami (who just won the confidence of everyone who was concerned about this resolution) to investigate the process that gave rise to Resolution 311, and to give recommendations about how this debacle could have been avoided, and similar debacles can be avoided in the future.
Adopting this approach is actually the first step to a mode of operation that would have avoided the whole thing in the first place.
I believe that what we are seeing here is something that I see throughout ISKCON's management model: a lack of asking for advice from independent observers and analysts.
ISKCON is filled with potential advisors who don't have managerial posts, but it seems that managerial rank is a prerequisite to taking part in the decision-making processes. This effectively robs the GBC of the majority of the brain power of the organization.
Without going through an public post-mortem process the GBC cannot restore leadership credibility before going on to actually address the issues that Resolution 311 sought to address, and remain pressing in the current leadership vaccuum.
Credibility is one thing, capability is another. The 311 Commission is not just a PR exercise. Broken processes leading to bad decision-making have to be fixed. Whether you supported Resolution 311 or not, the BBT's rebuff of Resolution 311 is a concrete demonstration that the GBC is confused and weak.
To convoke such a commission would take strong leadership and accountability, two things that are currently missing at the GBC level. Continuing to hide behind committees and the anonymity of "the GBC" provides excellent cover for no-one to own the responsibility for the Resolution 311 debacle, and for ISKCON's "supreme managerial body" to continue with the same dysfunctional dynamic of decision-making.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
The GBC just let everyone down, supporters and opponents of Resolution 311 alike. As the saying has it: "I lost my caste, and I'm still hungry." The GBC alienated half of the society and effectively did it for nothing for the other half.
Seriously, what are you going to do about this? You (who is going to own this?) need to publicly learn from this misstep. You need to apologize to the people you lead and really make the change.
Continuing with the same processes, however, guarantees the rise of other more effective organizations in ISKCON, and in the absence of a clear, credible leadership institution these organizations will include extremist ones. (There is my next projection for you - really it's elementary).
The balance of power has been leaking out of the GBC steadily for some time now. Resolution 311 will go down in history as either the turning point, or the tipping point.
Re: 311 Commission
To me, it seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The GBC made a fair recommendation and the recommendation was ultimately rejected by the BBT. In the meantime, there was plenty of good and important discussion of this issue on all sides--not just the discussion of annoting Srila Prabhupada's books but also the critical topics of bodily prejudice in our society, misusing the guru's quotes, how we interpret them, and so on. I for one applaud the GBC for raising these issues and getting devotees to talk about them, no matter what the outcome.