[Businessmtg] KBDM Discussion

[logmark at comcast.net]

Biz-Pals,

[Sorry to see it's getting a little "spicy" in the business wing of ASP.
That said, I've seen spicy business meetings before (including one
where the two gals with the longest recovery nearly brought the house
down with their personal attacks,) and have yet to see one where
things don't smooth out with a little patience and understanding.]

I happen to be on my Area's Policy Committee, and we are struggling
similarly with strong differences of opinions. There are those who absolutely
refuse to give up on Robert's Rules and insist that the motion/second method
is sacrosanct. Others are willing to explore KBDM because it more nearly
parallels Al-Anon's Traditions, Concepts, and Warranties. [Doesn't this
sound typically Al-Anon?!]

Anyone who has been around the Robert's Rules block a few times
has seen many examples of two folks getting together and agreeing to
form a motion and second it even though the body as a whole has little
or minimal interest in its content. The upside is that even hopeless causes
get their opportunity to be addressed. The downside is that in the discussion
following the motion, only those party to the motion have given much thought
to it and are therefore often the only informed folks in the room. Pet projects
often get passed, and good ideas sometimes get rejected, simply because the
discussion isn't preceded by information and perspective.

Al-Anon's traditions of unity - both as addressed in Tradition 1 on group Unity,
Concepts 4 & 5 on Participation and Minority Voice, and Warranty 3 regarding
how we reach decisions: "that all decisions be reached by discussion, vote and,
whenever possible, by unanimity," suggest that KBDM is more suited to making
decisions within Al-Anon than the "for or against" process Robert's Rules require.

Using KBDM, our Area has been able to focus on topics where most are already
in agreement rather than focus on topics where there is a great deal of contentiousness.
I won't say that is always smooth. We have yet to work out how to prioritize the
topics for discussion. Since the Policy Committee only meets once a year or so,
it is taking us eons to get these things worked out. It turns out that this is a huge
advantage, not the disadvantage one would normally think. You see, many of the
things we could be spending very long days discussing to death were we to meet more
often solve themselves without the "benefit" of administrative meddling.

So my point of view is that if it needs done in a hurry, we ought not do it. That goes
along with how I work my Program personally: if you aren't going to give me whatever
time its takes to pray, meditate, and cogitate my way to a decision, then my answer is
and always will be an automatic "No."

One possible suggestion that may be needed both in my Area and here at ASP is that
the entire group could be involved it setting priorities for items on the agenda. If we
were to have a period where all Business Committee members could toss their topic
suggestions into the ring, then have the topics listed for all to consider, we could then
each re-submit that list in our own priority order. All of our individual lists could then be
tallied, and the resulting Priority of the Group would become the order of business discussions.
Each of us would get to equally participate (Concept 4,) be heard (Concept 5,) and
we could then practice Warranty 3 (which, by the way, reads very much to me like the
KBDM process.)

How I understand the KBDM process works:
~ Topic of discussion named.
~ Open discussion, including exploration of tangent topics that arise.
~ Where general agreement on a subject is identified, a motion is formed and voted on.
~ Where general disagreement continues, discussion is continued, tabled, or dropped
    according to the group conscience.

One system for solving differences that I know absolutely Does Not Work, is pissing
contests. We are undertaking ASP's business in a new and unfamiliar way. This process
is going to take cooperation, patience, and time - just another opportunity to practice our
principles of recovery rather than our disease's preference for ire and vinegar.

Thanks and Hugs,
Jerry in Michigan