[Businessmtg] Summary of Points

[Steve Rankin]

Hi Laura et al,

The hive stirs . . .  :-)

Unfortunately, you went far beyond a summary of points.  Instead you posted
a summary your opinions on the issue. Extremely unfair and IMHO highly
inappropriate. I believe that it is the Chair's responsibility to lead the
meeting without bias towards either side. Reminding us that you are biased
does not excuse that. 

This may sound harsh, but it's an honest and fair question under the
circumstance: 
"If you are unable to lead the meeting without bias towards either side, how
can the other side trust you or the process you are leading?"

Since you chose to use this opportunity to post biased version of the
points, I'll take this opportunity to post a rebuttal. However, please note
that my rebuttal is not intended to replace what should be an unbiased list
of points on the issue. 

My comments are prefaced by "STEVE: " so the members can tell what is
Laura's comment and what is mine. 

Hugs,
Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: Businessmtg
[mailto:businessmtg-bounces+steve=serenitysys.com at asp-afg.org] On Behalf Of
Laura M
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:08 PM
To: Steve - SC
Cc: ASP Business
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.

STEVE: This is where the Chair should stick to listing the talking points as
made by the members of the Business Meeting and left her opinions out of it.


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.

STEVE: Obviously, I agree. This is a frequent problem in Al-Anon business
meetings. We need to be very careful when we word agenda items and motions.
Regardless of what you meant, what is written becomes the record, and
potentially becomes a group conscience. 

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.

STEVE: I understand where you are coming from, however the Chair doesn't
really need to "be sure" that the group has reached a group conscience. We
are not striving for perfection. If you believe that we have reached a group
conscience, then act accordingly. If you don't believe the group has reached
a group conscience, then act accordingly. If you really aren't sure, then my
hunch is that we haven't. Every meeting has outliers - those that haven't
participated, won't participate or maybe have changed their minds. As I
mentioned earlier, if you think we have outliers, then ask them to speak up.
We don't need precision in determining a consensus. Besides, if a handful of
outliers was going to affect the outcome, we probably weren't even close to
a consensus in the first place. Remember, the goal is unanimity. 

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.

STEVE: all members have all the chances they need or want to speak up. 

   - 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.

STEVE: I don't recall ever having to resort to guesswork when determining
whether we had a consensus or what that consensus was. As I said before, in
most cases, the consensus should be obvious. If it is not, then we probably
don't have a consensus.

   - 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.

STEVE: Perhaps. If a member changed their mind on an issue, then it behooves
them to speak up and tell us so, and why. Keeping silent when something has
changed your mind on an issue is actually a disservice to the group. 

   - 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.

STEVE: But, only at that point in time. The only time that it really matters
that a member process everything and indicate where they are on the issue is
when we vote on it. Polling members prior to that point in time tends to
close what should still be an open mind on the issue. Perhaps worse is that
polling the members prior to voting on a motion is very likely to sway a
number of members towards the majority opinion simply because it is the
majority. 

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.

STEVE: It's still a vote. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The same is true of a poll that members
vote on. Yes, the motion hasn't been made yet, and the wording of the motion
is yet to be determined, but it is still a vote on whatever wording the
Chair uses, which could easily be poorly worded as we've seen before. 

   - 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".

STEVE: Not true. When members go to the poll to vote on a motion, they do
not know what the tally is until AFTER they vote. OTOH, if there has been a
poll, then the members know what the tally was for that vote and are
affected by that. 

   - 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.

STEVE: Voting on a poll does nothing to ensure minority voices are heard. IN
fact, it tends to stifle minority voices. If someone has a minority opinion
and is reluctant to speak up with their opinion prior to a poll, they will
be even more reluctant to speak up after a poll when they KNOW for certain
that they are in the minority. 

   - That it would be secret. The original agenda item doesn't say anything
   about that. This is to be determined by the business meeting.

STEVE: Granted, but your later explanation made it clear that was your
intention.

   - That this isn't in line with our traditions. I don't know what to say
   to that.

STEVE: I talked about small-t traditions - the way Al-Anon meetings conduct
themselves. Every Al-Anon meeting has small-t traditions that are very
important to the flavor and culture of that particular meeting. Changing the
way a meeting conducts itself is changing a small-t tradition. No individual
member has the right to change the meeting - that right belongs to the
meeting via the group conscience.

   - 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..

STEVE: Who said we aren't in line with KBDM??? I emphatically disagree. We
follow a strict KBDM process at ASP. At least we have until recently. ASP
took a group conscience years ago to follow a very specific and strict KBDM
process. ASP went to considerable effort to determine what the ASP KBDM
process is and thoroughly described in step-by-step order on the ASP
website. That is THE KBDM process that matters at ASP. Tradition 4 tells us
that "Each group should be autonomous, except in matters affecting another
group or Al-Anon or AA as a whole". The Al-Anon Service Manual talks about
how each group has the right of group autonomy to determine their own
internal processes. ASP is fully within its rights to establish its own ways
of doing ASP business. 

STEVE: The Service Manual only mentions that WSO Committees follow the KBDM
process. The Service Manual does not provide any outline, description or
guidelines on the KBDM process. Therefore there is nothing even closely
resembling an official Al-Anon approved KBDM process. 

STEVE: I reiterate. The ASP group conscience is to follow the KBDM process
as written on the ASP website. The group conscience trumps everything else.
We ask that all members and officers of ASP follow the Group Conscience of
ASP. 

   - 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.

STEVE: The KBDM process at ASP does not require the Chair to "determine the
consensus". What our KBDM process says is:

********************
"2. When agreement is REACHED on a point of the issue, the Chair will post a
note to the meeting stating the point and the nature of the agreement
reached."
********************

STEVE: When agreement is reached should be obvious. Determination of the
actual agreement comes later when we actually vote on a motion. 

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.

STEVE: If there is no opposition to an issue, then it seems to me that the
consensus is obvious and no poll is needed. 

STEVE: If the situation is more complex, then the suggested course of action
is to break the issue into parts. This is clearly outlined in our KBDM
process as noted quoted below . . .


********************
2. When agreement is reached ON A POINT OF THE ISSUE, the Chair will post a
note to the meeting stating the point and the nature of the agreement
reached.

3. When subsequent agreements are reached ON OTHER POINTS OF THE ISSUE being
discussed, the Chair will repost the note, appending simple descriptions of
the new agreements.
********************

   - 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.

STEVE: If the issue is controversial, it is very likely that a majority of
the members will simply want the issue to go away. Taking a poll "have we
discussed this enough?" can easily result in a majority for, which in fact
stifles the minority. 

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

_______________________________________________
Businessmtg mailing list
Businessmtg at asp-afg.org
http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/businessmtg