[Businessmtg] Show Of Hands

[Steve Rankin]

Hi folks,

Some thoughts on the show of hands issue, specifically.

I'll describe the way I did it for 10 years.

1. We know who is in the Business Meeting. We send out a list of everyone in
the BM at the start of the meeting, so making a list of who's here is a done
deal.

2. As members of the BM share on the issue, I'd have at least a clue about
how they felt on the issue. Put a "+" next to the name of someone for and
issue, a "-" next to the name of someone against the issue.  If/when someone
changes their tune, I change the mark next to their name. 

3. Anyone that hasn't shared during the meeting is obvious because there is
no mark next to their name. 

4. Ask for members that have not spoken, or who have changed their minds on
the issue to speak up. So simple and so efficient. No need to craft the
wording of a poll, no need to post a poll on the website, no need to put the
meeting on hold while members go to the poll, no need to tally, etc. 

5. What if someone doesn't speak up, or changes their mind later? Obviously,
I have no clue what the silent folks are thinking, but usually I can tell if
there's a swing in thinking when someone bring up a new facet to the issue.
Frankly, this is not a problem IF the consensus building is done well. See,
an Al-Anon consensus is usually unanimous or very nearly so. If we haven't
reached that SUBSTANTIAL UNANIMITY, then we aren't done with the consensus
building. 

6. As the meeting went on, I'd also write notes about the suggestions. As I
started to think we were getting close to a consensus, I'd assemble those
notes into a list of points that needed to be part of a motion that
represented the consensus. 

7. If I think we have reached a consensus on Part A of an issue, but not
Part B, then I'd post a note saying I think we have a consensus on Part A,
so let's just talk about Part B. Maybe A & B can be separated, but I'm loath
to do that as sometimes we discover something during the discussion of Part
B that changes what we thought about Part A. 

8. Now, when we get to the point where I think we have a consensus on the
issue, I post a message that lists ALL of the points that are part of the
consensus, and ask for a motion that covers ALL of those points. If the
motion leaves out any points, or is somehow contrary to what I believe is
the consensus, then that motion is null and void and I ask for a new motion.


9. Then we create the poll and vote.

10. During the entire discussion and deliberation, as the Chair it is
important I remain as neutral as possible. My job as the Chair is to guide
the group to a consensus that represents the group. It is not my job to
influence the group to take a preferred course of action. 

So, that's the way I did it. Frankly, I think it worked quite well and I
don't see any good reason to formalize polling the members. For one thing,
it creates a situation where meaningful discussions can easily be
short-circuited in favor of "efficiency" - or to further an agenda. Also,
I've heard way too much side talk in the recent months about how such'n'such
is good because X number of members had sent private notes supporting it,
and formalizing a polling process further supports this kind of behavior. 

As for a secret polling of the members? I find that particularly offensive
in any setting, much less an Al-Anon meeting. 

Hugs,
Steve