An extract of the mail below
" It has been explained many a time that CAF is not organized to take positions on issues, but merely to promote its objectives, [Transparency & Accountability of governments and people's participation in governance " Then how is it on an open platform on governance , the representative of CAF,as representaing CAF views,from the podium goes brandishing Abide and actually makes comments on its constituents , specifcally an eminent doctor. Is that a view ..or merely again a a personal agenda , under the cover of transparency? Or when a representative goes about a discourse of the kasturirangan commitee report and proceeds to break and critizise it ad nauseum. For such a diatrabe , that too from a podium, as a caf view ,did this is entire stance come from a decison made by the managing commitee..or was it again a personal agenda under the garb of some accountabilty stance. Now if that is not espousing agendas, taking a stance, and that too , to an external audience from a podium , I don't know what is. CAF has and will be taking stances, and these stances and public utterances so far , are not with, I repeat , with a managing committe's approval or a wide general body agreement. The long and short of it is -When X does it(takes a stance),it is in consonance with the CAF objectives , or an honest debate or a considered view ( hang it if actually the managing commitee has not agreed!!) But when Y does it or even suggests a stance..then it is against the constitution, the ethics ,working of CAF!!. Give me a break , lets have some intellectual honesty here. Vijayan menon On Jan 21, 10:57 pm, Mathew Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please refer Vijayan's mail 2709 of 18 Jan 2009 [Disappointed with CAF]. > > Vijayan has taken offence to my statement that this Google group is not > competent to decide matters pertaining to CAF. He says that he is disturbed > by my mail clarifying this position. > > My assertion is merely an explanation of the factual position. Vijayan seems > to imply that this is my way of saying that all decisions in CAF are taken > by me. This is his presumption. This is far from the truth. > > He also makes it appear that it is his understanding that I have said that > this group is unimportant. Where have I said that? He has imputed many other > views or attitudes that I have not even remotely thought of. Why does anyone > want to give such twists? > > If CAF is to take any course of action or a position on an issue, only > either its General Body or its Managing Committee could do so, for decisions > within their competence, and as per our byelaws. This is so, not because I > have any axe to grind, but because CAF is subject to the laws applicable to > registered Societies. > > It has been explained many a time that CAF is not organized to take > positions on issues, but merely to promote its objectives, [Transparency & > Accountability of governments and people's participation in governance – NOT > 'blah, blah, blah'] the ultimate objective being good governance. Hence, any > action that furthers this is welcome. All members have the freedom to > proceed with initiatives pursuant to this goal, with the stipulation of > all-inclusivity. > > This Google group is NOT representative of CAF's membership. CAF has many > members, in fact a very large number, who are NOT members of this Google > group. Further, there are members of this Google group who are NOT members > of CAF. > > It would be nice if Vijayan could spell out how he would like to use this > Google group to take decisions on matters pertaining to CAF. What decisions > would he like it to take? How would the decisions be made? How would these > be implemented? > > This group was NOT started, as a blogging group. It was meant merely as one > of the means of communication between members. It was intended to elicit > views and convey information on actions contemplated, CAF programs, and to > seek volunteers and other assistance. > > Regards, > > Mathew > > On 1/18/09, Vijay Menon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The mail below disturbed me immensely and I was debating whether to > > write a response at all, or just leave it alone and move on. > > > Move on I may, but I felt I needed to put down a viewpoint. > > > What I am hearing are the following: > > > 1) This discussion group is unimportant and "decisions" are by The > > Managing committee". > > > Surprising comment since the everyday vitality of CAF seems to > > manifest itself in the e-groups and not only at the Century Club > > meetings. > > Also a way of saying… keep talking if u want...I will hear and decide > > according to my own rules. > > > 2) That there is such an archaic view point and unfortunately biased > > view on everything "technological and new" manifested in comments that > > seem to suggest > > > a) That we are not blogging site. > > b) We are not here to promote other "blogging" sites. > > > Comments like these give me an impression of viewpoints so fixed and > > dated and just not in keeping with a changing world and changing > > people. Sounds like desperate attempts at keeping things to the > > familiar so as to protect ones own turf. > > While the real solutions in the new world out there is collaboration/ > > exchanges of ideas /coming together of different groups. > > > c) And the last, but probably not least... > > The kind of bravado statements of "if u don't like the CAF way, go > > elsewhere" > > > For many of these, the justification is things like a "we are > > registered society with rules", "managing committee which will > > decide". > > And of course that "CAF has a particular kind of way of working/ > > engaging with the estates and that is the only way" > > > By extension of logic if you disagree with the other holy cows, it > > also I suppose means. "Find some other platform" > > These holy cows being > > a) CAF will not take a position...That is the CAF way > > b) Everything which is World Bank is bad and anti- citizen > > c) Anything to do with BATF or Abide is anti democracy and anti > > citizen > > > Reminds me of an old adage ..."physician, heal thyself". > > > It is now getting increasingly clear that there are different views on > > how CAF should go forward.Which itself is good because I do not > > believe anything can stay status quo for any length of time. > > So I think unless there is a real appreciation of this and not always > > fallback to the academic argument of charter of CAF...I do not think > > (in my view) we will go forward as an inclusive organization. > > > I believe one of the root issues is the "CAF does not take a > > position". > > While I believe it is a noble and academically interesting direction, > > I do believe there are some inherent contradictions and effectiveness > > issues in following that statement or belief. > > > Enuf said. > > > Vijayan Menon > > > On Jan 12, 11:02 pm, Mathew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > There are well-meaning gentlemen in this Google group, who appear > > > dissatisfied with the functioning of CAF. Some of them want CAF to > > > adopt their views. Some want CAF to espouse specific agendas. Perhaps, > > > they make these statements under the mistaken notion that this Google > > > group could decide matters pertaining to CAF. > > > > May I draw their attention to the fact CAF is a registered Society > > > under the Societies Registration Act, Google or other Internet groups > > > are not the forums where decisions pertaining to the Society's > > > functioning are taken. Decisions of this Society are taken by its > > > managing committee and / or general body. Members are requested to > > > take up issues of their concern with these appropriate bodies. > > > > The methodology that CAF adopts for taking up issues with other > > > stakeholders have been explained several times previously, and there > > > is no need to repeat the same here. Suffice it to say that members are > > > free to anchor programs of their choice, with the stipulation that > > > differing views are provided adequate space in their programs. Those > > > who are dissatisfied with CAF or its methodology or the fact it is not > > > endorsing their views or taking up causes, as per their wishes, are > > > welcome to move to other organizations that would be more amenable to > > > their preferences. This would be the better option rather than staying > > > on and making public statements of their "disappointment" with CAF's > > > functioning. > > > > Further, may I suggest that while CAF may work in close cooperation > > > with any organization, on programs where there is identity of purpose, > > > CAF is not a forum meant to promote other Web or Blogging sites. I > > > therefore request members from to refrain from attempting to > > > constantly draw attention to such sites or suggest that CAF > > > discussions should be carried on, in or through, such Internet > > > spaces. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mathew- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizens' Action Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/citizens-action-forum?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
