Re: Assemblies sworn to secrecy?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Pete Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Some say that the agreement is needed to protect the faith from
>> lawsuits.  Has anyone ever heard of a Bahai' Institution losing a
>> lawsuit because of the lack of this agreement?   I haven't, although I
>> have noticed individuals restricting and channeling the flow of
>> information to maintain and enhance their personal administrative
>> power.
>
>That is the objective as well as the necessity to protect the general
>incompetence of the AO from any scrutiny.

Assemblies are frequently called upon to deliberate on matters which are both 
personal and confidential. The first requirement of the Assembly is to 
ascertain the facts, without which they can hardly come to any meaningful 
solution. It goes without saying that in cases like these that confidentiality 
must be respected - it does not require an oath or legislation.
If the matter concerns the whole community, then the Assembly is obliged to 
inform the community of its decision. It is not answerable to the community 
for each decision, e.g. it does not necessarily need to divulge the reason for 
the decision or the facts on which it is based. If people don't like the way 
things are run, then they can vote them out in April ...