Correspondence between Jayadvaita Swami 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 New York 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 Krishna. --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.