I guess people are interested in ethics. I'm sitting here because I am the newly seated chair of the EAR Committee, the Ethics and Reconciliation Committee. I just took over in January from Bob Rosenbaum, who isn't able to be here, I guess, today. And when thinking about doing an introduction to the kind of the series of events that the AIR Committee is launching, I kind of wondered how to do it. Did I just recite the Ethics Committee read from the procedures? And so I thought that I would start the way that we start on Mondays by talking about our way that we got to where we are.

[01:03]

And so I thought I would start by how I got to be chair of the ethics committee. Oh, I loathe that that were so. I guess I first became aware that there was such a thing as ethics guidelines the last time they were revised. When was that, Alan? It was about five years ago. Five years ago. I never knew there were any, so it was a surprise to me. And so I decided to actually read them because there was going to be discussion in the Zendo about the ethics guidelines. And I noted a couple things in them. that stirred me. One was the requirement that new members refrain from getting involved in sexual relationships in the first six months that they were part of the Sangha and I thought about that in terms of my own coming into the Sangha and

[02:23]

and kind of what a mess I was, like many people, feeling very bad about myself, feeling very lost, and how I'd actually, and I also was not with a partner at the time, and how I had kind of looked around and thought, oh no, I don't want to do that here. You know, what I came here for was to sit and was to find some center and to find some practice community, that would not work at all for me, given my patterns of relationships. It would not work for me. And so it made sense to me from looking at it and thinking about it from my own experience. The other thing that I remembered about it was it talked about confidentiality. And that resonated with me also because of an experience I had here when I gave, probably it was my first way-seeking mind talk, and I think I had assumed that when one gave a way-seeking mind talk that that was somehow this kind of sacred connection with people because I noticed that people were very open and honest with each other and really very revealing.

[03:48]

and I was kind of surprised several years later to hear from someone who hadn't been at the way-seeking mind talk something about myself which actually was a misstatement. So somehow something I'd said had gotten repeated around from one person to another and came back to me in some rather distorted way and I was really upset And so I thought confidentiality in these matters is really important if there is going to be trust and people can, in fact, share what's troubling or, in fact, share things that they're concerned about that they do. I mean, many times when we're sitting up here, we actually do share things about ourselves that we may be ashamed about or things that we wish we could change, things that we're working on, a precept that we are having trouble with And so when I share, I expect that, I guess, I expect people to take that into their hearts and also to hold that as something precious that was shared.

[05:01]

And certainly I try to do that when I hear something. So then there really was not much about ethics guidelines. uh, for several years after that. And then, um, by the way, I want to get to actually being able to discuss the procedures. So if I get to 10 minutes and I'm still talking, wave at me. Okay. Um, next time I heard, uh, anything about ethics guidelines was I heard, uh, someone told me a rumor and, um, If that were to happen again and someone started to tell me a rumor, I think I would say, no, thank you. But it's always so tempting, especially if it's juicy, to not say, no, I don't need to know that, or I really would feel more comfortable.

[06:03]

It's hard to say that to somebody who's offering you some piece of information. But alas, I listened. And I didn't like it. I didn't like it because it was information that was like third hand and it came from a place where confidentiality was supposed to have been kept. And then what I heard of it made me feel like this isn't any big deal. Why are people making such a big deal out of something that doesn't feel like a big deal? You know, nothing really happened, did it? So if nothing really happened, like some of the scandals at other places, then it wasn't worth an ethics. Why was there an ethics thing going on about it? And I started to have opinions.

[07:08]

And by that time I was on the board, so I expressed my opinions. about confidentiality and I express my opinions about the fact that, gee, in a place where there are people sharing, either with their teacher or with somebody else, there's opportunities for all sorts of human interactions that are not skillful, for misunderstandings, for hurt feelings. And things like transference and counter-transference could happen with a teacher and student. And why wasn't, why, why weren't we talking about those things? So when you open your mouth, that's how you get on a committee. So, um, yeah, because I was really kind of upset about how the situation was handled. Um, I was upset about all the talk about it. I was upset about, you know, people's opinions about it. So I expressed my feelings quite forcefully at the board meetings.

[08:14]

And so then I got onto the ethics committee. Funny thing. And then, of course, I was closer to closer to information than I had been before. And I could hear more about it and understand more about it and start to understand why certain things ended up as being grievances, that there was all sort of manner of complexity to all of our relationships with each other. And there would most naturally be issues of boundaries, issues of power differentials in relationships that would be likely to result in some people getting hurt. And part of our vow is to live for the benefit of all beings and to refrain from evil and to be compassionate. And sometimes we're all not that way all the time, or we're not aware that we're not being open and compassionate and aware of the effect of our behavior on other people.

[09:28]

So, of course, there would be situations that would arise where some people would feel injured or be injured, perception of being hurt. We talked about that a lot at the ethics committee at that time, and we really talked about the fact that these things will happen in a community, and that a community needs to begin to deal with those things in a more open way. and understand that we're not really about, hopefully, we're not really about serious ethics violations as have happened in many other long-term sanghas, but we are about complicated interpersonal relationships where people aren't always skillful.

[10:29]

And our role really is not a judge and jury, but really reconciliation. And so at that point, we all talked about it in the committee and we decided to expand the name of the committee from Ethics Committee to Ethics and Reconciliation Committee because we felt that a lot of the situations that we were dealing with were really situations that if the two people could really be open and with each other and listen to each other, that the idea was to reconcile and to bring harmony to the relationship and also to the Sangha, so that these kinds of grievances where then things become polarized, people are talking about things, people are taking sides, all of that kind of disharmony that results from these situations then becomes something that really interferes with our practice. that really we can't practice in a way and feel okay in a way where there's no place for bringing things and bringing conflict and bringing disharmony and somehow having an opportunity to resolve that.

[11:48]

But we still were hearing, as we began to roll out and do the ethics guidelines, a lot of concerns about the specifics of the guidelines. people weren't comfortable with various rules and various procedures and I for one started to wherever I was kind of bring up the issue. So when I was at Green Gulch at the practice intensive or when Alan and I were at an ethics conference in Oregon in June And then when I was in Tassajar most recently, I kind of let it be known that I was interested in ear committees and ethics and situations. And people actually talked to me about things. I said I was interested in it from the point of view of what works and what doesn't and how do people deal skillfully with these situations.

[12:50]

And I heard a variety of things from someone who I met at one practice intensive who I hadn't seen for a long time and I said, how come I haven't seen you? And the person told me that she had decided she wanted to be involved in a relationship with a priest who was at that practice place and they had gone to their teachers and decided that it wasn't appropriate for her to stay there as a resident student anymore, that they needed to have some time to develop the relationship And then after a year, it was okay for her to come back. And then they were a couple. And it seemed that in that situation, both of them were really quite satisfied with that. That was okay with them. They felt that it had been dealt with fairly. They had been heard. Another situation that I learned of when I was at Great Vow was because I noticed some people that I recognized as some of the monks and said, gee, didn't I see you at Green Gulch?

[14:00]

And they said, yeah, you did, but we were asked to leave Green Gulch because we were in a practice period and the rules were we don't start a new sexual relationship during practice period. We did and we didn't really ask about it but we realized after that that we made a mistake because we really wanted to practice so we came to this new practice place and made a vow to be celibate for the initiation period that they required and they were satisfied. They felt that the decision at Greenbelch was in fact appropriate because their relationship had really disrupted their practice. And there were others like that. So there were quite a few, and I was thinking, oh, well, see, no trouble. No problem. You decide you don't want to abide by some guideline. You go to your teacher. You say, this is how it is. And the teacher would talk about it, and you agree to a nice, pleasant arrangement that everybody feels fine about.

[15:07]

And then at Tassajara, some people approached me because they knew I was interested in it and told me how things hadn't worked for them. And in both of those cases, again, there were relationship issues, but the commonality for those situations in which people again were asked to leave were that there was no process. There really wasn't a process whereby they were heard. they were just kind of arbitrarily broke the rules or out of here rather than an opportunity to go to an ear committee and to be heard and to tell their story, whatever it is, and to feel like people understood. They felt more it was kind of this abrupt judgment type thing. So I kind of got out of that, you know, I said, well, didn't you ever go to, you know, there is an ear committee.

[16:11]

Didn't you ever ask to go to it? didn't anyone ever suggest that to you? Didn't you see that as an option?" And they had felt like the kind of higher powers made a decision and there was no option, there was no recourse for them, so they felt very bitter about that. They felt that they had really not done anything that terrible and they had a right to do what they did and then they were kind of if you will, although both of them were back again as it turned out. They were told they had to be away for a period of time and then they were actually allowed to come back with a different understanding when they came back, but they did not feel good about the process. So I guess that, and I didn't hear too much of the details, but I didn't want to hear. One started telling me the details. I said, oh, you remember about listening to rumors. Don't hear too much about it.

[17:13]

You'll start forming an opinion. You'll take sides. You'll think this one's bad or that one's bad. Anyway, so one of them, I started to hear it, and I said, oh, I better get out of this right away. But that's my own practice. of right speech and right hearing. So I think what the Air Committee here has been about is really kind of trying to hear all these things, trying to learn from what other practice places have been experiencing, all of us individually, and also all of us looking inside ourselves. I know that's true for me, exploring my own relationship with rules, exploring my own relationship with the precepts, trying to think about where are my weak places so that if I'm on some kind of grievance committee, I can feel like I can be any of my subjective things that are coming up, my stories that are coming up, that are coloring my ability to just be with the situation and really promote harmony and reconciliation.

[18:20]

So that's really, I think, the intent of what the whole ear committee process is. It's to a group of people who really are concerned about these issues, both in terms of helping to educate all of us or start dialogue around these issues, trying to provide a more transparent process so that we can all understand what we need to understand and when things are going on we kind of have some way of talking about them in a way that is skillful. And I want to introduce the members of the ear committee that are here because everybody should really know who we all are. Susan here. And Marie.

[19:23]

Marty. And Alan. Alan is a non-voting member. And Bob will be going off, will be having a new member. coming on soon. And sometimes Peter Overton from the board is invited to participate if there are issues that we feel the board should be aware of. And certainly during the development of the ethics guidelines and procedures, we wanted to do that very much in sync with the board. Since we're a board committee, board appointed committee, So basically our goal is to be a place where when the system breaks down we're there and basically as the ethics procedures describe and the ethics guidelines describe, the hope is that when a situation arises in the Sangha, people will first try and deal with things themselves,

[20:31]

If that's not possible, we'll go to their teacher and have some discussion with their teacher and get some guidance from their teacher. And then when that doesn't, when those efforts fail to resolve the situation, then the ear committee is available for people. And the way that it works is that you can approach anyone on the, on the air committee, not on the chair, but that doesn't have to be me. It can be anybody who sits on the air committee. If you have some concern and it doesn't have to be, it can be a kind of concern that's related to conflict and the specifically the ethics guidelines or something related to the ethics guidelines and have a conversation with the person on the air committee. who can try to help you kind of think it through and help you make a decision about, you know, what really needs to happen, whether or not a facilitated discussion, if it's a conflict between individuals, if it's something that's broader than that and involves something in the Sangha, then that would be something that people would consider.

[21:58]

depending upon the seriousness of the concern and the specifics of the situation, the ear committee might recommend an outside facilitator. It might recommend a group situation where two parties to a dispute might each bring someone. All these things are kind of outlined. These very specific things are outlined. in the guidelines themselves. And I don't want to really get into the specifics, but more that intent and the contribution that we feel that we would like to have the Air Committee make in bringing us together in a way that has more openness and more comfort in dealing with difficult issues and dealing with conflict so that we can all participate in any kind of healing that needs to happen, especially if someone has been felt in some way offended or injured in a relationship here.

[23:08]

So I'm going to open it for discussion soon, but just for those of you who haven't looked at the bulletin board, there is a notice on the bulletin board of a series of events. On Wednesday evening, there'll be a potluck and Alan will be talking and Alan is going to be talking a little bit more about the kinds of situations that have happened, serious kinds of situations that have happened in other older, I shouldn't say older sanghas, but well-known sanghas that that have been established in the United States for quite a while, situations that have caused great disharmony and damage to individuals and to the Sanghas as a whole, and kind of the lessons that we learn from looking at what goes on at these other practice places so that we don't have, fortunately, we haven't had that kind of disruption here, and we're more the exception than the rule.

[24:12]

want to be sure that we keep this as safe a practice place as we can, and that's some of what Alan's going to be talking about along with his many years of experience with this. I guess Alan wrote a pamphlet called Safe Harbors in 1991 with the Buddhist Peace Fellowship at the time when no one really was talking about this stuff and maybe should have been, and compiled a lot of the ethics around the country for people to use as guidelines in creating ethical guidelines and procedures in their own sanghas. So that will be really useful. It'll be an opportunity to have dialogue with Ellen as well. Then there'll be a series of three workshops kind of arrangements, which will be pretty much the same theme, although since we're all different people, how we how we actually do it probably will be different, but we have gotten a syllabus from the one that was used at the Great Val Conference that Alan and I had gotten that has videos of clergy talking about, and some dramatic representations of clergy talking about ethical issues, and we're going to be focusing on boundary issues and power.

[25:39]

issues in relationship in sanghas. In those, there'll be video and then there'll be some role play and there'll be some small group exercises and an opportunity for discussion for people to kind of start to understand these issues, how they affect harmony in the sangha and some understanding of what we hope to accomplish here as kind of a way for us to all begin a more open, transparent discussion of the process. And then on March 18th, I guess, there will be a session, which Alan will be leading that, and there'll be more opportunity during the session to talk about our relationship to ethics and the precepts. And again, that will be kind of an opportunity to kind of synthesize and integrate all the other stuff that's been going on. So hoping that by doing this, We respond to some of the concerns that have come up in recent grievance procedures, and we begin to have that be more open and comfortable dialogue for everyone.

[26:44]

So that's all I will say. Yes, Steve. Thanks. I really appreciate that, Claire. responsibility to keep in mind that we're not having focus on or practice discussion, that it isn't a public forum, and that we do our way of seeking my thought, that anybody can come here, and I think so in some cases we need to keep in mind that we're just dealing with people and people, you know, something I say or I do, someone might not think it's a big deal. and they might talk about it with someone else. And I think it's also really important for us to keep in mind that when we're talking like this, it's a public forum, and we have to know that people try to do their best, but we have some responsibility for what comes out of our mouth in these situations.

[27:56]

And I really appreciate that there are these guidelines about, you know, practice discussion, focus on where that's sort of different, and there might be things in between that we have to know. It might be a little vague, so. And we have to thank you, yeah. So thank you very much for what you said. I really appreciate that clarification. Thank you for your hard work. My comment is, and it's something I think I discussed in the past with Victor, and that has to do with the demographic of the committee. and my interest in having it be more plural in a couple of ways. One, I would like somebody to be on it who is queer identified, and also somebody who has a feminist identity, as well as people of color.

[28:56]

I just think our institution here, particularly, is very heteropatriarchal and heteronormative, I think it could be a way of expanding the imagination of the committee. Well, it's a timely remark because there's an opening. And we will be considering those things. And also the possibility of having somebody on it who is not part of this Sangha. If you have an issue and you have to come up to something that is a scary thing, Everybody looks so insider. Well, let me clarify something that I think it's important. I know there's not a whole bunch of time, but when there is an actual grievance, a new group is appointed. The ear committee is not the grievance committee for a particular issue.

[29:57]

If there's a formal grievance in that case, there is definitely somebody from outside and that, and the person, who is the grievant, for example, has a right to suggest or request somebody to be part of anything. So there's always the opportunity for somebody who's a grievant to say, I need to have somebody on my side. I want to have my advocate with me during this procedure. And that does happen. And when there's a formal grievance, again, there's always somebody from outside. Right. For that one particular thing, not as a constant. So that, I don't feel that's my solution. Okay. Thank you. One more? I don't, I'm wondering, most of the time when we're talking about ethics, we've been talking about sexual transgressions, and I think there's an area that certainly has affected me a lot, and that has to do with

[31:03]

how are relationships which can become sort of abusive without, and it has all the patterns of abuse in terms of the way the powerful person behaves, in terms of the way the person on the other side responds, but it's very, I don't know to what extent that's been looked at and to what extent it's going to be looked at as a workshop from this period. I think that we are, that is one thing that people have have raised at different times, and I think that is one of the things that people are interested in and certainly would be considered. Yes, I think that's really important. And then we talk about creating harmony. That's certainly an area where, again, this idea of reconciliation comes in. It's not the traditional ethics violation, but yet it is a destructive kind of relationship that's harmful to people. So anything like that would be part of what we consider the ones that we've heard about or the ones that have come up have not been that. But yeah, yeah.

[32:08]

One more, Mary. No, no, you can't. OK. All right. Well, we'll have lots of opportunity at Alan's talk on Wednesday and at the workshop. So we hope everybody will join us for at least one of the workshops and Alan's Alan's thing on Wednesday. Thank you

[32:32]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ