In his 1979 document, Schmidt makes it clear that the Society was attempting to avoid hierarchies, seeking to 'minimise the chances of secrecy, power play, empire building or other negative attitudes'. Yet the Society has not been free of hierarchical organisation, secrecy and power struggles as the conflict that came to a head during 1994/95 demonstrates. Chance would have it that, as part of my research, I began attending meetings38 in the early stages of a crisis (the second in DTE's history) which resulted in a schism in 1995 (the resignation of 4 directors and the emergence of Earth Haven). Informants with lengthy involvements in the Co-operative reflect on this time as a period rife with paranoia, confusion, mutual distrust and open hostility, a predicament from which DTE could only experience growth. Others have become distanced from the procedures of the Co-operative, no longer attending meetings, though continuing to attend ConFest. Others still, attend the Earth Haven event which in 1996/97 was held over the same period as ConFest less than 200km away.

A couple of first impressions of the meeting process at this time serve to depict the creeping malignancy and acrimony that had begun to vitiate the Co-operative. Chris (who later became a director) remembers:

when I showed up I was really deflated 'cause I imagined this sort of incense filled room ya'know with sitar music and wall hangings and stuff, and these hippie gurus sort of hanging around sort of knowing this and that and laying down. [But] it was just these sort of old fart, middle classy, sort of bitter stressed out people in a classroom. It was a big disappointment. Immediately I saw that the thing was dying.

Marko's expectations were similarly unfulfilled - 'I expected to go there and everyone'd be sitting around a circle with their hands linked, chanting Om, and then they would just channel the divine structure to ConFest. I mean as a first timer, I went there in reverence really, thinking that's the exposure. And I saw this really intense political backbiting bitchiness and ... personality games going on and I was shocked'.

In 1994 rumours surfaced in a series of incidents throughout the year. The directors faced accusations that they were an authoritarian and paternalistic 'star chamber'. Other breaches allegedly committed by the board which held power until 1995 include: corruption, profiteering, 'book-cooking', a general 'lack of vision', and a self seeking attempt to 'highjack' the event.39 Many members saw DTE plagued by an entrenched hierarchical model of control. Les stated that 'the central group ... tyrannical and power hungry ... are so preoccupied with top-down bottom-up directors stuff that their own aims - education, the creation of films and the setting up of allied functions - have never happened'. Another member thought that the directors were 'almost all authoritarians unable to work well as equals, thus they are seeking to consolidate their power as (supposedly) benign despots' (anon document, 1994). According to Cheryl (past secretary), the Society became dominated by two directors who persistently demonstrated a flagrant disrespect for others, especially incoming members. In this, 'the Dark Ages' of DTE, 'the fire energy of destructiveness' prevailed over 'the fire energy of creativity'. On this note, Laurie clarifies that these directors were:

not in contact with their souls, not in contact with their own seat of creativity. What they found is a nice position to sit and feed off other people's creativity and simply reproduce it. And what I saw them doing was burning off those creative people by sucking their ideas out and not letting them express it in any kind of way that gave them satisfaction as the artist.

The attitude of 'the board' at the time is reflected in one director's statement 'I don't want to give my backing to something which I can't control' (Wandoo). This attitude is representative of the kind of 'outdated management' culture Michael identifies:

They had various controls in place, like almost bribing people on stalls. They were almost bribing other functional entities around the set up of ConFest. They let them in for free. They let them have perks and things. And they didn't want change ... They didn't seem to have a loyalty to the people [who] come to the festival. They didn't seem to honour them, and respect them. [They] actually stifled ConFest.

The stifling effect was reported as early as Walwa III when Greenfinch's efforts to set up a community kitchen were railroaded by existing directors. According to Greenfinch, he 'disturbed their power structure' and they were consequently 'antagonistic', eventually closing the kitchen down. The bearing here contrasts markedly with the philosophy of a current director who advocates 'invisible leadership' and who proposes that the position of 'director', and all hierarchy, be gradually dislodged (Paula).

In this period, dozens of special resolutions were submitted which were intended to alter rules of the Co-operative and constitutional powers of directors. Two Special General Meetings were called with the purpose of changing rules and terminating the office of five existing directors. A relative newcomer, David Cruise, was the author of many such resolutions and a leading proponent in moves to sack the directors. On a 'how to vote' paper circulated at the second SGM, which would decide his (along with Lance Nash's) future as directors, George Schmidt - who reminded members of his status as a long serving 'DTE elder' - launched a vitriolic counter-attack upon the 'incompetent' Cruise who was accused of being 'after DTE's money' and was ridiculed for his insistence that the Co-operative carry out its meetings and affairs according to the rules layed out in the constitution. Though Cruise had much support, both attempts to alter rules and remove directors failed. According to many present on these occasions, the 'stacked' nature of these meetings blocked the passage of resolutions: the voting procedures were marred from the outset. Nevertheless, the directors were unmoved and Cruise was labelled 'divisive'. Later (at a meeting on 14/12/94), Cruise likened the previous ten years of the Society to 'a private club' or 'secret society'. With regard to the directors' unwillingness to impart information concerning their activities as directors of the Society, he said that he had, like most other members, been 'kept in the dark like a mushroom and fed bullshit'. Still, reasoned Cheryl, 'it's always the darkest before the dawn'.

< BACK

NEXT >