Correspondence between and Praghosa Dasa, the GBC chair, regarding the proposed sale of the ISKCON Brooklyn temple

2/18/15 from Praghosa Dasa To: Jayadvaita Swami Cc: Romapada Swami, Bhaktarupa Dasa, Kuladri Dasa, Nityananda Dasa, EC [same list of receivers throughout] Subject: The proposed move: Signs of risk

Yes I am working on a plan and should be able to confirm it within a week.

I am hopeful that the said plan will be consistent with what we all discussed along with Jayadvaita Maharaja a week or so again in the Chairman's room.

Will be in touch as soon as the plan is solid.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa ------

2/19 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Thank you, both Anuttama Prabhu and Praghosa Prabhu.

As a I reminder: Beyond the strengthening of the North American team, my thoughts included the need for a fully independent level of review.

Thank you again. Hare Krsna.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Your servant, Jayadvaita Swami ------

2/22 from Anuttama Dasa:

Maharaja

That is definitely part of the plan. ys, Anuttama

1 ------

2/22 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Thank you very much.

Hare Krsna.

--ys, js ------

3/11 from Jayadvaita Swami:

O Praghosa Prabhu--

On 2/18 you wrote:

> Yes I am working on a plan and should be able to confirm it within a week. > > I am hopeful that the said plan will be consistent with what we all > discussed along with Jayadvaita Maharaja a week or so again in the > Chairman's room. > > Will be in touch as soon as the plan is solid.

That was three weeks ago. Is there an update?

Thank you. Hare .

--js ------

3/14 from Praghosa Dasa:

Dear Jayadvaita Maharaja,

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

Apologies for the delay on this but it took a little bit of time getting everything in place.

So regarding the Brooklyn Temple matter that you brought to the EC's attention and which we met about when you were here in Mayapur last month. As discussed with you, I can now confirm that a strong committee of three from the UK have agreed to be the review team, receiving their directions from the EC. They received a copy of the pdf document which you sent to the EC on the 17th of February.

2 The planning of a visit to NY is well underway, preceded by requests to the Brooklyn leadership for written responses to specific questions, etc.

The review team members are taking this assignment seriously and knowing them all personally, I have full faith they will do a comprehensive job of work.

I will keep you posted as things shape up further.

By the way: the review team has been clearly instructed to not become recipients of any messages from others which may predispose them or otherwise compromise their neutrality. I request that any discussions you may have with parties who share similar concerns as you, that for the duration of the review team's work you encourage them to observe this same standard.

Thank you.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa ------

3/15 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Dear Praghosa Prabhu,

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for getting back to me. I can appreciate that such matters take time, so the delay was no problem.

> So regarding the Brooklyn Temple matter that you brought to the EC's > attention and which we met about when you were here in Mayapur last month. > As discussed with you, I can now confirm that a strong committee of three > from the UK have agreed to be the review team, receiving their directions > from the EC. They received a copy of the pdf document which you sent to the > EC on the 17th of February. > > The planning of a visit to NY is well underway, preceded by requests to the > Brooklyn leadership for written responses to specific questions, etc. > > The review team members are taking this assignment seriously and knowing > them all personally, I have full faith they will do a comprehensive job of > work. > > I will keep you posted as things shape up further.

All good.

3 > By the way: the review team has been clearly instructed to not become > recipients of any messages from others which may predispose them or > otherwise compromise their neutrality. I request that any discussions you > may have with parties who share similar concerns as you, that for the > duration of the review team's work you encourage them to observe this same > standard.

I don't think I understand the thought process here.

How can the committee possibly do a comprehensive job without hearing from -- indeed, seeking out -- the people most involved and affected? Why would hearing information or opinions from parties with differing views compromise the committee's neutrality?

In a court case we would certainly expect the judge to be neutral -- but we wouldn't expect that for the sake of neutrality he be insulated from relevant testimony.

Has the committee been instructed -- for the sake of neutrality -- not to speak with Romapada Maharaja, Satya Dasi, or Ramabhadra Prabhu?

I recall that in the controversy over the proposed closing of Bhaktivedanta Manor, the Minister of the Environment went to the extent of convening a public inquiry, at which all affected parties were invited to have a say.

In regard to the proposed move from Brooklyn, I would expect that the thoughts and feelings of concerned stakeholders would fall well within the scope of what the committee should be reviewing. If not, what exactly is the scope of the review?

I don't mean that to be a rhetorical question. I would think that the scope for the review should be defined in advance, in writing, and that I and other stakeholders should get to see in advance how that scope is defined -- and perhaps be offered the opportunity to comment.

For that matter, I would think that "scope" should be only one (important) item in written "terms of reference" that should define and contextualize the committee's mission -- and that stakeholders should get the opportunity to see those terms in advance and perhaps comment on them. No?

You write, "The planning of a visit to NY is well underway, preceded by requests to the Brooklyn leadership for written responses to specific questions, etc."

Will those of us who have questioned the move get to see those responses and perhaps respond further? Or are the replies from the Brooklyn leadership the last word, the final response?

Since you write that the plans for a NY visit are well underway, I would be grateful to hear from you about these points at the earliest.

I appreciate that strong differences of opinion are taxing for the EC to deal with. So I thank you once again for patiently attending to this.

4 Hare Krishna.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Yours in Srila Prabhupada's service, Jayadvaita Swami

PS: Any objection if I forward this to Hamsa Rupa Prabhu and Tosan Krsna Prabhu?

------

3/16 from Praghosa Dasa:

Dear Maharaja,

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

In essence the process is:

* Decisions to relocate are made by local leaders, the GBC and where owed property is involved, the relevant property trustees.

* With regards to the New York relocation that decision has in effect already been made and the GBC body has also given its blessings.

* However due to concerns raised by some senior devotees the NY leaders, in conjuction with the GBC EC, have agreed to this additional step.

* This additional step though is not that the evaluation team will get involved in a whole investigation as such, rather, it is designed for them to give their studied and measured feedback on the likely success or otherwise, of the relocation plan.

* Naturally in order for them to achieve that their main focus will be to study the relocation plan. Notwithstanding that, it was deemed appropriate to send them your 'Signs of Risk' document, so they could factor that into their evalution effort.

------end

This process is not akin to a trial as you alluded to. There is no judge or no defence attorney or prosecution attorney. You also refer to the Manor situation of some years back. The fact is there was a notice to close down the Manor by a third party which is a very different matter. There is no outside third party involved here who has the authority to close down the temple and of course rather than closure, the proposal is to improve the overall situation with this relocation. So we will wait and see what the evaluation team report.

5 Yes in all of these kinds of matters there has to be some kind of process and given this is an additional step and quite an unusual one at that, the above is the process the EC has agreed on.

Just to let you know the NY leaders will take very seriously the report of the UK team. If it were the case that their report was extremely negative toward the relocation, then that would have a very big impact on any final decision they make.

I have no objection to you sending it to Tosan Krsna and Hansa prabhus. Indeed I have had quite a few discussions with Hansa about NY here in Mayapur. To be honest though, and I have said as much to Hansa, he is a little bit like a special forces person who has gone 'rogue' deciding he knows best, certainly better than anyone else, particularly the leaders in NY. From his point of view the New York leaders are all incompetent and don't know their backsides from their elbow. So what to do? Such viewpoints will NEVER be satisfied and that is not our aim. Rather as above, it is to simply have an independent evaluation of the relocation plan and then have those invested with the authority to decide, study that evaluation report and proceed accordingly.

Your servant,

Praghosa dasa ------

3/19 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Dear Praghosa Prabhu,

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I have received your letter and duly noted the contents.

> * Decisions to relocate are made by local leaders, the GBC and where owed > property is involved, the relevant property trustees. > > * With regards to the New York relocation that decision has in effect > already been made and the GBC body has also given its blessings. > > * However due to concerns raised by some senior devotees the NY leaders, in > conjuction with the GBC EC, have agreed to this additional step. > > * This additional step though is not that the evaluation team will get > involved in a whole investigation as such, rather, it is designed for them > to give their studied and measured feedback on the likely success or > otherwise, of the relocation plan. > > * Naturally in order for them to achieve that their main focus will be to > study the relocation plan. Notwithstanding that, it was deemed appropriate > to send them your 'Signs of Risk' document, so they could factor that into

6 > their evalution effort too.

I appreciate that the global GBC prefers to leave matters, as far as possible, to the local and regional leaders.

With this in mind, from our discussions in Mayapur what I understood I could expect was something like this:

1. Since the NA GBC had not heard many of the arguments I raised, the matter would go back to them to reconsider, with the opportunity to hear both sides.

2. Assuming the NA GBC still approved, the matter would be further reviewed by a non-American committee.

3. The matter could then either go back to the NA GBC for further review or go directly to the property trustees.

4. Assuming the property trustees agreed, the move could go ahead.

Now I am not sure what you are telling me the EC plans.

You write:

>> * Naturally in order for them to achieve that their main focus will be to >> study the relocation plan. Notwithstanding that, it was deemed appropriate >> to send them your 'Signs of Risk' document, so they could factor that into >> their evalution effort too.

From this statement I cannot clearly gather what the "main focus" of the committee will be. They will study "the relocation plan" -- but that gives me no clear picture of what the scope of their focus includes.

They will not "get involved in a whole investigation." And as you told me before, they "will not become recipients of messages from others" (that is, those whose views differ from those of the Brooklyn management).

I assume this to mean that the committee will deal only with a subset of the issues I have raised. And so it seems that although "it was deemed appropriate" to send them my document, many of the issues that document raises -- perhaps even those flagged as the most important -- will lie outside the committee's scope.

You wrote:

> This process is not akin to a trial as you alluded to. There is no judge or > no defence attorney or prosecution attorney. You also refer to the Manor > situation of some years back. The fact is there was a notice to close down > the Manor by a third party which is a very different matter. There is no

7 > outside third party involved here who has the authority to close down the > temple and of course rather than closure, the proposal is to improve the > overall situation with this relocation. So we will wait and see what the > evaluation team report.

When I mentioned a judge and Britain's Minister of the Environment, my simple point (which seems to have gotten lost) was that a person held to a high standard of impartiality can hear the views of opposing parties yet keep his neutrality intact.

I wrote:

>>> Has the committee been instructed -- for the sake of neutrality -- not >>> to speak with Romapada Maharaja, Satya Dasi, or Ramabhadra Prabhu?

By your silence on that question, I assume (though I stand ready to be corrected) that the answer is yes. And so the committee will presumably meet at length with those who are pushing for the sale but -- for the sake of neutrality -- has been "clearly instructed" not to hear further from those who oppose it.

Hmmm. . .

> > Yes in all of these kinds of matters there has to be some kind of process > and given this is an additional step and quite an unusual one at that, the > above is the process the EC has agreed on. > > Just to let you know the NY leaders will take very seriously the report of > the UK team. If it were the case that their report was extremely negative > toward the relocation, then that would have a very big impact on any final > decision they make.

I wonder, then, whether what you are telling me is that the committee will report to the NY leaders and that, except for the property trustees, higher oversight ends there.

Getting to the essence of the matter, I have two questions:

1. What are the "terms of reference" given to the committee, defining the committee's purpose, its scope, what it is expected to do, the questions it is supposed to answer, how it is to go about its business, whom it will report to, within what time frame, and so on?

(My previous letter asked the same question. So this is the second time I'm asking.)

2. Precisely what sequence of review will this matter go through? Which authorities will review the matter, in what sequence?

I gather that the EC has moved forward on this matter with admirable expeditiousness, so I hope I may hear from you promptly.

8 Thank you.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Yours in Srila Prabhupada's service, Jayadvaita Swami

PS: You wrote:

> I have no objection to you sending it to Tosan Krsna and Hansa prabhus. > Indeed I have had quite a few discussions with Hansa about NY here in > Mayapur. To be honest though, and I have said as much to Hansa, he is a > little bit like a special forces person who has gone 'rogue' deciding he > knows best, certainly better than anyone else, particularly the leaders in > NY. From his point of view the New York leaders are all incompetent and > don't know their backsides from their elbow. So what to do? Such viewpoints > will NEVER be satisfied and that is not our aim.

I acknowledge that Hamsarupa Prabhu can become overbearing. I certainly don't share the view that the New York leaders "are all incompetent."

Nonetheless, I have lately learned that, in the wake of the Mayapur meetings, Ramabhadra Prabhu tried to deprive one of my godbrothers of his decades-long regular service to Sri Sri Govinda in order to bully that godbrother into doing what he wanted the godbrother to do: issue a "mea culpa" for having disclosed to me his opposition to the sale and profess that in fact he's all for it.

So it may well be that Hamsarupa Prabhu is outraged by some aspects of the leadership in New York. In the wake of this abuse of my godbrother, so am I.

Hare Krishna.

--js ------

3/21 from Praghosa Dasa:

Dear Maharaja,

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

>From my perspective what we discussed in Mayapur and what I oulined in my previous e-mail are fully consistent. I could reiterate but really I don't think there is a need.

Establishing a team to review the relocation plan, as well as taking into account your signs of risk document, is already a very significant additional step. As far as I am aware such a step has NEVER been undertaken before in relation to the sale of ISKCON property or the relocation of Deities.

9 The UK team will report to the EC and the NY leaders. As stated, if their report flags serious concerns with the relocation plan in place that will impact on any final decision.

In the event that the EC determine there are very serious concerns and consider that the NY leaders are not taking them on board, then the EC will certainly be engaging with those NY leaders. That however is not a scenario we are envisaging will come to pass.

To address your question about the UK team and whether they have been instructed -- for the sake of neutrality -- not to speak with Romapada Maharaja, Satya Dasi, or Ramabhadra Prabhu.

Firstly I did not ignore that question in my previous e-mail rather I assumed it was obvious from my general response that of course they will be discussing with those three devotees. The reason being that the main focus of the UK team will be to evaluate the relocation plan and that relocation plan is mainly the work of those devotees, so naturally they will be engaging with them and no doubt asking rigourous questions.

As for your point about your godbrother being abused, well that is not for this discussion. I would though urge you and/or your godbrother to substaniate that charge of abuse, as it is a heavy accusation, and follow due process to ensure it is properly dealt with. A report to the local GBC would be the first port of call. If that proves unsatisfactory then the NA leadership etc., etc.

For what it is worth, and because the word abuse is such a heavy term, I made an albeit basic enquiry into that matter and received a very different explanation. Still if you hold a different view please make a formal complaint.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa ------

3/22 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Dear Praghosa Prabhu,

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I have noted the contents of your letter carefully.

> Dear Maharaja, > > Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. > >> From my perspective what we discussed in Mayapur and what I oulined in my > previous e-mail are fully consistent. I could reiterate but really I don't > think there is a need.

Yes, when people discuss things, they often walk away with different understandings of what was said.

10 > Establishing a team to review the relocation plan, as well as taking into > account your signs of risk document, is already a very significant > additional step. As far as I am aware such a step has NEVER been undertaken > before in relation to the sale of ISKCON property or the relocation of > Deities.

I noted this point when you made it in your previous letter. And I appreciate that you have taken some action.

What matters for me, however, is not whether the EC's course of action is historically unprecedented but whether it is fitting and adequate.

I won't comment about that here, because I am still waiting to get a clearer understanding from you of what course of action the EC has chosen.

> The UK team will report to the EC and the NY leaders. As stated, if their > report flags serious concerns with the relocation plan in placethat will > impact on any final decision. > > In the event that the EC determine there are very serious concerns and > consider that the NY leaders are not taking them on board, then the EC will > certainly be engaging with those NY leaders. That however is not a scenario > we are envisaging will come to pass.

That answers my question about sequence. Thank you.

I reserve comment on this for some future occasion.

> To address your question about the UK team and whether they have been > instructed -- for the sake of neutrality -- not to speak with Romapada > Maharaja, Satya Dasi, or Ramabhadra Prabhu. > > Firstly I did not ignore that question in my previous e-mail rather I > assumed it was obvious from my general response that of course they will be > discussing with those three devotees. The reason being that the main focus > of the UK team will be to evaluate the relocation plan and that relocation > plan is mainly the work of those devotees, so naturally they will be > engaging with them and no doubt asking rigourous questions.

I never said you ignored my question. I said you were silent about it (which you were). And so, I said, I assumed that although -- "for the sake of neutrality" -- you have instructed the committee not to receive messages from those who disagree with the proposed move, you expect the committee to hear at length from those who are pushing for the move. You have now confirmed that assumption. Thank you for making your position clear.

> As for your point about your godbrother being abused, well that is not for

11 > this discussion. I would though urge you and/or your godbrother to > substaniate that charge of abuse, as it is a heavy accusation, and follow > due process to ensure it is properly dealt with. A report to the local GBC > would be the first port of call. If that proves unsatisfactory then the NA > leadership etc., etc. > > For what it is worth, and because the word abuse is such a heavy term, I > made an albeit basic enquiry into that matter and received a very different > explanation. Still if you hold a different view please make a formal > complaint.

I don't know what explanation you received. (And, as you say, it is not for this discussion.) What I told you, I believe to be true, with a high level of confidence (which I don't easily grant). I chose the word "abuse" accordingly.

Before I mentioned this matter to you, I did bring it up to Romapada Maharaja. He has assured me that my godbrother's services will continue uninterrupted. So the matter ends there, except as a further sign of the risk with which my document concluded:

> The plan to sell ignores the real issue at ISKCON Brooklyn:

> • The temple is nearly empty > • The temple president has a management style widely viewed as seriously problematic > • By several other indicators, the temple is critically weak

> Move that set of circumstances to a hoped-for new community with a big new landmark building, and what can > we expect?

> We’re not talking about moving a spiritual community that’s strong, thriving, happy, prosperous, and > enthusiastic. Rather, the proposal would have us transplant an organization that’s troubled, grey, and feeble > and hope that it will be rejuvenated. Flashing red light.

In any case, I asked you two questions: What sequence will the enquiry follow, and what terms of reference have been given to the committee?

You have now answered one of these questions, but not the other. So now -- for the third time -- here it is again:

>>> What are the "terms of reference" given to the committee, defining >>> the committee's purpose, its scope, what it is expected to do, the >>> questions it is supposed to answer, how it is to go about its business, >>> whom it will report to, within what time frame, and so on?

Could you please answer this question for me?

12 Thank you.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Yours in Srila Prabhupada's service, Jayadvaita Swami

PS: I'm beginning to wonder whether written terms of reference for this committee even exist at all. Do they? If not, you might wish to look at this document, which discusses why written terms of reference matter and what they usually include:

http://tinyurl.com/WritingTermsOfReference

--js ------

3/25 from Praghosa Dasa:

Dear Maharaja,

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

You wrote:

> In any case, I asked you two questions: What sequence will the enquiry > follow, and what terms of reference have been given to the committee? > > You have now answered one of these questions, but not the other.

T of R; Overview:

Assess and evaluate the project in terms of financial suitability and systems for sale, purchase, development and sustainability. Highlight and comment on any potential risk areas related to the project.

Based on the above the team or representative thereof, will visit NY to properly execute this mandate. This will enable the team to get first hand experience of the area as well meet the professionals who will be engaged with the project and hear from them directly.

Report back to the GBC EC their conclusions as to the level of risk, viability and overall sustainability with regards to the relocation plan presented.

T of R; Scope;

13 1. The Relocation Team

Careful evaluation of this Team to ensure their credentials, their capacity to offer independent-minded advice and challenge mistaken planning, verify that major areas needed for such a Plan have a designated quality person to guide this effort.

2. Business Plan

Careful evaluation of the key elements of the Business Plan, such that the projected expenses of the new situation will be reasonably covered. Priority focus will be given to the Guest Lodge.

3. Review of Fund Disbursement ensuring within reason that no funds are squandered and no funds are used for any purpose other than the Plan.

4. Crime

Gather data which discloses the degree and types Crime within the Precinct where the current Brooklyn Temple is; make comparison to similar data in the 2-3 prime destination locations presently being contemplated. Based on this data, evaluate whether or not there a significant difference of crime.

------end

On receipt of the TofR the Review Team them [sic] requesting the below before beginning their assignment:

Requests of Review Team;

* Clear statement from the proposers as to why the Brooklyn Temple should be sold * Business plan for the proposed new centre * Feasibility study of the ongoing preaching opportunities, support and sustainability in Queens * What quantifiable financial support is available from congregational members in Queens * What is the current membership of the Brooklyn Temple * What preaching activities are being carried out at the Brooklyn Temple and kindly quantify * How many travelling preachers have visited Brooklyn Temple in the last 12 months * Detailed structure of the management and responsibilities at Brooklyn Temple * Succession plan for the management * What are the challenges at Brooklyn Temple * What are the consequences of not selling the Temple * What is the current expenditure and income * Detailed description of the Temple * What is the valuation of the Brooklyn Temple and comparison of similar properties in the vicinity * What is the relationship with other centres in New York

The above is not listed in any order of priority and we may require further information as a result of obtaining the above.

------end

14 Your servant, Praghosa dasa ------

3/25 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Thank you, Praghosa Prabhu.

Quick note:

In the terms of reference below, I see no mention of time frame (which I'd asked about). Could you please fill me in on this?

Thank you. Hare Krsna.

--js ------

3/26 from Praghosa Dasa:

We, the EC, didn't tie them down to a specific date as we know they are all busy and were appreciative that they took this extra service on. It is understood that it is 'asap' and I think they are progressing well.

I will be speaking with the chair of that team tomorrow on another matter and I will get an update from him then.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa ------

3/26 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Thank you, Prabhu.

--js

------

5/1 from Jayadvaita Swami:

Dear Praghosa Prabhu,

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

15 About a week or so back I had the opportunity to speak with Sesa Prabhu about the EC's handling of my concerns. I believe he has since conveyed to you that I view the way the EC has handled this matter since Mayapur as inadequate and in some ways wrongly skewed.

I don't see a need for you and I to exchange letters about this. You have many responsibilities that press for your time, and I doubt that at this point such an exchange would be helpful.

I am writing just to confirm in writing what I said to Sesa Prabhu.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Yours in Srila Prabhupada's service, Jayadvaita Swami

--end--

16