As an SGI member who routinely gives tens of thousands of dollars a year to the SGI and Soka University, I wanted to offer a somewhat belated response to Jan Tyler’s heartfelt article "Why Members Should Care About Financial Disclosure." While I take issue with many of the specifics in Jan’s piece, I’m in total agreement with the main point that members need to be aware of and press the SGI for financial disclosure.

I was fortunate to be an early American member who joined in the 1960s as a poor student who went on to take a leadership position in the greater Philadelphia area. For whatever reason early on I developed a strong liking for doing financial contributions. Personally I can see a strong and direct correlation between my efforts to support the SGI financially and my current prosperity. I never contributed to the SGI to become wealthy I did it because I genuinely loved doing it the way many members love doing shakubuku.

Being one of the pioneers of the Philadelphia Region I have also experienced a lot pertaining to SGI finances. I have helped prepare for audits, and as a leader I have had to remove people from their positions for financial improprieties. In some cases these people disappeared and in other cases they renewed their practice and have become outstanding individuals as well as SGI leaders. I have also witnessed a top leader embezzle money from the SGI to cover gambling debts, be promptly caught, removed from his position and sadly leave the organization after years of struggle to build the Philadelphia organization. I’m not a forensic accountant but my gut level feeling from my years of practice is that the SGI is extremely careful with the money it receives. I cannot ever remember George Williams attending a meeting in a designer suit. In fact, most of the suits he wore I would not want hanging in my closest. While there may be a leader here or there who was a better dresser, I’ve never seen an SGI leader living a lifestyle other than that which befits someone working for a non-profit organization.

This does not mean that I agree with how the money has been allocated. I have plenty of issues. Having a background in newspaper journalism at a major daily newspaper, I complained bitterly to Greg Martin over the recent cutbacks of the SGI-USA publications staffing. The cutbacks and early retirements at the World Tribune arose from an SGI wide staff reduction in order to provide additional funding for community centers in some of the more "remote" locations. Despite the overwhelming support of my position by nearly all of the current and former publication staff members, my advice was basically blown off. I was disappointed, but not surprised and continue to press SGI leadership on my issues, financial and otherwise.

I think it’s important to address some of the specifics that Jan mentioned and were followed up on by letters from readers. I agree with Jan that the information regarding the value of SGI properties should be accessible by means other than culling local online tax records. SGI should disclose it's annual income from contributions and other sources of revenue. What I do not agree with is the idea that simply because SGI retains all of these properties that this means they have millions at their disposal to do with as they please. Anyone who has owned a home knows that simply because you own a nice house in a nice neighborhood it does not necessarily follow that you have large sums of money to do with as you please. In fact, quite frequently the opposite is true. Because you have a nice property and want to maintain its value you have to spend money beyond the cost of the mortgage to maintain it.

Another factor is that many of the community centers are not owned outright but
rented. This is true in the case of Philadelphia Region, which has 3 rented community centers one in Pittsburgh, one in Sewell NJ, and the main community center in downtown Philadelphia. [Ed. note: None of the properties mentioned by Jan are rentals.]

The other item I wanted to bring up is that these assets do not necessarily appreciate. In the case of Philadelphia’s Community Center during the 1980s, I believe it was originally purchase around 1981 for about $100,000.

Unfortunately the neighborhood, which seemed to be on the upswing when the building was purchased, began to go into decline in around 1986. The building was enormous and frequently housed NSA props and costumes for the entire northeastern United States. Being that it was so large it was extremely expensive to maintain and there were a number of code issues such as the need to install sprinklers, which compounded with the deteriorating neighborhood condition made it financially unfeasible to keep. In 1990 the decision was made to sell the community center and rent space in Center City Philadelphia that would provide safer environs for the members and would also be much more accessible by public transportation. The old community center was sold to a church for what I recall was about the same $100,000 that was originally paid for the building, which means SGI lost money on its investment. Despite it’s financial history the building was enjoyed by all of the members in the region and is thought of fondly today.

So when an SGI brochure says the organization "needs" money to keep the
lights on it is not as great leap of faith for me as it might be for other people.

What would be the alternatives? I would not want to be the one to tell the members who live in Pittsburgh that in order to allocate funds for other expenses SGI will now ask them to drive 6 hours to Philadelphia instead of the 15-45 minutes it now takes them to get to their local community center. I likewise think Jan Tyler would not want to tell the New York members that they would have to move to a smaller less posh location because the monies are being appropriated for other things. [Ed. note: Jan did not suggest such a move.]

Jan did not mention some of the concrete issues, which currently stand in the way of financial disclosure so perhaps I should mention what I have heard in the course of discussing this issue with various SGI leaders. I am not the official conduit for SGI. I am simply restating what I have been told and seems plausible.

First of all from speaking with friends and leaders who work at SGI Plaza I believe there is a strong desire especially among the American born staff to have some kind of financial statement by SGI-USA. This includes some of the Vice General directors I’ve talked to. Eighteen months ago Fred Zaitsu came to Philadelphia prior to the May Campaign to encourage the area and region leaders. When I brought up the issue of financial disclosure, virtually every head in the room began nodding in agreement. He mentioned that one of the impediments was that because SGI is a global organization, if SGI-USA discloses of finances there will be pressure to make this a worldwide policy, as was the case with the new Gongyo. [Ed. note: SGI-UK publicly reports its finances in keeping with laws in Britain. See the listing at charitiesdirect.com dead link.]

Politically this would create problems in a number of countries. While the general operating budget of the United States comes from American members and is independent of Japan most countries budgets are heavily subsidized by SGI in Japan. (This does not include the capital acquisition of SUA and the FNCC. The FNCC was a gift from President Ikeda and in the case of SUA , the lions share of the funds came from President Ikeda and the Japanese members with some additional contributions coming from American members). Revealing the foreign nature of contributions by the SGI in many countries would create problems.

Anyone who has followed the restrictions the French Parliament put on the SGI organization there knows why public disclosure in certain countries may not be such a good thing.

Another issue that came up in a later conversation with Zaitsu was the Japanese view of contributions. Asking accountability for money given as a gift is antithetical to Japanese instincts, so it’s hard for Japanese leaders to get their heads around financial disclosure.

One of our local area level leaders in the Philadelphia Region, Diane Davis, spends her summers in Kenya and acts as an unofficial advisor to the women there. She reports that in the past there has been very little accountability for SGI money on the African continent and that leaders would sometime use money sent to them by SGI International for personal things. While she reports that there is a new director of the African continent from Japan who now realizes there has to be better financial controls in place the situation is nothing like accountability in the west. A number of years ago, the Kenyan leader Joseph Asomani, departed from the SGI and embraced Nichiren Shoshu. His departure was in part due to financial misappropriation as well as an inflated ego according to Davis and others. [Ed. note: Since this article was posted, two readers have written to say that this happened in Ghana, not Kenya.]

The idea of financial transparency is not a problem merely with the SGI. Financial transparency is not the norm in much if not most of the world. In America, financial clarity is a front burner issue in corporate America. One only needs to look at Enron; the ensuing accounting scandals, and the current after-hours trading investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer into the mutual fund industry to realize this is not merely an SGI problem. How many warlords in Afghanistan and Iraq have been paid off with our tax money? How many petty dictators in the last 50 years have used our money to sport a lavish lifestyle in the capitals of Europe? For that matter how long was the Catholic Church been able to cover up its payments during decades of molestations by priests?

So how do we change the mindset of local and national leaders about contributions? I think that part of the problem is that President Ikeda guidance is frequently not completely understood by members and leaders. In fact in the original Human Revolution, President Ikeda often cites how leaders around Mr. Toda could not understanding his true intent. So it is only natural that we may go to a district or chapter meeting and hear encouragement about contributions that is more hype than Sensei’s heart or the Daishonin's will. This seems especially true when it comes to Zaimu or the May Campaign. A leader may be doing their best but he or she simply hasn’t gone through enough of the process in their practice to understand what they’ve read on an ever-deepening
level.

I believed a significant number of SGI leaders only understand President Ikeda’s guidance on a superficial level. When President Ikeda cites a classic by Leo Tolstoy and then explains how those principles that Tolstoy elucidates are in line with Buddhism, most leaders will read his encouragement, go to a meeting and parrot the encouragement with a little bit of elaboration. Some leaders will go so far as to take the principles of Tolstoy and find a way to apply them in their practice before sharing them with others. I think a true understanding means that a person reading President Ikeda’s encouragement will not only absorb the Tolstoy’s principles into their practice but will then go out discover a great piece of literature on their own, extract Buddhist principles from it, absorbing them, and then share that insight with other members.

I am not so naïve or arrogant to believe that I am the latter type of practitioner. I truly am not. I simply have observed a lot of superficial understanding of guidance over the course of my practice. While local and even national leaders may encourage us about the principles of contributing to the Buddha but it’s up to us to discover them for ourselves at the most profound level.

...While Nichiren repeatedly cites the fortune we accumulate from our contributions to the Lotus Sutra and its votary, I personally do not think accumulating fortune in whatever flavor is the primary benefit or even a secondary benefit. I contribute to the SGI to develop my capacity for gratitude, just like I go to the gym to stretch, work out and develop my muscles. The Daimoku you chant with a heart brimming with gratitude is totally different than ordinary Daimoku. When your life is filled with gratitude it’s so much easier to see your own Buddha nature and the life of Buddha all around you. Your elevated condition of life is what really draws favorable circumstance, i.e. fortune, to your life, not your contribution. But the way that life condition is brought out is through the physical act of contributing in some way be it money or one’s time whole-heartedly to the law.

I am not passing judgment but I sense that a number of readers of this site are annoyed in varying degrees by SGI’s lack of financial transparency. If someone finds them self suffering from that much anxiety, personally I’d recommend finding some other way of expressing your gratitude to the law until a time when those issues can resolved. Some readers may be doing this already. One could certainly buy a book on the Lotus Sutra or one of may SGI books on Buddhism and donate it to a local library. You could also show your appreciation to the person who drives you an hour each way to your district meeting by buying him or her a gift certificate to Jiffy Lube. Or you could redecorate your Gohonzon room, buy a new altar -- whatever. Done right, the effort should be accompanied by a feeling deep and profound joy.

What Can We Do?

People who feel passionately or are stressed over the financial issue need to take action and chant for a resolution. Why do you have to chant about this when no leaders listens or they view you as a troublemaker? Jan Tyler begins to answer this question when she poignantly asks, “What would Nichiren think of the way that SGI-USA collects money in his name?”

The next logical question is “What would Nichiren do?” Nichiren himself always gave an accounting of the gifts he received so the recipient of the letter would know that their precious offerings weren’t pilfered. In the “True Entity of Life Nichiren says, “No matter what, maintain your faith as a votary of the Lotus Sutra, and forever exert yourself as Nichiren's disciple. If you are of the
same mind as Nichiren, you must be a Bodhisattva of the Earth.” If we are to truly be disciples of Nichiren we will doggedly chant and continue to dialogue on this issue until it is finally resolved.

It might seem at first to be an exercise in futility. Local leaders who don’t understand our heart might scorn us. But ultimately it is our responsibility as Bodhisattvas of the Earth to make sure that the intentions of Nichiren, our eternal mentor, are carried out in our organization.

So what would the Daishonin do if he felt the money being collected in the SGI wasn’t being collected in the best possible manner? Would Nichiren abandon his disciples in the SGI organization by giving up on them if at first they didn’t understand his intent? I don’t think so. He would certainly write letters to people in high places of the SGI as well as speak out for what he believed was correct. I think challenging what we perceive as incorrect in the SGI organization is an inherent part of us developing our Buddha nature and
achieving our human revolution. We live in an era where we won’t have to personally face exile or imprisonment or death because of our faith in the Lotus Sutra. So how do we develop the kind of courage, patience and confidence in the Gohonzon that a Buddha has? Wouldn’t it be through challenging seemingly intractable problems like changing the way the SGI accounts for its finances? It took the Ikegami brothers 20 years to get their father to practice in spite of ostracism and threats.

Otherwise, when we encourage a fellow member in their practice, if we are truly honest, we will have to insert the caveat: “Just don’t chant to change the SGI organization because it won’t work.” After all if you can’t surmount a problem with your fellow practitioners in the SGI organization in this lifetime, how would you expect to deal with the more serious opposition that will certainly arise from fundamentalist religious organizations and the government in the next life?

It’s incumbent on all of us not to lose heart and follow through on this. Over the course of my practice I have been mocked and humiliated on numerous occasions by leaders who though I was arrogant or lacking in faith. Generally my criticism of the organization was eventually recognized at some level not necessary as a direct or indirect result of my actions but that isn’t the point. Things did change. Happily I have been able to maintain good relationships with most of the leaders who once told me I was off the wall and today we can laugh about the old days.

How To Raise the Issue

I think it’s important speak widely on this issue but to target the right people as well. It is not your fellow members, local leaders who are struggling in their own districts and chapters who can help. It is best to talk to the highest-level leader
you have access to. Or make the effort to create an opportunity to speak with a region or zone leader when the opportunity arises. The zone leaders are the leaders who will participate in the CEC, the Central Executive Conference and that will be the body that finally decides to take the bull by the horns. You can also write a letter directly to top SGI leaders I would recommend Greg Martin and Matilda Buck, especially Matilda who I have been told is already agitating for broader financial disclosure.

I think letters are definitely better than email but talking one on one is the best.

The readers who want to know about SUA should pursue either Ken Saragosa or Eric Hauber both of whom work at SUA and have SGI leadership positions. It doesn’t hurt to make your views known in Japan either in which case I would recommend writing to Eichi Wada who is the North American General Director. His address is 32 Shinanomachi Shinkuju-ku Tokyo, 160 Japan.

Realizing some may viewed my comments as those of and SGI apologist, I still hope they will stir some lively discussions in the future, broadening all of our perspectives.

In wrapping up I’d like to thank Li Jo (not to be confused with J Lo) for her
tireless efforts over the years to provide the thought provoking BuddhaJones forum for all of us and wish the site’s readers a most joyous new year.

*

Jonathan Wilson is a 35-year member, a MD Area leader in the Philadelphia Region, a frequent contributor to, and critic of the World Tribune and a Staff Photographer at The Philadelphia Inquirer.