[Businessmtg] Substantial Unanimity

[Steve Rankin]

Jerry, both Jennifer & I tallied the discussion and it appears that about 75% of the members commenting supported the idea that members of AA are not eligible to serve as officers of ASP, and there has been extremely little discussion in several days.  Therefore, it is quite appropriate for her to request a motion.  

As for the issue of substantial unanimity.  One of our Founding Policies states "Substantive changes to the meeting (affects the majority of the membership) require a 2/3 majority of voting members."

I believe that this qualifies as a substantive change and therefore requires a super majority of 2/3's of the members voting.

As for the other issues you brought up, they are out of order at this time and need to be discussed at a later date.

Hugs,
Steve 






-----Original Message-----
From: businessmtg-bounces+steve=serenitysys.com at asp-afg.org [mailto:businessmtg-bounces+steve=serenitysys.com at asp-afg.org] On Behalf Of logmark at comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 7:30 PM
To: steve at serenitysys.com
Cc: ASP Business
Subject: [Businessmtg] Substantial Unanimity



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 

-