COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (EPS) BY THE STUDENTS OF YOGI BHAJAN

 Accountability of the SSSC Regarding Unaddressed Conflicts of Interest

The Khalsa Council is an “advisory” body to the SSSC and while it’s not a requirement for the SSSC to listen to the advice the Khalsa Council gives them, it is the only kind of check and balance there is for the SSSC at this point.

The Students of Yogi Bhajan have serious concerns about conflicts of interest in relation to the checks and balances of the SSSC and the autonomy of the Khalsa Council as an independent leadership body.

Our complaint is as follows:

There are four main leaders of the Khalsa Council.  The Secretary General, the Khalsa Council Chairperson, the Chief Facilitator (Whip), and the SDI Chancellor.

1. The Secretary General of the Khalsa Council also sits on the SSSC Board and was appointed to the CRT by the SSSC. We object to the fact that Gurujot Kaur has had the simultaneous leadership positions of Secretary General, CEO of SDI, member of the CRT and SSSC Board member.
2. The Khalsa Council Chairperson also sits on the SSSC Board. We object to the fact that Guruka Singh has had the simultaneous leadership positions of Chairperson of the Khalsa Council and SSSC Board member
3. In early 2020, Pritpal Kaur was both the Chief Facilitator (Whip) and was appointed to the CRT by the SSSC. We object to the fact that Pritpal Kaur had the simultaneous leadership positions of CEO of 3HO, member of the CRT and Chief Facilitator/Whip of the Khalsa Council.
4. In late 2020, Atma Kaur was appointed as the new Chief Facilitator (Whip) and she is a paid staff person of the SSSC. We object to the fact that Atma Kaur has had the simultaneous leadership position of Chief Facilitator/Whip of the Khalsa Council and is a paid staff member of the SSSC.

In their leadership roles, these leaders participate on the Executive Committee of the Khalsa Council, which sets the agendas and approves members applying to be part of the electorate to vote on SSSC Board members.

1. There is a serious conflict of interest to the Khalsa Council operating freely and with autonomy, when leaders of the Khalsa Council who are setting the agendas and running the Khalsa Council meetings, also sit on the SSSC Board.
2. There is a serious conflict of interest to the Khalsa Council operating freely and with autonomy, when leaders of the Khalsa Council, who are approving applicants to become part of the electorate are also either sitting on the SSSC themselves who have been and may continue to be up for election themselves, or are paid staff members of the SSSC.  These people should not be deciding on who can and cannot vote for obvious reasons.
3. In their capacities as CEO of SDI, and CEO of 3HO, Gurujot Kaur and Pritpal Kaur were also appointed to the CRT by the SSSC.

Early on in the whole process of handling the allegations against the Siri Singh Sahib, the CRT and SSSC quickly came to the conclusion that he was guilty of the accusations against him.  And yet, the Secretary General did not bring this, THE BIGGEST ISSUE in our Dharma EVER, as a topic for the Khalsa Council to discuss and advise the SSSC about– even when one of the SSSC Board members themselves (Ek Ong Kaar Kaur) requested to have a special Khalsa Council meeting for the members to discuss (prior to the AOB report being issued).

Instead, after the AOB report was issued, then the Secretary General simply put the topic of the AOB report on the agenda, for the Khalsa Council members to “process” their feelings about it.

This demonstrated a serious conflict of interest, with the appearance being that due to her role on the SSSC and the CRT, and the fact that she was involved in making decisions regarding the AOB report, that she did not want to engage with the Khalsa Council members, where she may have been questioned, or received push back regarding those decisions.  This was a grave transgression against honoring the Khalsa Council members, as ministers and leaders of our community, and against our Spiritual Teacher, the founder of SDI and the Khalsa Council.

Gurujot Kaur, as CEO of SDI and the Secretary General of the Khalsa Council, is paid by SDI for these roles.  Therefore, her first duty was to SDI and the Khalsa Council, not to furthering the agenda of the SSSC and the CRT.  Her first duty should have been to involve the ministers and community members of the Khalsa Council in the discussion of THE BIGGEST ISSUE in our Dharma EVER as it was happening, and not to simply process their feelings about it after the fact.

4. In addition to the Secretary General of the Khalsa Council sitting on the SSSC Board and being appointed to the CRT, her husband, Sat Want Singh, is the Executive Director of the SSSC. While the SSSC Board members are volunteers and are generally not paid for their work (except those who are appointed to the Board of Directors of the various for-profit Dharmic companies), the position of Executive Director of the SSSC is a paid position.
5. In addition, Gurujot Kaur holds the simultaneous positions of CEO and Secretary General, which is appointed by the Siri Sikdar Sahiba. Upon the resignation or death of the Siri Sikdar Sahiba, the Secretary General becomes the Siri Sikdar Sahiba and appoints the next Secretary General.  So, unlike a normal CEO position, who is accountable to the board of the organization, the only person who has any legal oversight over the Secretary General is the Siri Sikdar Sahiba.  Currently, the Siri Sikdar Sahiba has been and is on a leave of absence.
6. As part of either and/or the SSSC Board and the CRT, Gurujot Kaur, Guruka Singh and Pritpal Kaur supported the unfair and illegal investigative process, which lead to the AOB report. The SSSC attorneys advised that the AOB “investigation” was not a “criminal investigation”, and therefore did not follow the standard rules of an investigation, that 1) the accusations are not anonymous and 2) that the accused is entitled to representation.  How then, was the next step, once the AOB report was released, for the SSSC to hire a company to conduct a “Restorative Justice” process?

“Restorative Justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior.” ~ www.restorativejustice.org

As the Thompson Report concludes, the AOB report should not be a basis as to whether Yogi Bhajan did any of the things he is accused of.  You cannot have a just outcome, if your foundation is not based on a shared truth.

In summary, people who have leadership roles in so many inter-related organizations, and have a particular point of view, can move the entire organization toward the purposes of that view.  It would be very difficult to execute the objective independence that these roles require.  The way it transpired, there was no daylight between them.

The danger of these incestuous relationships is precisely what happened when Unto Infinity and Roy Lambert facilitated the attempted theft of Golden Temple– there were no checks and balances or recognition of real and potential conflicts of interest.  Have we learned nothing from that dark chapter in our history?

Whatever semblance of check and balance that was supposed to exist between the SSSC and the Khalsa Council is gone, which is demonstrated by:

1. The Khalsa Council was never informed or able to participate as to how the allegations were handled
2. Restorative Justice was deemed an appropriate next step by the SSSC and leaders of the Khalsa Council, who happen to be the same people, who were also integrally involved in determining the whole investigative process to begin with

Best practices for successful corporate governance, are that even when actual conflicts of interest are debatable, even the appearance of conflict of interest should be avoided.

The SSSC Board has been “missing in action” in its duties to make sure that our dharmic leadership entities (in this case the Khalsa Council) are operating free of such egregious conflicts of interest.

The SSSC has allowed the Secretary General of the Khalsa Council, an autonomous leadership body which supposedly acts as a check and balance to the SSSC, to also sit as an SSSC Board Member, for multiple terms.

The SSSC has allowed its own members to sit in an election for the role of Khalsa Council Chairperson, the leadership body (the Khalsa Council), which performs (at least in lip service) some form of checks and balances against itself.

All in all, 3 of the 4 main leadership roles in the Khalsa Council (Secretary General, Chairperson and Chief Whip) are currently composed of either SSSC board members, or their paid staff.

In addition, the SSSC appointed to the CRT, leadership of the Khalsa Council, Secretary General Gurujot Kaur and Chief Facilitator/Whip, Pritpal Kaur.

In addition, SSSC Board members have played an integral role in the Khalsa Council Committees/ Task Forces (either as Chairpersons of the task forces, or leading action policies in some way).

Please accept this as a formal complaint to the EPS from the Students of Yogi Bhajan.  We await your response.

We would also like to note that while the EPS website does not list anyone who works for the organization, our understanding is that Guruka Kaur is the Director.  In light of this complaint mentioning her husband, Guruka Singh, as both an SSSC Board member and the Khalsa Council Chairperson, and because the EPS is overseen by the SSSC, we have concern regarding a conflict of interest in the handling of this complaint. Please confirm how this will be handled.  Thank you.

Signed,

The Students of Yogi Bhajan

COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (EPS) BY THE STUDENTS OF YOGI BHAJAN

Accountability of the SSSC Regarding their Handling of the Allegations Against Yogi Bhajan

Students of Yogi Bhajan is a group of 3HO/Sikh Dharma individuals who are committed to preserving the Legacy, History and Teachings of Yogi Bhajan. As part of this commitment, and in our resolve to seek the truth, we reject the August 2020 AOB report, because it presents itself as an investigation, and it was not.

In addition, we reject certain decisions and actions of the Siri Singh Sahib Corporation (SSSC) Board, the Collaborative Response Team (CRT), 3HO Foundation International (3HO), Kundalini Research Institute (KRI), Sikh Dharma International (SDI) and any other organizational entities who have used the AOB report as the basis for an unsubstantiated attack on the character of our Spiritual Teacher, as are outlined below.

Our complaint is as follows:

1. The SSSC Board needs to be accountable to their failures in managing the allegations against Yogi Bhajan.

A.  The SSSC, through the CRT communications, stated that they were going to conduct an investigation. Rather, they conducted a survey, or inquiry, through private listening tours.

B.  During the so called “investigation”, members of the SSSC and the CRT conducted public events, in the form of Khalsa Council meetings and public listening tours where, while the said investigation was taking place, they allowed accusers to publicly state their claims, without any counter information. In essence, they were allowed to say whatever they wanted, and influence public opinion without any evidence.

C.  From the beginning, as this process began to unfold, a significant number of Sikh Dharma Ministers, community leaders, and senior members of the community insisted that the entire process be dealt with in a neutral way. For months, many Sangat members brought to the attention of the SSSC Board their concerns with the manner in which communications were being sent to the public, and the language and characterizations that were being used.

These concerns were generally ignored. Public communications by KRI, 3HO, the CRT, and the SSSC itself continued to promote the conclusion that the allegations of sexual misconduct by Yogi Bhajan were true.

All of this was done, before the supposed investigation was allowed to be completed.

D.  No discernable efforts were made by the SSSC or any of its affiliates to determine where the allegations against Yogi Bhajan were supported or refuted by facts, with regard to the time and space of any reported event, with regard to supporting witnesses to the events, and with regard to any concerns about the credibility of any of the reporters.

E.  The SSSC created the CRT and populated it with individuals who for the most part publicly asserted that they believed the allegations and were thereby biased and unable to be objective and neutral in their managing of the investigative process.

Many community members, even though they disagreed with the process, in good faith, because they felt they had important information for the investigation, which would question the allegations, contacted the AOB interviewers conducting the “investigation”.

As it turned out, the hours of their testimonies did not matter, since the interviewers did not use any of that information in the AOB report.

Indeed, what our community ended up with, through the actions of the SSSC Board, was a damning report, which provided no proof, and was ultimately shown to simply be a process of accepting the stories of anyone who wished to make a claim against Yogi Bhajan.  There was no actual investigation conducted.

F.  The findings brought to bear in the recent Thompson Report, an independent review of the AOB report, confirm the concerns expressed by many Sangat members.

G.  In summary, the decision, actions, and language consistently used by the SSSC, 3HO, and KRI have unfairly maligned the character of Yogi Bhajan and offended and insulted a significant number of Ministers and committed members of the organization.

The Thompson report was a review of the AOB Report and was written by a professional investigator and former attorney.  It is a 21-page serious indictment of the AOB report and its flawed methodology. Two damning summarizations are:

From the Executive Summary:  “As a result of the lack of qualifications to conduct an investigation and prepare an investigative report, the AOB Report is of no use in forming the basis for any findings as to whether the alleged behavior of Yogi Bhajan occurred.”

From the Conclusion: “Because the AOB Report does not appear to be investigative at all or provide sufficient facts to make any determination, it should not serve to assist anyone in determining whether the alleged behavior by Yogi Bhajan actually occurred.”

The impact of the SSSC actions have been catastrophic and the extent of the impact warrants an honest, objective review of their actions.

In our view, the first step which needs to happen, in order for healing to occur in our community, is for the SSSC to review, reflect and acknowledge the flaws in their previous actions and communications regarding the allegations against Yogi Bhajan.  And from there, to honestly look at what can be done to rectify this situation.

2. The voice of the Students of Yogi Bhajan needs to be recognized and heard.

Even though many individual Students of Yogi Bhajan have written to the SSSC, with concerns throughout the entirety of this process, the SSSC has not listened to or even acknowledged our voices.

And in fact, when Sangat members, and now the author of the Thompson Report, have called into question the veracity of the AOB report, and the process which lead to it, the SSSC has never once acknowledged that there is any possible truth to what has been said.

Instead, the SSSC, or their attorneys, answered with falsehoods (see “Mistruths from the SSSC“), or by maligning the character of the people challenging their actions.  The Thompson Report systematically demonstrated that all of the defenses previously asserted by the SSSC, to the criticisms of the investigative process, used by AOB, were wholly without merit.

Not only that, members of the CRT and the SSSC have also verbally maligned the character of individual Sangat members who brought up concerns about the process they had undertaken.

And most recently, Sangat members who have contacted the SSSC to address concerns raised in the Thompson Report, were told that the author, Barbara Thompson, is not qualified to provide such a report, even though the first footnote on the first page of the report clearly lists her credentials as follows:

“Barbara W. Thompson, J.D., L.P.I., is a former attorney and a current licensed private investigator in Pennsylvania who has managed a private investigations practice for 25 years. She was a first and second vice-president, secretary, and treasurer of the Pennsylvania Association of

Licensed Investigators (PALI), and served as an executive board member for eighteen years.  While on the board of PALI she co-chaired a team of board members who worked on the revision of the Pennsylvania Private Detective Act of 1953. She has actively worked to raise the quality of professional private investigators and private investigations throughout her career.”

Additional credentials found on the www.twinllc.com website are as follows:

Barbara W. Thompson, Managing Partner of The Worldwide Investigative Network, LLC (T.W.I.N.)- Research, has over fifteen years’ experience in investigative and legal research. She specializes in investigative and due diligence research both in the United States and internationally.

 Thompson practiced law in Pennsylvania, taught business and tax law for a major international publishing company and developed training programs in research for attorneys and accountants. She was a District Manager for CDB Infotek, the public records database, now Choicepoint. Thompson was also the Director of Research for a major international security and investigations company.

In 1999, Thompson and TW Consulting joined with Joel Bartow to form The Worldwide Investigative Network, LLC [TWIN]. TWIN provides general investigative services but specializes in fraud and money laundering investigations.

So, instead of acknowledging the concerns of Sangat members, the strategy of the SSSC has been to ignore receiving the complaints and disregarding the character or qualifications of the people making them.  It appears that their only concern is to be sure there is no resistance to the course they took and the outcome they achieved.

So, the question is, how does the SSSC handle engaging with the Students of Yogi Bhajan?  For that, our eyes and ears are on how they respond to this complaint.

And how do the Students of Yogi Bhajan intend to participate with our legacy organizations going forward?

Many of us did not participate in the Listening Tours, and some who initially did join, did not continue because the premise of the format was that of Yogi Bhajan being guilty.

We are not interested in participating in another process which is controlled by a predetermined narrative (i.e. Just Outcomes). Restorative Justice assumes a crime has been committed.  There is no proof that Yogi Bhajan is guilty of any of the allegations.  You cannot have a just outcome if your foundation is not based on a shared truth.

We are not interested in participating in events hosted by the legacy organizations (i.e. solstices, Khalsa Council meetings, etc.) where the premise of the organizers is the guilt of Yogi Bhajan.

As a first step, what we are open to, and what we are asking for, is a dialogue between the Students of Yogi Bhajan community and the full SSSC Board (without attorneys).  It is our hope and prayer that the SSSC will fulfill their duty as board members and have the courage to listen to us.

Please accept this as a formal complaint to the EPS from the Students of Yogi Bhajan.  We await your response.

We would also like to note that while the EPS website does not list anyone who works for the organization, our understanding is that Guruka Kaur is the Director.  In light of the fact that this complaint is against the SSSC, and her husband, Guruka Singh, is an SSSC Board member, and the EPS is overseen by the SSSC, we have a concern regarding a conflict of interest in the handling of this complaint. Please confirm how this will be handled.  Thank you.

Signed,

The Students of Yogi Bhajan