[Businessmtg] Substantial Unanimity

[logmark at comcast.net]

Biz-Pals, 



Point of Order. 



A "majority" does not create a consensus, therefore 

a motion is not appropriate at this point according 

to our agreement to use Knowledge-Based Decision 

Making. 



We seem willing to treat aspects of service to ASP 

in many ways as if we were and Area. I have no problem 

with that. The only question I have is whether we ought 

not then also know the level of Substantial Unanimity 

required to pass motions when they come up. 



It seems to me that a 2/3rd's Substantial Unanimity 

level would be appropriate for the proposed motion 

just as it would be in the Areas I am familiar with. 

A simple majority passes nothing in my Area. Group level, 

yes; Area no. 



We act as a Group, but require Area limits on service. 

Again while I understand the various reasonings it just 

reminds me that we, by our own actions, contribute to 

our disagreements on this matter. 



Again, Knowledge-Based Decision Making says nothing about 

a simple majority being a consensus. A consensus is much 

more an arrival at a statement which nearly all can agree 

on. I do not believe we have gotten to that level, so I 

believe calling for a motion is currently inappropriate. 



Toward the end of reaching a consensus I find that a 

statement more on the lines of 



"In keeping with long-standing Al-Anon Policies and 

Principles ASP holds our List Administrator and the 

First Alternate List Administrator [Secretary] positions 

to be the on line counterparts of Group Representative and 

Alternate Group Representative respectively of our Al-Anon 

meeting. As such they may not be held by members who are 

also members of AA." 



>From what I've read in this Business Meeting to date 

this statement seems much more likely to gain the consensus 

which as of this date we do not have. 

_ _ _ _ _ 



Further, as current Treasurer, it is my belief that holding 

all the treasury, including the Prudent Reserve, co-mingled 

and in the immediate control of only one person is not a 

prudent practice. To minimize our risk until such time as 

ASP's Prudent Reserve is separately held I think it unwise 

to permit members who are also members of AA to hold this 

office. This camel should be tied to a tree for now also. 



I would propose that 



"Until such time as ASP's Prudent Reserve is separately secured 

the Treasurer position may not be held by a member who is also 

a member of AA." 



Jerry 

-