Reflections on a feedback process

The seven members of the Temporary Feedback Committee were chosen by the Council based on names submitted by the community. The brief they were given was to review all the feedback regarding those who had proposed themselves, or been proposed, for the three-day selection process, to decide which feedback issues were ‘non-negotiable’ and then disqualify those who had such issues. ‘Negotiable’ feedback would be handled in the three-day process itself.

After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed upon a list of non-negotiables, any one of which would suffice to make an individual ineligible. These non-negotiables, which were based, among other things, upon Mother’s messages to Auroville and her Material Conditions for Living in Auroville were:

1. Being a member of another major work group

2. Psychological unfitness

3. Violence

4. Involving the police rather than sorting out problems in the community

5. Financial impropriety

6. A major unresolved issue with an Auroville working group

7. Drug use

8. Unauthorised land holding or development in the Master Plan area

9. Major breach of trust with the community

The rationale for drawing up these non-negotiables was that the Committee felt there should be no doubt about the integrity or the motivation of the people involved; and that anybody offering themselves for service in the Working Committee or Council should have no unresolved issues with the community.

The Temporary Feedback Committee also imposed a code of ethics upon itself. It decided that none of the members would give feedback themselves; that they would not participate in the three-day process; that if feedback was received about a relative or close friend, that member would leave the room and not take part in any discussion or decision-making regarding that person; and that it would not divulge the names of those people who had asked for confidentiality when giving feedback.

The Temporary Feedback Committee had neither the time nor the mandate to carry out deep investigations. When it received negative feedback about an individual, it informed that individual of the nature of the feedback and invited a response. It also contacted any work groups involved to ascertain the present status of the issue. If a matter was unresolved and had not received closure, the Committee unanimously agreed that the nominee could not proceed to the three-day selection process on this particular occasion.

The individuals whom the Committee decided could not participate were informed individually of the reason for it. The Committee subsequently invited them to a meeting where they were free to express themselves. Finally, the Committee submitted a report to the community so that everybody could understand how it had been working.

Reflections

The two week process was an extremely intense one for members of the Feedback Committee. The task was daunting. The Committee received 641 separate feedbacks regarding 80 nominees. While a majority of these were positive, 224 raised issues. Some of these were profoundly depressing because they related to the darkest areas of our community life.

At the same time, the Committee was very aware that to exclude someone from the three-day process would be very difficult to deal with for some of the individuals concerned. This is why the Committee examined each of these cases very carefully and had to separate out substantial feedback from mere rumour-mongering or that generated by personal antipathy. In the end, 13 people out of a total of 80 who had received feedback were excluded on the basis of feedback that was considered non-negotiable.

The fact that a group was working intensely upon certain issues had its effect. It prompted some of the individuals concerned to try to resolve matters, while work groups were reminded of matters that they might have relegated to the back burner. For members of the Committee it also threw into stark relief some of the major issues confronting our community today – issues relating, among other things, to different codes of behaviour concerning money, land and power. The Committee felt that certain things had been allowed to drift for many years and that now a certain standard, a line in the sand, needed to be established.

It is not easy to say who is responsible for this drift. Clearly, certain individuals must take responsibility for behaviour that cannot be reconciled with the ideals of Auroville. At the same time, the Feedback Committee became aware that some Work ing Groups were not taking up their responsibility to stand for certain principles or to bring closure to some issues. Whatever the reasons for this, one consequence was that some of the issues the Feedback Committee had to deal with dated back many years, and this is not healthy either for the individuals concerned or for the community as a whole.

In fact, at times the Committee felt they were in an impossible position. On the one hand they needed to exclude people with serious unresolved issues from the three-day process; on the other hand, they did not know how to advise these individuals to resolve their situation if the Working Groups concerned were proving uncooperative. In fact, sometimes they felt they were doing the dirty work that the Working Groups did not want to deal with.

The work of the Feedback Committee was much appreciated in the community. However, some people expressed concern about the confidentiality issue. They felt that the Committee’s decision to allow confidential as well as non-confidential feedback would allow false objections to be raised against an individual under the cloak of confidentiality. It also ran counter to the wish for absolute transparency. The Committee acknowledged this but argued that, in the present climate of Auroville, some people would be afraid to give important feedback because of a fear of repercussions and that these people should be guaranteed some protection. However, while the names of the people who gave confidential feedback were not released, the Committee insisted that all feedback received by them should be signed so that they could carry out a proper review.

Some of those who had been excluded from the three-day process also accused the Committee of discriminating against a section of the local population as, out of the thirteen people excluded, ten had been born in the neighbourhood. But the Committee pointed out that no section of the community had been targeted; that 24 people from the local area, who constituted 30% of the nominees, were free to participate in the three-day process; and that all feedback related only to individuals and had been dealt with by the Committee on an individual basis. In this context, it is worth noting that of the seven members of the Committee, two were born locally and another two come from Tamil Nadu, and that all decisions taken by the Committee were unanimous ones.

Recommendations

In its final report to the community, the Committee made some recommendations. It felt that, if the same selection process were to be followed in the future, the next Temporary Feedback Committee needed to be given more time to do its work. Two weeks is far too short a time to adequately process this volume of feedback, particularly as some of the Working Groups were very slow and disorganized in answering queries.

There was also a sense that some of the people putting themselves forward for inclusion in the Working Committee had not understood the functions of this Committee and the requirements of the work. This information was only given during the three-day process. If it had been given much earlier, probably fewer unsuitable people would have put themselves forward and the workload of the Feedback Committee would have been lightened.

The Committee was also concerned that some of the individuals who were excluded from the selection process this time might run into a similar problem in the future if there was no closure to their issues. This would be unfair. Consequently, Working Groups dealing with an issue affecting an individual Aurovilian should take up the matter and try to reach a conclusion swiftly. When a problem has been resolved, the Group involved should inform the community immediately.

The whole selection process has been a wake-up call for the community. It has highlighted weaknesses in our organizational structure – like major work groups contradicting each other’s decisions – as well as certain frustrations and issues that are seriously disrupting our collective life. The Committee recommends that the new Working Committee, Council and the community as a whole make it a priority to resolve issues that are dividing us; and that a forum be put in place where the community can come together to examine these issues with the intention of reaching collective clarity and harmony.