We have a Working Committee

After a delay of more than a year, the Auroville community has finally managed to select the members of a new Working Committee.

The history

It started in January 2014, when the residents were asked to vote on a so-called Participatory Selection Process for the new members of the Working Committee and Auroville Council. However, the vote failed as the required quorum of 10% of the number of residents was not reached. As a consequence, the term of office of the existing group members was extended.

March

The issue was again brought to the Residents’ Assembly at the end of March. This time the residents were asked to vote for one out of four possible selection processes. This time the Participatory Process was accepted which implied that many tasks previously performed by the Working Committee and the Auroville Council, would now be taken up by them together with people from the larger community in order “to foster transparency, communication and participation, while being efficient and humane”. The Coordinators (e.g. full Working Committee or Council members) could, if they chose, be assisted by Facilitators (non-Working Committee or Council members who help facilitate subgroups created to deal with specific topics) and Resource Persons (non-Working Committee or Council members called upon by the Coordinator to research a particular topic and advise). The Process also has a place for Silent Listeners, residents who want to witness the functioning of a group.

April – May

Residents interested in being considered for the Working Committee or Council were then invited to nominate themselves for any of the four functions. The names of the self-nominees were subsequently published, feedback was invited and the participants went through a three-day process to determine who would serve in what capacity. During these three days, the feedback received was discussed in the group among all the participants. The result of this process was announced in a General Meeting on May 28th.

However, in this meeting strong reservations were expressed about the process. The ethics of self-nominated people dealing themselves with the negative feedback against them was questioned. Another major criticism was the perceived lack of competence of the proposed members of the Working Committee. Also a fault in the selection process was acknowledged: only self-nominated people could be considered for the jobs. It was pointed out that experienced people would normally not nominate themselves but have to be asked and convinced to take up the job in the interest of the community. The process followed meant that they had been excluded. This meeting did not come to any result, and neither did a subsequent meeting.

June – July

At the end of June, the Auroville community was invited to vote on the outcome. Over 280 Aurovilians participated and 65% approved the members of the new Council, which included 2 members of the old Council who would stay on for a few months. However, 63% disapproved of the outcome for selecting the new Working Committee.

More general meetings followed. But after three general meetings with diminishing participation, it was clear that there was no agreement. The last general meeting therefore decided to let the new Council, which had taken up the selection of a new Working Committee as its first priority and which had already started working on the issue with the Organization Study Group, explore the matter further and make its recommendations to the larger community.

August – September – October

The Council and Study Group then revised the Participatory Working Group proposal. This revised proposal was accepted by the Residents’ Assembly on October 27th. Now, a resident could not only self-nominate him or herself but also nominate any other resident. Secondly, a Temporary Feedback Review Committee would make an appraisal of the feedback received. Lastly, a staggered system to replace members of the Working Committee and Auroville Council was accepted, whereby at the end of each year two or three members resign and are replaced by others.

November – December

The Auroville Council subsequently called for nominations for the seven members of the Working Committee and the two Auroville Council replacement members. This resulted in 250 Aurovilians nominating 391 Aurovilians. Of these, 49 Aurovilians accepted to become a member and 45 offered to support the Selection Process.

Aurovilians were then invited to send positive or negative feedback on the names proposed “with sincerity and deep introspection”. This feedback was studied by the Temporary Feedback Review Committee set up by the Council. It decided to disqualify 13 persons from participation in the three-day selection process on the basis of ‘non-negotiable’ feedback received.

Working with Auroville’s natural values: the 12 powers of The Mother

The three-day selection process was held from 5-7 December, 2014 in the Unity Pavilion. The basis of the process was the twelve powers of The Mother, also called qualities, which are represented in the meditation rooms in the twelve petals surrounding the Matrimandir. They are Sincerity, Humility, Gratitude, Perseverance, Aspiration, Receptivity, Progress, Courage, Goodness, Generosity, Equality and Peace. According to the Organization Study Group, which had made them an integral part of the Participatory System, these qualities are Auroville’s building blocks, its natural values and the spiritual base of Auroville’s organization. Aurovilians, in particular those who work in Auroville’s working groups, should attempt to understand and integrate these qualities in their working life instead of doing “just business as usual in the Town Hall and reserving the spiritual ideals for the Matrimandir and their personal inner work.”

During the first two days, the participants participated in many different exercises in order to familiarise themselves with each of the twelve qualities. One such exercise was to concentrate on a quality in connection to a given topic, such as ‘collaboration’, and to describe the relation between the two. The individual findings were discussed in small groups of 4-5 people, and each group would formulate in one or two sentences the essence of what had emerged, and then repeat the exercise with another quality. The results were then read out by each group in a session attended by all participants and posted on the wall. For example, regarding the quality of ‘humility’ one posting was: ‘you are a servant of the community, not its manager.’

Other exercises dealt with trying to find one’s greatest strength and biggest fear, and sharing that with the others. This exercise was considered useful as knowing the strengths and fears in oneself would open oneself to understanding the fears of others. But the exercise was not universally appreciated, as some people felt it transgressed the limits of their privacy.

Yet another exercise was meant to make people conscious of how they listen to others, and how to eliminate the mind’s ‘background conversations’, such as thinking of other topics while someone is talking to you, or preparing one’s responses while the other person is still speaking. Exercises in ‘deep listening’ followed, described as empathic listening with an empty or quiet mind so as to better understand what someone says.

In this context, the issue of complaints came up. How does one deal with complaints? Is complaining necessarily negative? Can the person against whom the complaint is made understand from where the complaint comes and appreciate the complainer? This was meant to encourage a different attitude towards complaints, very necessary for all those who work in these working groups.

The homework for the first evening was to choose four out of the twelve qualities and write down how one feels each relates to oneself as well as to the work of the Working Committee.

The ‘negotiable’ feedback

During the second day the participants were given the anonymous ‘negotiable’ feedback which the Feedback Review Committee had received but which, it decided, was not sufficiently heavy to lead to disqualification from participation in the selection process. This feedback mainly dealt with perceived character defects of the participant. In teams of two, one person practicing ‘deep listening’ and the other person reading out the feedback and reflecting on it, helped by sympathetic questions from the listener, the comments were processed. The people were asked to consider the feedback seriously, not to respond defensively or aggressively, but to see to what extent the feedback was appropriate and could be a help for inner growth. Afterwards, those who wanted to shared their experience with all participants.

It appeared that this exercise had brought a lot of reflection, but not all of it was positive. Some feedback was considered inappropriate, some of it not to the point and some as simply made with the intention to hurt.

Also, during the second day, a presentation was made on the work of the Working Committee – what the Auroville Foundation Act has to say about it and what its responsibilities are. A possible task list was given which showed many participants for the first time what the work could entail. It was an omission in the programme that this topic was not followed up by a question and answer session.

Selecting the members

The third day was dedicated to the selection of the Working Committee and the replacement Council members. “It is about agreeing on and choosing the best for the work to be done, looking at both the individual qualities and the functioning of the group,” explained the Organization Study Group. A list with the names of the 48 people present in the room was distributed – including those who till then had not accepted to serve as Working Committee or Council member – and the participants were asked to tick names of the persons they felt should be appointed: seven for the Working Committee and two for the Council. The results were tallied and projected on a screen for all to see.

The next exercise was in groups. The participants were asked to jointly select the two Council replacement members and the new Working Committee team; and, afterwards, to give ‘weight’ to each selected person by putting a number of chickpeas (for the selected Council members) and kidney beans (for the selected Working Committee members) in a paper bag. The chickpeas and beans were then deposited in glass bottles, each carrying the name of a selected person. The levels showed clearly who the two new Council members were to be and almost as clearly who should be in the new Working Committee.

Almost. For the question of whether a member of the existing Working Committee could be selected for the new Working Committee had not been answered, and one member of the existing Working Committee was amongst the first four selected persons. Opposing views were expressed: the approved selection process clearly mentioned that an existing member could not join the new Working Committee; but it also explicitly mentioned the need for continuity. After some discussion, it was agreed that the person would serve for one year and then resign.

The new Working Committee started functioning on December 15, 2014. If during its first year a member resigns, he or she will be replaced by one of the replacement members who have been selected as well. Also a replacement member for the Council was selected.

The term of office of the Working Committee and Council members is three years. In order to ensure continuity, a system of staggered replacements will take place. After the first year, one member will resign and be replaced by the choice of the Residents’ Assembly. After the second year, two or three members will resign and be replaced by new members, and this process will continue, so that the recurring ordeal of choosing a new Working Committee and Council every two years will finally come to an end.