Transparency in The Salvation Army; Myth or Reality? PART ONE

 TRANPARENCY? NOT!

Topping the business charts in the 1970s was the buzzy phrase, 'Management by Objective'-  Peter Drucker, SA admirer and out-spoken defender. But for those companies who didn’t heed the corporate management guru, other buzz words morphed into new versions of the same meaning. Companies either 'fired' or softer, 'laid off' employees". “Then, 'laid off' became 'down-sizing' which was bleached into 'right-sizing,' which is now called 'outsourcing.'”

And then, in an era we all remember, just 5 years ago, that’s right – five years ago – the buzzword that’s now embedded in all levels of culture; transparency.

“Corporations now strive for transparency in all their accounting and customer processes. Politicians talk about making government more 'transparent' on the heels of secrecy charges. Psychologists talk about 'transparent" relationships.”

So why shouldn’t we talk about it? Well perhaps because the problem with buzz words is, the more they're used the more they lose their meaning. That demands, of course, that they first of all have a meaning – transparency has become so ubiquitous, it will undoubtedly show up in this blog article and the several that follow, and in dozens of the comments, and so it should. 

Transparency is a matter of ethics. Leaders and their disciples are expected to share information “free from pretense”. This according to Webster is the definition of transparency. And so we wait….. I urge us all to remember that ethics is never a fad and can never be sustained or advanced on a buzz word alone. It is at the heart of leadership and effectiveness as I said in an earlier HH linked article.  Transparency is what we count on to help understand the meaning of the troubling HH circumstances, and ought to be the means to achieve goals and unite people. It makes a leader accessible and restores our faith in what is right, in what is Christian and just. 

_____________________________

Our values, like our actions and emotions, are at least in part cultural products. Some are adopted readily, others we encapsulate and accept piecemeal and others yet are applied conditionally; situation ethics.  They come from innate tendencies, capacities and dispositions, but are greatly influenced by cultural factors.

Religion provides us with identifiable values, attitudes, and behaviors. But, no matter how meaningful these rituals may be, and powerful the symbols, culture brings about a de-emphasis on the assumption and belief that religion alone determines our values. The Chritians’ DNA has been impregnated by a great many questionable influences that we’d claim cause character flaws. However, one would never expect that a SA officer with 10, 15, 20 years of pastoral and ministry experience, no matter how powerful the cultural factors may be, would lower themselves to the reprehensible actions exhibited by of a few. Their actions cannot be allowed to be explained or translated merely as some momentary cultural throw-back. 

The term atavism is sometimes applied in the discussion of a culture collision such as the one we’ll learn more about in reading tomorrow’s account. Atavism is described as a return of older, "more primitive" tendencies. This is especially used by sociologists in reference to violence. Christians define it as evil. It's the crowd and the Police band of brothers who display grace, taking the nobler, gentler, protective stance.

Bystanders, young and old including the police were appalled at the treatment they witnessed of these elderly women. Many felt compelled to go to their aid but were warned off for fear that they might also be mishandled and arrested.

These weren’t strangers to the hospital. One was a physician who’d spent months just a year earlier as a HH volunteer working with Dr. Paul Thistle. Another, also a Canadian, was a Salvationist well known for her fundraising efforts for the nearby orphanage.

They were warned that visiting the hospital was restricted, but the restriction was clearly not meant to apply to them. They restriction were in place to prevent overseas activist donors from entering the hospital or causing a ruckus outside the gates. And it begs belief that the ‘self-appointed’ hospital sheriffs couldn’t distinguish the difference between a ban of hooligan trouble-makers and three 60’s something gals yielding Instamatics! 

There appears to be an attempt to cover something up sinister here, something so wrong that the administrator would go to the extreme of ordering their arrest and imprisonment on the very serious charges of "spying" (fortunately the police did not comply), injuring one of them in the process.  We can be very grateful that their driver, at no small risk to himself, followed them, spoke up for them, and was there to pick them up when released 6 hours later, well after dark in a strange and dangerous town.

What is this great wrong that they are trying to hide?  At least, from the misinformation in the official reports, that the removal of Dr. Thistle was anything but routine, that the hospital has subsequently suffered great loss of services, reputation and support, and is operating at about 40% capacity (60 inpatients in 144 beds, as the  Salvationist "Tariro" article admits), less than that on the main wards. 

There is a report of building material being carried away, and ther may be more, in the form of misuse of funds and goods, with some evidence of the same.

Why not simply admit the truth?  40% is obviously better than the earlier reported 10%; things are improving slowly, and we would be able to recognize the hard work that has been put in by Major Dean Pallant and others. There is no reason for cover-up.  It doesn't even work.  All it took were three brave Canadians ladies on a walk-about to blow their cover.

Tomorrow the ladies share their experiences. They were afraid of saying a word until all three were safely home in Canada.

END PART ONE

Sven Ljungholm