[Businessmtg] Businessmtg] Consensus Determination

[Gerald Hunter]

How about something like this:

The chair tracks the content and at some point declares something like, "The chair determines a consensus exists (or does not). Are there any objections to the chair's observations?"

That way all bases are covered by noting any opposition and, if disagreement is sufficient, return to either further discussion to address points of contention, or we drop the matter for lack of a significant consensus.

Sufficient discord = No Consensus.

What constitutes "sufficient?"
I suggest something on the order of 10-20% in disagreement means back to the drawing board. Remember, the goal is to get near 100% agreement (little or no disagreement.)

Jerry
-


Steve Rankin <steve at serenitysys.com> wrote:
>Thanks Jerry. As usual, very insightful and well said.
>
>While I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the concept of the Chair
>following the meeting content and determining on her own whether we're near
>unanimity or not.  I also believe that both ASP and the Chair will be better
>for following that process - it's a matter of trust for ASP and for personal
>growth for the Chair. 
>
>However, I'm willing to let the Chair ask for a show of hands (as I
>described a show of hands - nothing more formal than that) if she feels that
>she needs that to feel confident about her perceptions. Strictly voluntary
>and hopefully a tool that's rarely needed.
>
>Hugs,
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Businessmtg
>[mailto:businessmtg-bounces+steve=serenitysys.com at asp-afg.org] On Behalf Of
>Gerald Hunter
>Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:59 PM
>To: Steve - SC
>Cc: ASP Business
>Subject: [Businessmtg] Consensus Determination
>
>Biz-Pals,
>
>I've just poked my head out of the woods, so I've just now gotten to read
>through the BM messages of the past few days. Already I'm detaching
>emotionally and moving on to Principles.
>
>Does the person chairing a meeting using KBDM need a method to determine
>whether a consensus exists affirming moving forward to further discussion of
>the topic at hand or the forming of a motion?
>
>Yes. Remember, the goal is to arrive at motions which are developed by the
>participation of all members of the body and therefore more likely to be
>approved with near unanimity. Participation. Unity. Key words to think
>about.
>
>Is it not clear that we are nowhere near substantial unanimity on a process
>for determining whether a unified consensus exists on this topic in this
>meeting?
>
>Clear as a bell to me. Can we not set aside our personalities, think a
>little harder, and find a solution more agreeable to almost all? You ask me,
>if we proceed with any of the suggestions so far we risk controversy, not
>cooperation.
>
>When a lack of consensus is ignored and personal will is substituted,
>domination begins. I don't believe that's where any Al-Anon entity wants to
>go. Folks, we can do better. I know it.
>
>A word, please, about autonomy. ASP is not California or Michigan or Florida
>or New Jersey. How any Area runs their business does not determine how ASP
>is to run its business. When ASP's membership decided to take on full
>responsibility for running this meeting it was agreed by a group conscience
>to adopt the founding principles, policies, and practices ASP's founder had
>set forth. A reminder, here, that a Group Conscience trumps all.
>
>In every past meeting it has been sufficient that the chair followed the
>meeting content, determined that the threshold for near unanimity has been
>met (or not), then announced that a motion was to be written or the topic
>was tabled or dropped. I know I kept track of how members felt. Near
>unanimous agreements are pretty easy to identify.
>
>My position is that members' thoughtful input will bring to the fore all the
>good outcomes we can handle. Moving to a poll encourages members to rely on
>others for the thinking and often limits participation to aye's and nay's.
>That sounds a lot like Robert's Rules to me and why KBDM was adopted in the
>first place.
>
>Jerry
>-
>_______________________________________________
>The ASP Instruction page is http://asp-afg.org/members/asp-instructions/
>
>The ASP web site for ASP members is http://www.asp-afg.org/Members/
>
>For assistance with other ASP issues, contact the List Administrator, at
>list_administrator at asp-afg.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Businessmtg mailing list
>Businessmtg at asp-afg.org
>http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/businessmtg
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>The ASP Instruction page is http://asp-afg.org/members/asp-instructions/
>
>The ASP web site for ASP members is http://www.asp-afg.org/Members/
>
>For assistance with other ASP issues, contact the List Administrator, at  list_administrator at asp-afg.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Businessmtg mailing list
>Businessmtg at asp-afg.org
>http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/businessmtg