Evaluating the Selection Process

On three days in October, replacement members for the Working Committee (2) and Auroville Council (4) were selected, as well as a complete new Funds and Assets Management Committee (FAMC) of 9 people.

The community had, in July, nominated approximately 700 Aurovilians, most of whom declared no interest or availability. As the process unfolded it narrowed down to 78 names. Some wished to serve on one of the committees, others just wanted to participate in the selection process. Jointly they took the decision about who would serve on which committee.

The 3-day process had been preceded by the work of the Temporary Feedback Review Committee, which had studied all feedback given on proposed candidates. It concluded that nobody was to be disqualified.

The process used some of the Stewardship tools that Dr. Monica Sharma has introduced to the community. Nevertheless, views widely differed on what went well and what didn’t. Praise was given to the good organization of the event by a group of tireless volunteers. Some people were inspired by an exercise where the participants had to reflect on the qualities of their psychic being in the modes of “being” and “doing,” and then realize, in the second part of the exercise, that each of us have a role to play in our society. Listening to the experience of individuals who are currently serving in the working groups was a humbling process for some, when they realized how selfless and dedicated al the people were. Also the unique process first expressing one’s individual choice and afterwards coming to consensus in a group on the best composition of each working group was also an inspiring process, where one could see the emergence of collective wisdom.

As always, there was also criticism. Space had not been given to the individuals to express why they wanted to serve in a working group, what their preferences were, and what were their motivations, skills and strengths. The profiles of the participants willing to serve had been posted on a wall, but they did not clearly give out this information.

Another issue was due to an omission in the new FAMC policy. No thought had been given to the transition between the old FAMC and the new. This problem was luckily solved as some outgoing members were selected to serve on the new FAMC. But a problem arose when someone who had already served for 6 years in the old FAMC, was again chosen to serve on the new, though both the old and the new FAMC mandate limited the term of office to two terms of three years each. At the moment this issue goes to press, this matter is being studied by the Auroville Council, which is also looking into the question if the 6-year limit is also applicable to someone has been serving so long in more than one working group.

For more information on the participatory selection process see AVtoday # 318, January 2016.