COMMENT LISTS LAST UPDATED: MAY 20, 2014, 11am

Dear sisters and brothers of Subud California,

As you know, the Subud USA national congress will take place May 20 to 26, 2014 near Pittsburg. At the national congress, delegates from all regions will come together to discuss and vote on different issues, including adoption of bylaw changes and other proposals. Delegates from California will be representing you at the congress to vote on these proposals.*

This post (1) provides some summary information on the proposals for vote at the national congress, and (2) invites your comments, so that your delegates can better represent you.

The information below is based on the delegate packet that has been provided by Subud USA, and comments that the California regional committee has received so far.

Please send us your comments by Saturday May 17, 2014 , to: communications.subudca@gmail.com

Summaries of comments received will be uploaded to this web page (anonymously)
https://subudcalifornia.org/2014-natl-congress-calmember-comments/

* See the bottom of this email for the names of the current delegates, and information on the delegate system. Please let us know right away if you want to serve as a delegate, and/or if your center wants to choose one or designate a proxy.)

Best wishes,
Renata Reid, Chair, Subud California
renata.calchair [at] gmail.com

—-

SUBUD CALIFORNIA

SUMMARY AND COMMENTS ON PROPOSALS FOR 2014 NATIONAL CONGRESS DELEGATES MEETING
as of May 20, 2014 11am

LIST OF PROPOSALS TO BE DISCUSSED / VOTED ON:
1. Proposal to combine Million Dollar Plus Fund into the Subud USA Endowment Fund
2. Proposal to create a Subud USA Custodial Housing Fund
3. Ratification of 2012 Bylaws
4(a). Proposal to add preamble to 2012 Bylaws
4(b). Proposal to remove proxy vote limit from bylaws, to allow the national board to set it
4(c). Proposal to add national helpers as non-voting members of SUSA board
4(d). Proposal to add the past chair of SUSA as a voting member of the current SUSA board
5. Proposal to redefine membership (to raise required frequency of latihan attendance to be considered a member)
6. Proposal for Subud USA to prioritize enterprise projects, and choose a national enterprise project by 2015 national gathering
7. World Congress Resolutions (WSA Membership discussion; Decision making in Subud; Ratification of WSA Mission Statement; WSA Archives proposal)

1. PROPOSAL TO COMBINE MILLION DOLLAR PLUS FUND INTO SUBUD USA ENDOWMENT FUND
Summary of Proposal. To rescind the Million Dollar Plus fund and collapse the permanently restricted funds from it into the Subud USA Endowment Fund. (About $12,000). The rest of the money raised under Million Dollar Plus Fund earmarked for housing would continue to be used for making housing loans.
Submitted by: Morris McClellan, Subud USA Treasurer
Comments in favor: Currently there are 2 separate endowment funds: the Subud USA Trust Fund (aka Million Dollar Plus fund) and an endowment fund policy for a new family of Subud USA endowment funds established around 2008. The aims expressed by both of these endowment fund policies are the same (to sustain the growth and development of Subud USA and to support its projects and activities etc). The Million Dollar Trust fund has not had any new trustees appointed in the last 30 years and the original trustees have not met during this period.
Comments against: None received so far.
More information from Subud USA:
· Endowment Fund letter
· Endowment Fund Policy
· Endowment resolution
· Million Dollar Trust Document

2. PROPOSAL TO CREATE SUBUD USA CUSTODIAL HOUSING FUND
Summary of proposal: To create “Custodial Account/s” within Vanguard to hold money for centers or regions who are now holding it for buying houses, but don’t have enough to accomplish that. E.g. Austin, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Denver and Philadelphia.
Submitted by: Moris McClellan, Subud USA Treasurer
Comments in favor:
– Currently, there are some centers and regions who have money for a housing fund, but are having trouble managing and/or accessing the money (ex. in one instance the signatory on the account has died.) Participation in the new custodial account would be voluntary and money would continue to be owned by the center/region.
– Seems like a good proposal since little cost involved and it appears to make purchasing houses easier.
Comments against:
– Placing housing fund under National management risks taking a step closer toward nationalization of all subud properties, and could be another step away from local autonomy and self-regulation. Makes no mention on how interest would be allocated for individual funds held in custody. Could become an accounting burden.
More information from Subud USA:
· Custodial Fund discussion letter 
· Custodial Fund proposal

3. RATIFICATION OF 2012 BYLAWS
Summary of proposed action: Broad revisions to the bylaws were negotiated in 2012. These changes need to be ratified by delegates at the 2014 congress. Download the text of the 2012 Revised Bylaws to approve
Submitted by: Text issued from 2012 national congress delegates meeting
Comments in favor:
– a reluctant yea to this amendment BUT it would be nice to have someone summarize what is being changed in the bylaws.
Comments against:
– Oppose the provisions that allowed voting, delegate apportionment and proxy issues to be determined in the Policy and Procedures Manual (it should stay within the bylaws, so properly noticed and voted by the membership/delegates). Can that be changed in the 2012 bylaws? If not, propose amendment for next congress. (see more on this issue in the comments on Proposal 4(b) on proxy voting)

4. FOUR (4) PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE 2012 BYLAWS

For all 4 proposals below, see the exact text and more information received from Subud USA here:
· Resolution to amend 2012 Bylaws
· Proposed amendments to the 2012 Bylaws

General comment received on text:
– Change sentence (which appears under the logo) that seems to suggest that SUSA is “organized under the laws of the State of Colorado AND AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN OTHER STATES”. Better to say SUSA is “organized under the laws of the State of Colorado as Subud United States of America, and IS a foreign corporation in other states.” Because doubt that it is actually registered as a foreign corporation in many, if any, other states. Also, omit the redundant “SUBUD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.” in the second sentence.) Download suggested edits as PDF

4(a). To add a preamble to the 2012 bylaws.
Summary of proposal: To add the text of a preamble to the 2012 bylaws. The text is in the file linked above (“Proposed amendments to the 2012 Bylaws”)
Comments in favor:
– Bapak recommended incorporating a preamble in his words into our statutes.
– Seems like a good idea – I would vote to approve
Comments against: None received so far.

4(b). Remove proxy vote limit from bylaws, to allow the national board to set it
Summary of proposal : To change the 2012 bylaws to strike the phrase that sets the maximum proxy votes that a delegate can carry to 3 (maximum total 4 votes — the delegate’s own vote plus 3 proxies). This would allow the national board to set the limits on proxy votes, by resolution at its regular meetings. [In October 2013, the national board decided that if this bylaw change is adopted, it would set the proxy limit to 1 proxy per delegate.]
Submitted by: Lucian Parshall
Comments in favor:
– Would give the national board the flexibility to set proxy limits, in order to encourage the most participation. If too many proxy votes are allowed per delegate, it can lead to just a few people acting on behalf of a region.
– Seems like a good idea – I would vote to approve
Comments against: 
– Regions often do not have the money to send many delegates. Limiting proxy votes too much may lead to less participation and representation. It would lead to more disenfranchisement
– Voting issues should be established in the bylaws and changed at delegate meetings with proper notice, not by the national board at any of its meetings.
– Removing proxy limits from bylaws and putting it in the Policy and Procedures Manual will “hide” the decision and leave it to whim of any current board. Takes Subud USA one more step away from democratic process by members, and closer to the “corporate board model” of decisions made “on behalf” of an uninformed or apathetic membership by those in office. Agree that there should be ceiling on proxy, but it should be more than 1 vote. 4 votes is ok.
– Proxy vote numbers should not be determined by the board. I like the current 4 votes/proxies per delegate. This seems fair.
– It may violate Colorado nonprofit law for voting issues (including delegate apportionment and proxy voting rules) to be taken out of the bylaws and determined in the Policy and Procedures Manual
– Strongly against

4(c) Add national helpers as non-voting members of SUSA board
Summary of proposal: To change the bylaws to add national helpers as non-voting members of the SUSA board
Comments in favor:
– This is required for national helpers to be covered under the SUSA insurance.
– Seems like a good idea – I would vote to approve
– National helpers need insurance.
Comments against:
– Oppose. It is not necessary for national helpers to be on the board in order to provide them with insurance.
– National helpers don’t need to be insured.

4(d) To add the past chair of SUSA as a voting member of the current SUSA board
Summary of proposal: To change the bylaws to add the past chair of SUSA as a voting member of the SUSA board in office.
Comments in favor:
– Would give much needed continuity.
– Seems like a good idea – I would vote to approve
Comments against:
– The term for the chair would be too long (2 years + 2 years), and would be harder to get people to commit. Past chairs have always voluntarily provided continuity – this resolution is not necessary.
– 60 days is sufficient for continuity.
– Disagree with proposal – While putting past chair on the board is standard practice in corporate America, people serving in Subud offices can experience profound purification, so can be incapacitated after several years. If the person is not burnt out, it would be natural for them to help train new committee. The “juice” one receives to perform organizational job in Subud usually lasts 3 months after new officers are chosen to allow for transitional training. No discussion on how the increased travel and lodging expenses of to the Natl Board Mtgs would be met.
– Agree that continuity is needed, but this is not the way to do it. Explore other ways. Committees? Advisory council? Advisors?
Comments mixed pro/con:
– Providing past chairs with a vote in the board may create more incentive for them to participate. Not alot of incentive to pay for own travel expenses to go to meetings, if can’t even vote. [But really, if past chair is going to be part of the board, SUSA should pay the expenses] But 2 years probably not necessary.

5. PROPOSAL TO REDEFINE MEMBERSHIP (TO INCREASE FREQUENCY OF LATIHAN ATTENDANCE)
Summary of proposal: To redefine the current categories of membership, so that it increases the number of times a person has to come to latihan in order to be considered an active, semi-active member, etc. (Ex. active member – increase from once a month to once per week; semi-active member – increase from once every six months, to once a quarter etc.) This is not a proposal for delegates, it is a change proposed for the Board to adopt into the Policy and Procedures Manual.
Submitted by: Hanafi Fraval
Comments in favor: This is more consistent with what Bapak had recommended on membership.
Comments against:
– Would exclude people. Would reduce the number of delegates California has at national congress meetings, because determined based on size of membership.
– A person should not have to come once a week to be considered an active member. Some people live far away and can’t get to house/venue more than 1x a month. Each center knows its own membership and it’s up to them to know who is active (though I know it’s harder for bigger groups)
– Strongly oppose. Classifying people attending latihan say 3 times a month in more than one location to be classified with those attending once a quarter does not make sense. Some people seem to want to trim down member rolls and mailing list as much as possible – this is short sighted.
– Some members just can’t come more than say twice a month because they live far away, or they are caring for ill family members, or are dealing with something else.
– This is restrictive. We want to be inclusive not exclusive.
– Centers should determine who the members are
– Some members have tested and received that should come less frequently (someone in my group tested that should come not more than once every 2 months)
– Some members attend latihan regularly in more than one location, so hard to count how many times they are attending.
Comments mixed pro/con:
– Agree that definitions need to be tighter and need more accountability. Carrying phantom members on our list is dishonest and out of integrity. Doesn’t matter if lower membership numbers reduce our delegate count. Honest accounting of numbers may show lack of necessity for a top heavy organizational structure. Members who dont want to practice latihan but want to remain on the mailing list should pay for that service. But how to account for members who regularly practice “away from the group”? We might consider the system in Germany, where anyone can be opened but membership is an intentional choice that carries responsibility for financial support. Not everyone wants to be automatic local, regional, national and international members, as happens in California. But dont know how to balance the need for financial support for helper work. Want to see some testing on this, plus talk to other countries where there is intentional membership process.
More information from Subud USA:
Membership classification policy discussion

6. PROPOSAL TO PRIORITIZE SETTING UP A NATIONAL ENTERPRISE PROJECTS, AND CHOOSE A NATIONAL ENTERPRISE PROJECT BY 2015 NATIONAL GATHERING
Summary of proposal: That priority be given by Subud USA national Committee to setting up/promoting a national enterprise project. The Subud USA committee, an enterprise subcommittee, and SES personnel to evaluate and choose a single large enterprise somewhere in the world to support and fund before the 2015 U.S.A. gathering.
Submitted by: David McCormack, Midwest Region
Comments in favor: To fulfill Ibu Rahayu and Bapak’s advice for us to work on developing enterprises. Possibility of raising money for Subud and its projects. Opportunity for Subud USA and SES to interact, and for learning.
– Excited by proposal – could revitalize Subud. Bring people together to work for something.
Comments against:
– Cost of travel and legal expenses.
– As a nonprofit volunteer organization, Subud USA does not have the expertise or experience investing in, running or overseeing a business enterprise.
– Does not seem realistic.
– Strongly oppose. 1) There has been no SES in the U.S. for years. Dont think SES will participate in such a project. 2) Questionable if Subud USA has capacity to form any subcommittees; 3) we are having difficulty raising enough operating funds, not sure if we can raise money to invest in an enterprise.
– Based on liquidity of the organization, better to start with a small project (not a “large project”). Also may be better to diversify rather than choose “one large project”. If put all eggs in one basket, may blow up
– Sounds grandiose
– This puts cart before the horse. Need research and specifics on a business proposal, before asking for support.
– Not against the idea itself, but oppose how it is written. Too vague.
Mixed pro/con comments:
– Support the idea of enterprise, but need more information and discussion.
– Excited by the idea of an enterprise, but also remember the experience of past failed enterprises. But we can’t let that stop us. Willing to learn more and discuss the proposal.
– If a (small) enterprise that is replicable is selected, it could be good
More information from Subud USA:
Subud Enterprise proposal

7. WORLD CONGRESS RESOLUTIONS
Delegates will also be asked to discuss the resolutions that are being proposed for the delegate assembly at the 2014 World Congress in Puebla, MX. There are proposals on: WSA Membership discussion; Decision making in Subud; Ratification of WSA Mission Statement; WSA Archives proposal.
See the most current resolutions on the WSA website at the bottom of the page.

———————————————————

REFERENCE INFORMATION

How voting will work at the national congress
Voting at the national congress works through a delegate system, in which each region sends delegates who are selected to represent the membership. The number of delegates are determined by the number of members in the region; California has 16 delegates, who have traditionally been elected by each center and group choosing a delegate (or a proxy),** plus the Regional Chair of California who represents the Subud California board (total 17 delegates).

Your California delegates
So far, the following people have stepped forward to serve as delegates:
Fatijah Clark – Palo Alto;
Rasjidah Franklin – Berkeley; will also carry proxy vote for Walnut Creek, rasjidahfranklin [at] yahoo.com
Benedict Herrman – Sacramento , benedict.h [at] me.com
Michael Menduno [Treasurer, Subud California], in representation of “regional members” (members in California who are not affiliated with a center or group), michael [at] menduno.com
Renata Reid, Chair, Subud California, in representation of Subud California council; will also carry proxy vote for Los Angeles and for San Francisco; renata.calchair [at] gmail.com
Rifka Several, San Joaquin Valley (also SUSA Congress Chair), rifkaseveral [at] gmail.com

Does your center have a delegate or someone to carry its proxy?
If you feel to serve as a delegate, and/or your center wants to choose a delegate, or designate someone else to carry its proxy vote, please contact Renata Reid, Chair of Subud California, at renata.calchair [at] gmail.com.

** How delegates are selected
Note that the 2012 SUSA bylaw changes, combined with resolutions adopted by the SUSA national board, eliminates the system in which each center / group has the formal right to appoint a delegate or proxy. Instead, the delegate apportionment is based solely on population within the region, to be selected at the discretion of the region (in the case of California, this is presumably done by the regional council.) The California Regional Council decided to continue the traditional system of asking each center / group to choose a delegate, or to designate a proxy.

For more information contact:
Renata Reid, Chair of Subud California, renata.calchair [at] gmail.com
Rifka Several, 2014 SUSA Congress Chair, rifkaseveral [at] gmail.com