[Businessmtg] Summary of Points

[Jane Anon]

I respectfully request that we take a step back and remain focused on
the topic at hand. Laura brought the topic to the mtg and has chosen
to be honest re her bias on the issue. Her choice as chair. I ask that
any opinions re her job performance be addressed to her privately and
we remain focused on the topic for the duration of this mtg.

On 9/22/16, Steve Rankin <steve at serenitysys.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Jane

"It is easier to put on slippers than to carpet the world." ~Stuart Smalley