[Businessmtg] Response to note from Steve

[logmark at comcast.net]

Steve and all, 

  

Don't know where you got your inference that I had some sort of list 

of "approved uses." Not from me. My quote was, "...there are no currently- 

approved additional uses." Approved use = Business Meeting has approved 

the use...   

  

>From what I've heard in this all-but-silent Business Meeting, some folks 

"can live with" your suggestion, some agree, some not. That is not a 

consensus by any measure. I've re-read all of April's business shares 

and continue to see similar disparities. So I wouldn't exactly call myself 

alone or a hold-out. What I am is a member who firmly believes that each 

expense or donation should be addressed on its own merits, not as part 

of some package deal. I'm also not someone who buckles under the pressure 

of intimidating circumstances so I'm freely willing to state my positions. 

Some others are not, so are not heard from. I'd suggest a lighter tone 

would create an environment more welcoming to varying views.  

  

As presented your proposal does not permit folks to approve of some 

uses and not others, nor does it leave room for varying the percentages 

or coming up with an alternate way to break down funding levels. I'm not 

willing to vote in favor of a straight up or down vote for your entire 

proposal as it exists. I much prefer we do this: 

~ Call each proposed use or recipient for approval or denial 

  by separate discussion and vote. No reason we can't do more 

  than one a month if we get it in gear. 

~ Then, from those which are approved , let's rig up a division 

  of funds either by percentage or amount for each, or some 

  combination of the above. 

>From my point of view this process could finally resolve this 

ongoing lack of agreement on what to do with these excess funds. 

  

If you're looking for my current positions regarding your proposal 

in order to see where I'm at : 

A. I am in favor of donating to the WSO now; 

B. I am against donating to the OLAOC until a complete understanding 

   of their current activities is specified, a discussion of their 

   work and benefits is had, a justification for our donation is 

   demonstrated, and donations are approved by separate vote. 

C. I am in agreement with the concept of donating to GSO's once we 

   come up with a system of doing so. Down the road item. Great idea.   

D. I am in favor of creating an appropriately-sized line item within 

   ASP's calculation of its yearly expenses which would be held for use 

   for efforts to attain representation for on line Al-Anon at some level. 

   I am against setting the amount based on a percentage of our excess 

   funds. I am in favor of a set amount based on demonstrated need. 

E. Until such time as more information and agreements on the specifics of 

   B and C are had, I propose: 

   1. a Seed Fund of [$200] for unspecified, future ASP efforts to gain 

      representation within the Al-Anon Service Structure be created 

      from current funds in excess of our Prudent Reserve [roughly Steve's 

      point "D",] and that the remainder of our funds in excess of our PR 

      be donated to the WSO on a quarterly basis. 

   2. as and if B., or C., or other possible recipients or uses are 

      individually approved by the ASP Business Meeting they will be 

      added to future quarterly donations in amounts or proportions 

      as yet to be determined.     

  

If I am indeed a "hold out," I am so because I have objections, based on 

Principle, to some of the uses your suggestion includes without being first 

fully informed, and without having them being discussed and approved on an 

individual basis. That's a real Al-Anon position to hold, not something to 

be cast  in negative terms. 

  

Need I also point out that it is exactly consistent with my position on 

and agreement to the motion you quoted: "that no funds be disbursed to any 

Al-Anon entity until such time as the prudent reserve & disbursement of excess 

funds issues have been resolved by group conscience." 

  

The issues have remained unresolved for years not because of me, but because 

the process has been superseded by other business and a business meeting process 

that is cumbersome and slow - to the point of assuring that much important work 

can't be sufficiently addressed. It took us what?, 5-6 years to get around to 

re-approaching resolution on this and now, when we finally are close, it appears 

that the only way were going to get to a vote is to swallow a whole package or 

reject it all. 

  

My variant on your original proposal brings us closer to the consensus we are 

striving for (according to my reading of past Business Meeting shares anyway) and 

gives us the opportunity to continue work on creating consensuses where differences 

still exist. Sort of like eating an elephant - one bite at a time... 

  

Hugs to all, 

Jerry 

-