Views: 42
Revoking Candidacy
Here is the invention revealed, for the first time, on 17th January to cover up the real reasons for a formal removal of Frank and me from our roles. Although he had claimed the removal on the previous Saturday, Mark could not show us Minutes of any EC decision to sack us. Was there a meeting at all?
Frank and Gil got Mark to agree to formalise the sacking by calling a meeting, having a vote and properly minuting everything. But that did not happen. A bogus playact was arranged between Mark and Claire (how else would Claire get the idea for the two claims?) so that the agreed vote could be avoided. Minutes of 17 January EC Meeting. The sham performance below shows that none of those involved bothered to check either that Claire had any power to revoke, or even to ensure that they were behaving ethically by accepting the two amazing claims without seeking verification or response from me and Frank.
Frank and I were never “candidates”. We did not apply for the jobs. There was no “offer” —of any kind— made to us by FPMT. We were appointed by Gabe and Judy in December and on the word of Lama Zopa. We were not appointed by FPMT but would have immediately resigned if Rinpoche had asked us to.
Dear Mark,
Many thanks for the update.
I wholeheartedly endorse the determination of the TI exec to explore further the ideas and concerns which Peter brought up during this exploration of the directorship of TI. I know you will share any significant feedback on them for the ongoing development of TI and the FPMT organization with Peter (Stickels) and I.
With thanks to all.
Warmly,
Claire
Center Services Director
FPMT International Office
An early example of the charades we see from here on, Claire wholeheartedly endorses a plan that she has hatched with Mark between Saturday and Thursday.
And she adds “this exploration of the directorship of TI” — the falsehood that Frank and I had not already been made Director and Assistant Director against what is evidenced here in the Timeline.
The tone given is one of being at arms length when the opposite is clearly the case.
From: Mark Fernandes
Sent: 17 January 2019 11:43
To: Claire Isitt
Subject: Agenda and outcome of TI Executive Committee meeting 17/1/2019
Hi Claire,
As arranged the 5 members of Tara Institute met tonight (Gabe Wallace by phone hook up) to discuss the following amended motion. Secretary Justin Sethu assumed the role of Chairperson.
What had been actually “arranged” with Frank, Gil and me was that the EC would meet to formally vote and Minute a decision —that Mark had claimed on Saturday had already been made prior to Saturday.
Why was the “amended” motion concocted (see below for an explanation of “concocted”)? Was it to avoid a vote which may have been lost or was it to avoid making a decision that would leave blood on their hands?
Amended Motion: The Tara Institute Executive Committee endorses the decision by FPMT Inc to revoke the candidacy and offer of roles of Centre Director and Assistant Centre Director to Peter Guiliano and Frank Brock.
The motion was discussed and a vote was taken. The result was 5 Yes, 0 No. The motion was carried unanimously to endorse the FPMT Inc decision.
Although Peter brought a number of very good ideas to the table which we will take up, for the sake of openness the main reasons why the EC voted yes are summarised as follows:
It is so depressing to see here Dharma people using such obvious spin instead of being clear and honest about what they are doing. To say “revoke the candidacy and offer of roles” is deception and dishonesty.
In any case, what authority does Claire have to revoke anything? Frank and I were appointed by the EC on the basis of Lama Zopa Rinpoche’s observation — we were not appointed according to anything else and have never seen an “offer” of any kind.
candidacy and offer of roles
A search of the FPMT Affiliate Agreement reveals no such clause so there is no power in the Agreement that makes this a possibility; it is entirely made up.
Searching for the word “offer” returns zero results, “candidacy” also returns zero results and “roles” returns zero results. But “revoke” returns this:
16. Effect of Termination or Expiration.
- Upon termination of this Agreement:
a. Revocation of Charter.
FPMT Inc., may, in the sole discretion of its Board of Directors, revoke the charter granted to the Affiliate pursuant to Section 1 above. Such revocation nonetheless shall obligate the Affiliate to initiate dissolution proceedings immediately under applicable state law and to pursue such proceedings diligently to conclusion, including the distribution of the Affiliate’s net assets in compliance with the terms of its rules and applicable law.This is a dangerous game being played by the EC.
1. Unwillingness to work within FPMT policy regarding the management structure and
2. Endeavouring to divide the TI community, instead of promoting harmony and togetherness.
Claire, our next steps are to continue to discuss the Centre Director role with other candidates considered favourable by Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche. In the interim, Assistant Director Gabe Wallace will continue in her role of Acting Centre Director with the support of the EC. Once a decision has been reached and ratified by the TI EC we will advise you and our members.
These two Kangaroo Court claims not only lack evidence, they fail the common sense test.
Frank and I have so many years worth of history working for Rinpoche and the FPMT that would alone show this as bunkum. But nothing is even claimed as events that might back up the claims. Nothing.
As you review my communications here, do you see anything that is other than trying to get the EC to discuss?
Invariably when we announce the Centre Director to our members we are going to have to communicate that Peter and Frank are not in these roles. In order to deal with this sensitively and promote harmony we would communicate something along the lines that Peter considered the Centre Director position but decided not to accept the role.
Regards Mark,
Mark Fernandes
Tara Institute Treasurer
But this is the killer statement revealed in this document.
Mark is proposing to tell Members a deliberate untruth