Who chairs the ladies?
Who should preside over the Ladies Committee of the F. S. Parukh Dharamshalla became a contentious issue for the new Bombay Parsi Punchayet board of trustees
"It is a convention that in any committee if a Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee is on that committee he/she automatically becomes chairman of that committee.” That assertion made by BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz posed a quandary to the new BPP board. At the crux of the issue was the continuance of former BPP trustee Arnavaz Mistry as chairwoman of the Ladies Committee of the F. S. Parukh Dharamshalla (FSPD), an institution for the elderly that is run by the BPP at Khareghat Colony. Mistry’s term as BPP trustee expired this October and she did not seek reelection.
Tirandaz noted that in 2008 when the new board of trustees was elected, Mistry had, with the concurrence of her co-trustees, got herself appointed as the chairwoman in place of Zenobia Adajania.
There is no love lost between Mistry and Tirandaz with Mistry having supported BPP trustees Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai in the previous board, while Tirandaz sided with then BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and trustee Muncherji Cama. Mistry lobbied for the "tremendous three” namely Noshir Dadrawala, Kersi Randeria and Zarir Bhathena as well as for current BPP chairman Desai.
Tirandaz’s term expires in April 2016 and elections for her seat are expected to be held in March/April next year. There is a possibility that Mistry may contest that vacancy. Tirandaz is not expected to seek reelection. Whether Cama continues as a trustee or has resigned from office is being argued before the Charity Commissioner. The next hearing is on November 24.
On the rationale that Tirandaz’s term ends in another six months, Desai, Dadrawala, Randeria and Bhathena opted to retain Mistry in the FSPD chair. Resigned to her fate, Tirandaz "hope(d) and pray(ed) that this kind of deviation from protocol does not extend to all other ‘important’ matters too.”
Parsiana publishes the emails exchanged between the five sitting trustees over the issue of chairmanship.
They have been edited to avoid repetition and as per the stylistic requirements of the magazine.
Dear Yazdi
Thanks for circulating the agenda for our meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday November 3, 2015 at 5 p.m. well in advance.
It’s apparent from the 15-point agenda that we have a number of extremely important and serious issues to discuss.
At our meeting last evening Tirandaz had requested that item No. 15 should be moved higher on the agenda. In the interest of saving time I am expressing my views here and now and in writing. They are no different from what I have already expressed with the greatest of respect and in all fairness at our first board meeting held last Tuesday.
Tirandaz, vide her letter dated 27-10-2015 has requested that she should be appointed chairperson of the Ladies Committee.
I would like to reiterate what I have expressed earlier:
Just because Mistry has completed her full term of office as a trustee of the BPP and is now no longer a BPP trustee it does not disqualify her from chairmanship of this committee. Mistry has served the Ladies Committee with great dedication and sincerity for more than two decades, even when she was not a BPP trustee. Mistry has served as chairperson of this committee for only the last seven years. In others words she became chairperson after dedicated service of 13 years. Among other things, she has been instrumental in bringing in several donations to help support and sustain this institution.
By contrast, Tirandaz has served on this committee only for about six-and-a-half years and after being elected as trustee of the BPP.
What’s more, prior to Mistry, Adajania who was never a trustee of the BPP chaired this committee and had also served for about 20 years. In other words chairmanship of this committee has nothing to do with the person holding office of trustee.
At our last meeting I had specifically and with all sincerity asked Tirandaz what would change or capacitate her better if, for argument’s sake, she were to assume chairmanship? Conversely, what is it that she cannot do or achieve if she is not in the chair? Apparently, Tirandaz had no convincing response to my question.
However, to support Tirandaz’s request, Viraf Mehta did say: "This would be a ‘perk’ or ‘perquisite’ of being a trustee.” Some of us were quite shocked to hear these words and one would hope these were words uttered in a moment of emotion or sentiment rather than belief. Trusteeship should not be seen as a position of power or prestige, much less a "perk” or "perquisite.” Trusteeship is a "legal obligation” and should be viewed as an office to "serve.”
I have always believed that trusteeship is a position of service and the only power it confers is the power to do good for others!
We are all aware that Tirandaz’s term of office will come to an end in another six months. I am of the view that it would be absolutely unfair to request Mistry who has served as chairperson with great dedication and sincerity to step down just so that Tirandaz can be the chairperson for a few months.
In my view the request made by Tirandaz should, with great respect, be declined since this change would achieve no real purpose, nor change anything in terms of effectiveness over the next few months. On the contrary, it would be an act of disrespect to the long years of service put in by Mistry.
You are welcome to put item No. 15 as item No. 1 since it is not even a matter that merits much discussion. I have expressed my views and others are welcome to express their views.
I would suggest that we focus our energies on matters of more serious concern instead of an issue like this which serves no real purpose for the trust or the community.
I suggest that matter be put at Item No. 1 voted upon and disposed.
Email dated October 31, 2015 at 1.36 from Bhathena to co-trustees
Dear All
I personally feel what Noshir says is absolutely correct. It is no use to rock the boat only for, technically speaking, five months. There are more important issues to be discussed next Tuesday. Hence we should give our time and attention to those issues.
Email dated October 31, 2015 at 6.10 p.m. from Desai to co-trustees
Dear Co-trustees
I agree with Noshir that acceding to the request made by Tirandaz to be appointed chairperson of the Ladies Committee will be most unfair to Mistry who has served the Ladies Committee with great dedication and sincerity for more than two decades, even when she was not a BPP trustee; and besides being involved "hands on” in the care of the inmates Arnavaz has also been instrumental in bringing in several donations to help support and sustain this institution.
The request made by Tirandaz should, with due respect, be politely declined since this change would serve no beneficial purpose to the institution.
Kind regards
Dear Co-trustees
This is my reply to the email sent by Dadrawala on October 31, 2015 to all the BPP trustees. I have penned the following, after allowing ample opportunity to all to put in their views, of which only two have replied, i.e. Desai and Bhathena.
In reply to Dadrawala’s very succinct views so "unbiased and with utmost sincerity,” expressed by him, and also concurred by Desai and Bhathena, I wish to opine on that.
Adajania has been associated with the Parukh Dharamshalla for over three decades and has been doing very commendable work. She also has been instrumental in bringing in substantial donations from Singapore for the institution. In 2008 she had completed a term of 13 years as the chairperson on the Ladies Committee, where there was no BPP trustee serving on the Committee at that time. When Mistry became a BPP trustee she insisted that Adajania be removed and she be nominated as the chairperson, since as a trustee she could not be subservient to an ordinary committee member. Even before she was officially informed by the then chairman Adajania had graciously vacated the chair in favor of Mistry...
It is a convention that in any committee if a BPP trustee is on that committee he/she automatically becomes chairman of that committee. It was because of this reasoning of Mistry, that as a BPP trustee it was her right and privilege and the then board had conceded to her rightful demand. Please note that this precedent has not been set by me, but in fact by Mistry and my predecessors.
(From left) F. S. Parukh Dharamshalla; Arnavaz Mistry
I give below an extract of the minutes of the board meeting of 11th November 2008 wherein Dadrawala and Desai were both present at Item 6 thereof which proves my point of a precedent and convention:
"As regards Parukh Dharamshalla Committee was concerned, Mrs Arnavaz J. Mistry
who is already one of the members of the Parukh Dharamshalla Ladies Committee, but is now a trustee, felt that it would be appropriate to appoint her as a chairperson of the said Ladies Committee, in place of Zenobia Adajania. The board accepted the said request and proposed to inform Adajania, accordingly.”
I have been doing equally good work on the committee and whether I can do better in the little time that I have is not the issue we are faced with, but protocol has to prevail, until such time that it is changed or amended. Where there is an outright breach and violation of protocol and policies — being fair or unfair, being disrespectful, rocking the boat and time factor are of no consequence. Emotions and obligations cannot blatantly overrule principles and precedents set out for the smooth and harmonious functioning of the institution.
All the Ladies Committee members are dedicated and committed individuals who in their own way contribute to the institution in terms of time, energy, personal sacrifices and even by bringing in donations through their good offices and good will. As mentioned by Dadrawala if there is no power and prestige in the position of a chairperson then I suggest he convince Mistry of the same thereby adhering to policies that should be followed. Therefore, by comparing and contrasting my quality of service and dedication of six-and-a-half years with that of Mistry is demeaning by your insinuations.
I am aware of my responsibilities as a BPP trustee and I am also acutely aware of my role in its betterment. I do not need a sermon to make me aware of the same. At the same time I am an extremely principled and independent minded individual who knows her rights, so I ask Dadrawala what he means by "legal obligations” as he has mentioned in his email.
Despite the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance that have so vociferously been stressed on during the last election, justice, fair play, transparency and accountability seem to have been sidelined on this issue. I can clearly observe Mistry’s excessive craving for power and desperation to hold on to her position which seems is the driving factor for you all as a "majority” to appease her, perhaps because of her assistance to you all during the elections.
I find it extremely disrespectful that this issue which I have brought up seems to be considered as a matter that does not even merit much discussion. And to my good faculty makes me sincerely hope and pray that this kind of deviation from protocol does not extend to all other "important” matters too.
Politics (internal or otherwise) make strange bedfellows! And I have very little inclination or interest towards it.
In His service and dedication to truth
Email dated November 2, 2015 at 6.59 from Randeria to co-trustees
Dear colleague trustees
I am concerned and surprised at the tone, tenor and contents of the email reply of Tirandaz.
Tirandaz in her desire to be the chairperson of the Parukh Dharamshalla has not only made accusations against Mistry and written about Mistry’s so called "excessive craving for power and desperation to hold on to her position” but also accused some of us (whom she has referred to as the "majority”) to be driven by our desire to appease Mistry "perhaps because of her assistance to you all during the elections.”
I am concerned that after the very first meeting of the new board, Tirandaz has raised the issue of "majority.”
Tirandaz has tried to deal with details of the appointment of Mistry as the chairperson from her own point of view. She has quoted from the minutes of November 11, 2008.
I would only like to request her to read the minutes one more time and to note that a request was made by Mistry which was accepted by the board. It is therefore not clear, at least to me, as to where the issue of precedent and convention comes up?
Tirandaz, like Mistry has made a request to this board and the same should be left to the board — whether to accept the request or not.
I propose that we discuss the issue tomorrow, as Tirandaz so obviously wants us to do and then decide on the issue which hopefully should be gracefully accepted by all.
Let us not be disrespectful to Tirandaz (as alleged by her) and let us discuss this issue thoroughly.
I also hope that we can continue to work in the spirit that we all started and leave this solitary and unpleasant issue behind us.
Best regards
Email dated November 2, 2015 at 11.01 p.m. from Dadrawala to fellow trustees
Dear all
Since Tirandaz insists, in all fairness we shall discuss this matter tomorrow.
Tirandaz has asked what I meant by "legal obligation”?
This is a term enshrined u/s 3 of the Indian Trusts Act 1882:
"A ‘trust’ is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another.”
This means a "trust” is a "legal obligation” to judiciously manage property (movable and/or immovable) as if owning it and "for the benefit of another.”
Kind regards