[Businessmtg] Summary of Points

[Laura M]

Jerry,

I was hoping someone would do the summary of points against. Like I said, I
am well aware of my bias, and I know I can't do the other side justice
because I can't see it.

Please, for the sake of balance, could you do the same for the dissent? Or
anyone else that wants to weigh in. This needs to be summarized so that
people can see the whole without flames.

Thanks!
Laura

On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Jerry <logmark at comcast.net> wrote:

> Laura,
>
> Thanks for the effort putting this list together. I am, however, stunned.
>
> I know you mentioned that you were biased (twice), but wow! This summary
> is really a list of statements favoring of points in favor, and a list of
> arguments against the points against. Please, this list does a disservice
> to the merits of the thoughtful input of those dissenting.
>
> I'm tossing in my challenge flag requesting an instant replay review.
>
> Wow! (twice)
>
> Still "love you in that very special way,"
> Jerry
> -
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Laura M" <lauram at asp-afg.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lauram at asp-afg.org');>>
> *To: *"Jerry H" <logmark at comcast.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','logmark at comcast.net');>>
> *Cc: *"ASP Business" <businessmtg at asp-afg.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','businessmtg at asp-afg.org');>>
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 22, 2016 8:07:47 PM
> *Subject: *[Businessmtg] Summary of Points
>
> Apryl asked me to do a summary of the for and against points of the issue
> at hand.
>
> I find that I am biased and feel I could not give an accurate accounting.
> However, I will tackle what I have seen as the issues around it.
>
> Bear in mind that this is my opinion, and because I am close to the issue,
> I cannot be unbaised. I see things from my point of view, which I know is
> different than other very vocal members.
>
> Here is what the original agenda item stated:
> "Requiring a show of hands poll before a motion is accepted in the business
> meeting (voting required)"
>
> Looking at this, I see that I did a poor job of phrasing the agenda item.
>
> What this was supposed to mean: the chair needs to make sure that the group
> has reached consensus before moving on to forming a motion that can be
> voted on.
>
> What I feel it has become: the chair has the ability to ask for show of
> hands to ensure that consensus has been reached before moving on to either
> forming a motion, tabling it or abandoning it.
>
> Points for:
>
>    - All members would be able to indicate where they stood. It would give
>    members another chance to speak up, even if they felt they had nothing
> more
>    to add to the discussion.
>    - It would eliminate the guesswork of the chair since the clues present
>    in a face to face meeting are not present, e.g. the body language and
>    facial expression.
>    - If would capture members changing opinions as they consider the issues
>    and discussion, even if they don't share to the group that they have
>    changed their minds.
>    - Given that not everyone reads the emails at the same time, people may
>    or may not be present with the current discussion, unlike a face to face
>    meeting where everyone hearing the same information at the same time.
> This
>    would give the person a chance to process everything and indicate where
>    they were.
>
> Points against:
>
>    - That this would constitute a vote on the issue.  It wouldn't, because
>    the motion wouldn't have been formed at that time.
>    - That it would make other members go with the majority without thinking
>    about it. This could happen even on a vote, and all members are asked to
>    remember that "participation is the key to harmony".
>    - That it wasn't done like this in the past. The only thing I can say to
>    that is that I am not the other people who were doing this job, and I
> feel
>    this is necessary to make sure minority voices are heard and not drowned
>    out by the dominance of other members.
>    - That it would be secret. The original agenda item doesn't say anything
>    about that. This is to be determined by the business meeting.
>    - That this isn't in line with our traditions. I don't know what to say
>    to that.
>    - That this isn't in line with KBDM. It seems to me that there are two
>    camps on this, and honestly I see points on both sides. However, it
> should
>    be noted that we don't follow strict KBDM as it is..
>    - The word "requiring" is in the agenda item. As a reminder, this is a
>    discussion, not a motion. I see the point of objection about "requiring"
>    since it is already required that the chair determine consensus in some
>    way. So that should come out, IMO.
>
> Some things to note:
>
>    - The agenda item doesn't say how the show of hands poll is to be done.
>    That would be up to the chair. Personally, I think it would be
> dependent on
>    the item. If there were no opposition or discussion, an email would
> work.
>    If it were a more complex situation, the chair would have the option of
>    doing a web-based poll on our site.
>    - The agenda item doesn't say what is on the poll. Again, I feel this
>    would have to be dependent on the issue. If it was an issue of "have we
>    discussed this enough?" the options would be different than on
> something we
>    would be forming a motion on and voting on.
>
> I hope this helps, and doesn't poke the hive again.
>
> Hugs,
> Laura M
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','list_administrator at asp-afg.org');>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Businessmtg mailing list
> Businessmtg at asp-afg.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Businessmtg at asp-afg.org');>
> http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/businessmtg
>
>