What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...

As a moderator, I constantly remind myself that we discuss issues here, not people. I agree that personal beefs should stay within the realm of PMs between individuals. I also believe that privacy should be respected until there is need for public action.

As for accountability, I would suggest that we as members and Knights announce publicly that we have issued a complaint to Council and why, without pointing to specific Councillors. We're all pretty smart here, and as a group we should be able to tell the difference between a personal grudge and an actual concern. Council, in turn, should publicly acknowledge that a complaint was made and tell us if and how it is being addressed, even if it is being ignored.

For those that don't know, anyone can ask a Councillor, Security Officer, the Council Secretary, or Clergy member to make a formal complaint about anyone else. These are taken seriously, recorded, and passed to the appropriate people to address. Perhaps as officers, we just need to do a better job of letting the wider Temple know that complaints are investigated and share when they are resolved and how. We do, however, have to balance this with privacy concerns and simple respect for the feelings of others. We are supposed to be empathetic, after all.

One of the problems, Brenna, is that so much goes on out of our sight that we don't really have a way of giving the examples you seek. For example, I was reading a journal entry recently where someone was denied knighthood without giving them pointers on how to fix whatever problems existed. The idea that "we'll know it when we see it" is bunk when it comes to knighthood, in my opinion, and there should at the very least be a rubric of examples to better prepare the wildly disparate teaching methods for their students.

We're in a position where we know things are happening, but we aren't sure exactly what because that transparency we've asked for doesn't exist. Hence the asking.

That's actually really helpful thank you, because that's a concrete example.

That's something that we can actually look at and discuss and figure out better ways to give more specific feedback and suggestions if a knighthood is not yet an option.


I would however say that someone's knighthood trial and process is out of public view because it's a personal and private matter. And I doubt anyone would want to see their apprenticeship etc discussed somewhere for public consumption.

My point was that I accidentally happened across that example. It was a happenstance click on the forum to a thread i've never visited before that let me know I wasn't alone in thinking that was nonsense. Without the luck of that random click, I'd have thought I was the only person that thought that way because people here don't complain effectively often enough, and this whole "progressive mystery" might work for secret societies, but it's a little crap for preparing us for what we're facing.

The last time we asked for transparency, we were all but mocked about how boring the posts would be, but I maintain that there are things going on behind the scenes that I'd argue we should know more about and don't, and don't even know to ask about them because we don't know they're happening.

If a problem is seen to exist, just ask I guess.

Council tries not to go on about the requirements for Apprenticeship too much, so that the Apprentice don't focus on the prize more then the journey. It's meant for the Teaching Masters mostly so they can exert some structure into their efforts by having that minimum set of requirements. I think all that used to be in the FAQ.

The base requirements exist besides the prerequisites are I think currently a certain number of points within an Apprenticeship (100) and maximum scores per lesson (ideally 5, but can be higher depending on size/difficulty if broken up), and the minimum timeframe (6 months). So an Apprenticeship should be at least 6 months and have about 15-25 marked lessons. But that is just the minimum, and ideally an Apprenticeship would be much more then the academic application and ticking boxes of minimum requirements. Having said that, they are 'required' and not meeting any of them is likely to be a 'keep going' type of response. But you are right, if all mandatory requirements are met then there is a discretionary element given to the Council in casting their vote to grant or deny Knighthood. I guess that bit is between individual Councillors, the Apprentice and the Teaching Master. It's hard enough getting a full picture when there are only two sides to a story, but triadic relationship add another dimension sometimes!! As mentioned on that example it might come down to things which are personal with any one of those three category of participant.

I understood your point, but if the person had come to us and asked for more specific feedback we'd have given it. And not within the public eye either.


You might recall that the council (before my time) DID take the call for transparency seriously and began doing regular reports, which no one read so they stopped.

We keep having these discussions over and over and get no where closer to resolving it. No one can tell us exactly what it is they want made publicly accessible.

Brenna,

Thank you for engaging in this conversation. I think that goes a long way to addressing one of the concerns; that Council members are not seen to participate as much as it seems many expect them to.

In relation to the reports, I don't know the laws in Texas, but I know that here in Australia an incorporated entity (which I believe TotJO is) is required to have a constitution, a minimum number of meetings of the board (council) and a minimum of one general meeting annually. These meetings are required to be minuted and the minutes must be submitted to government by the secretary. If there are similar requirements in Texas, wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter of posting the minutes (in a separate sub-forum if desired) as both a record of the temple doings and to sate the curiosity of those of us who like reading bland things like reports (guilty over here). Additionally, if there is a complaint that a concern hasn't been addressed it would be a simple matter of referring to the minutes to show that the concern was at least discussed. I'd be okay if access was restricted to Initiates and above to keep the internal workings of the temple from any that don't have a demonstrated commitment to the temple. Others could approach a Knight to confirm if something specific is or is not in the reports.


In relation to other points made:
I personally don't see a need to make IP journals visible only to Apprentices/Knights. There is already the facility to make private things private with the 'confidential' tag and anything else is really an interpretation and reflection of the course material. Whatever else it may be, this is an internet forum, thus it's purpose is the sharing of information. I'd like to think the people that gravitate here have enough discernment to work out what should be made public and what should not (and we have a team to assist minors who may not). The primary concern seems to have been a fear of plagiarism, but it has been stated that is not a particularly troublesome issue warranting the additional work of changing the forums.

I would counter the 'IP completion to become a member' with a concern that for members like myself who are already trying to balance time for study with full-time work and the demands of a family (in my case with a child with special needs) that this could do more to turn away legitimate seekers of wisdom rather than just 'fanboys' stopping by.
Since one of the suggestions is a revamp of the IP, might I suggest a 'Jediism 101' incorporating the current Lesson 0 with a brief introduction to what it is we're about and some expectation management regarding ranks and study commitments - written by one of our teachers at the temple. There is already a one week waiting period (iirc) before applications for membership will be considered, so a preliminary lesson involving perhaps 2 -5 hours of study and a few short responses as part of the application process should weed out most of those that are serious from the rest.

With regard to the removal of officers who are not active in their role, firstly it seems from this discussion that expectation management again plays a large role here in that some of the offices are left to run however the current officer sees fit with little direction or guidance or that the general membership doesn't have an appreciation of what the offices entail. I'm really not qualified to say at Novice level, it's just an impression I gleaned from this thread. The assignment of a deputy to each office may assist in that the workload can be shared (across timezones if needed) to reduce burnout and in the event an office is vacated for any reason the deputy can step in as a steward until a new permanent appointment can be made - with the added benefit of knowing the role to ease transitions.

Alright, even I recognise that fatigue is making me ramble at this point.

More superficially, bring back the brown theme from the former site - I feel it added a touch of elegance and sophistication to the site whereas the white scheme says to me "I was built in a hurry and no one got around to finishing me yet". (Sorry Ren or anyone else behind the scenes, I know you do a great job and you have other priorities as well.)

I'd also like to see more development of the site beyond the forums or the basic information pages of the doctrine. Think visual. Instead of a wall of text covering everything from the tenets to the code, the creed, the 16 teachings, the 21 maxims one after the other, separate them into individual articles with visually inspiring art or photography and link them into an album or something. There is a veritable cornucopia of knowledge and wisdom here, but it could be easily missed by a visitor because (to me at least) the display hurts my eyes. At the risk of drawing ire by comparing, Jedi Living do this very well.

One last point about the IP, since there has been mention of a lack of guidance and support through it, has any consideration been given to establishing 'study groups' to bring together novices with perhaps an Apprentice (good practice for teaching) for a guided discussion on a lesson? Attendees would still need to watch/read the course material ahead of time and submit their own individual response, but in between would come together either in a private chat room here on the site or for a group Skype to discuss the content and clarify any confusing points. It may help to foster some of the same sense of camaraderie that forms between Apprentices of the same teaching master and to push novices to attend to their studies (somewhere I read a suggestion there should be time limits on the IP because a lot can change if you take years to finish it or have a long hiatus in the middle). The logistics of how often this could be done would be largely dependent on interest in a study group and the availability of an Apprentice or above to lead it.

Brenna wrote: You might recall that the council (before my time) DID take the call for transparency seriously and began doing regular reports, which no one read so they stopped.

We keep having these discussions over and over and get no where closer to resolving it. No one can tell us exactly what it is they want made publicly accessible.

Adder made 6 reports, and the thread has 1194 views; that's roughly 200 views per post. Who decided nobody was reading them?

The thing about transparency is it shouldn't exist just when people are watching, but at all times. Then, when someone does have an issue, the history can be seen, that was the whole point.

What I do remember is that once posts were made, members saying that they didn't tell us much.. which they don't. They're vague descriptions.

Perhaps some of Council should actually be in the open, properly in the open, in order to be held accountable.

In normal charities, as someone has pointed out, minutes are a matter of public record. The charities I deal with are required to post them online. Where are the minutes of our board's meetings?

Yea I preferred to err on the side of confidentiality and invite specific enquiry if folk wanted to know details - to assess the demand, as I didn't want to spend too time doing it for no reason.... a measure. And indeed as it turned out I didn't receive much enquiry, and effectively zilch from the loudest proponents of 'more information' - which sort of made the whole thing seem a bit moot. And no one complained when I stopped from memory hehe!!! I could pick it up, or someone else could but full transparency might not be practical, but we've had a few different Councillors and Security Officers lately so if someone didn't trust current Council and Officers then there is always the ex-folk who would have an opinion. Otherwise, yea, asking is easy, but there is an Oath of confidentiality to consider.

The Council Report was interesting and I certainly read it every time it came out. But, as it was, it wasn't all that useful, because any meaningful information was (necessarily) confidential.

But more than that, it charted the "day to day", as Wes called it (I think?) - individual member issues and promotions, etc etc, and in that wasn't all that valuable. We already know that kind of stuff is going on. It's great that it is. But what we keep hearing from Councillors is that there's more going on than this "day to day", which is what people are clamouring for. Evolution, progression, improvements, taking our Temple to the next level. We love this Temple and want it to keep moving forward. What I feel and interpret others as requesting, is some insight into those aspects, beyond "It's happening, trust us, give us time" which is what we usually hear in these kinds of discussions. The impression I get is that the day to day takes up so much time and activity, that stuff isn't actually moving ahead. And that's where calls for more active people in leadership comes in - we have enough "seats" to get a lot of things done, but not enough activity to make that happen.

If things on (or like those on) the long list of suggestions we've created here are progressing in some form, let's have a discussion about it, or failing that an announcement they're being debated and considered. I recognise not everything benefits from Temple-wide debates which drag on and go in circles, but the Council could say "We're now considering this topic. Please contact us with your thoughts" and make their decision based on consultation with the community. Another option is to find those most interested in the issues discussed and form working groups with Councillors, to produce the best we can come up with collaboratively and put THAT to a Council vote. Any of those are way more transparent than every time we ask for something, a Councillor popping up and saying "We're already doing it. Promise. Give us time." and then... nothing.

A few concrete suggestions.

steamboat28 wrote: One of the problems, Brenna, is that so much goes on out of our sight that we don't really have a way of giving the examples you seek. For example, I was reading a journal entry recently where someone was denied knighthood without giving them pointers on how to fix whatever problems existed. The idea that "we'll know it when we see it" is bunk when it comes to knighthood, in my opinion, and there should at the very least be a rubric of examples to better prepare the wildly disparate teaching methods for their students.

We're in a position where we know things are happening, but we aren't sure exactly what because that transparency we've asked for doesn't exist. Hence the asking.

Ok, so I am going to bring up an example that will address two of the points that have been batted back and forth in this thread: Journal Privacy, and Clearer Communications. Please don't think that this is a jab to anyone that is involved because I have the utmost respect and admiration for everyone who has taken the time to help me in my journey, but I had to put an assignment on the shelf to come back to later because I am totally lost on how to move forward on it.

So....working through the Seminary Studies, I get to the Krishnamurti assignment. There are clear parameters stating to keep each chapter entry to under 300 words. Going through it I find that it is going to take way more than 300 words to convey all of what I need to, so I pare my responses down to a specific avenue of thought and bang it out. When I post it, the response I got was "dude, you totally missed the point on all of it, you are going to have to start over....." Clear Communications - I still haven't figured out exactly where I took the left turn, or even exactly what is expected of me for this assignment... Journal Privacy - to try and figure it out, I start to read what others have posted in their journals and found that no one adhered to the 300 word limit.

In conclusion, I agree with Steamboat about the ambiguity being "bunk" because if the assignment is "read this and give your thoughts" and I read it and give my thoughts, then no answer should be wrong. If you're looking for something specific, then spell that out. Also, I understand the thought of making journals private, but keeping them open to those in the same field of study can be helpful.

Here's my suggestion:

Just as knights take apprentices and teach them towards Knighthood; maybe part of the Apprenticeship program should be for apprentices to help guide novices through the IP.

I'm sure most of the teaching knights would agree that taking an apprentice has helped them solidify their knowledge as knights. It would also let the apprentice see the IP from a different point of view, solidifying that knowledge for them as well.

I'd be happy to speak with you about Krishnamurti. Regarding your second suggestion, we have the IP team. A group of apprentices, lead by Knights who assist individuals with their work through the IP

I actually really think Rick D's idea of having the Apprenticeship involve helping the next generation very interesting.

We have the IP team as understaffed. Having Apprentices assist the IP team (as part of the apprenticeship) would easily fix that problem.

Also, it would teach apprentices how to guide, prepping them for taking on Apprentices of their own in the future.

Roz,
I know you have already offered to help, and I truly thank you because I am going to need it, but my criticism is more about the clarity of the parameters of the assignment. Everyone says that Krishnamurti is a tough assignment, and maybe it is, but but assignment as spelled out may be part of the problem, and a clearer understanding of what is being asked may make it easier.

Also, I know that there is a team that is working with novices, working through the IP, but my point is that I would like to see it be a compulsory part of the apprenticeship program.

Rick D wrote: Everyone says that Krishnamurti is a tough assignment, and maybe it is, but but assignment as spelled out may be part of the problem, and a clearer understanding of what is being asked may make it easier.

I don't disagree. It has been, at least in some cases, a conscious decision to leave the instructions for assignments past the IP somewhat vague in order to give the apprentice or seminarian room to innovate and come up with their own way of engaging with the material. But there is ambiguity, and then there is unintentionally misleading, and if the Krishnamurti is the latter, let's fix that. Thank you for bringing this to light, Rick.

I've ran into similar issues. We should be very clear of our expectations for assignments.

Regarding Apprentice Involvement in the IP:


Regarding the Monthly Council Reports:


Regarding IP Completion Before Membership:


Regarding Feedback:


Just a load of random thoughts.

steamboat28 wrote: One of the problems, Brenna, is that so much goes on out of our sight that we don't really have a way of giving the examples you seek. For example, I was reading a journal entry recently where someone was denied knighthood without giving them pointers on how to fix whatever problems existed. The idea that "we'll know it when we see it" is bunk when it comes to knighthood, in my opinion, and there should at the very least be a rubric of examples to better prepare the wildly disparate teaching methods for their students.

We're in a position where we know things are happening, but we aren't sure exactly what because that transparency we've asked for doesn't exist. Hence the asking.

Hmm wonder whose journal that was??

Your absolutely right though. Information in the form of general guidelines, definitions, processes, procedures and expectations on the AP and IP process (and the seminary for that matter) should be publicly and clearly communicated to the community in an ongoing consistent basis by the council. Beyond that details of any individual journey and that journeys progress need not be necessarily made public but it should at least be clearly and openly communicated by the council to the apprentice

When an apprentice goes through the entire process, gets praise from his knight, goes through the Jedi trials (conducted by the council) and then the final evaluation is simply

"well you have completed the degree but still not a Knight - do more lessons"

Its very confusing and quite frankly kills any motivation to continue. This is a direct result of lack of communication and direct interaction or intervention by the council on behalf of the apprentice. It clearly shows that the council has not spent the time to truly get to know the apprentices they are evaluating enough to give them any sort of valid critique of their work or suggestions for directions forward.

Maybe a halfway point review process needs to be implemented where the council reviews journals and discusses with the Knight and the apprentice progress made and expectations for the second half of the apprenticeship or something like that. This would be a place for the council to get to know the apprentice in question as well as get feedback from the apprentice that will give the council better insight into the apprentices individual path. This will allow the council to give the apprentice and his Knight detailed and valid critiques, suggestions and expectations toward the pursuit of future knighthood.

Avalon,

Re: Apprentices guiding novices through IP.

Perhaps it would be just as well to have a "quota" of feedback per month. Say that every apprentice needs to send one message of feedback via PM per month (just a random idea, could be changed). That could begin a conversation about the content of the IP.

If a novice disappears, or consistently doesn't respond, then the apprentice could switch to another novice. The knights could assign the quota based on the ratio of active apprentices to novices. (1:2 means sending two messages per month). This could ensure that apprentices remain active (at least once per month... and, I mean, really... if you are doing an apprenticeship here, you should log in at least once a month at the least......). Just spit balling.