[Businessmtg] Packets, Business Practices, and Unity

[Jane Anon]

I am dismayed at the tone of certain members of this meeting. I don't know
why some find it necessary to question the motives of our trusted servants.
There is no reason for hostility, especially when all of us are simply
attempting to fulfill our responsibilities as best we can.

Jerry, if you feel that a consensus could be reached with more discussion,
why not just say that and leave out all the speculation about why Laura
"rushed" to say that KBDM wasn't effective? Laura said that she wants to
respect those who requested the other agenda items and those who attended
this meeting to discuss them. I don't understand why that explanation
wasn't sufficient for you, but I believe it should have been.

"Trusted Servants" implies a 2-way street: it is their responsibility to
serve and ours to trust them to do so to the best if their ability. I
believe this means that I ALWAYS give them the benefit of the doubt and
express any disagreement in a respectful, uncritical manner. When we
question them in a suspicious way, we undermine their ability to serve.

On May 18, 2017 2:26 PM, "Jerry H." <logmark at comcast.net> wrote:

> Biz-Pals,
>
>
> The day after tomorrow I'll be speaking at my state's Al-Anon Convention.
> No biggie really - 15 minutes as part of a panel on Al-Anon's Legacies. I
> drew the straw for Unity through the Traditions. In reading through many
> CAL sources on Unity in preparation, with this ASP business discussion
> rolling through the back of my noggin, it dawned on me how easy it is to
> become diverted by personalities and just plain pissing contests from our
> primary spiritual aim: to help friends and families of alcoholics become
> able to cope with their circumstances.
>
>
> There's a quote in Al-Anon's original primary reader, 'Living with an
> Alcoholic with the Help of Al-Anon', 1978 edition, p.55: "Unity of thought
> and purpose give the best assurance of growth for the group and for each
> individual." I believe that our KBDM process was edging us toward a unity
> of thought and purpose. In my estimation it is only impatience which kept
> us from arriving at unity on this topic.
>
>
> Why this impatience I have to ask? It's one thing to claim that KBDM isn't
> working; it's another to say it's not working fast enough. So I have to ask
> myself, "What's the rush?" I brought this topic up because ASP's "Talk" and
> "Walk" don't match. In recovery that's about as negative a statement as can
> be made, yet here we were: saying we offered Beginner Packets, but we don't
> offer Beginner Packets. Given a little more time KBDM would have gotten us
> to a unified decision.
>
>
> Now, since the Secretary felt the need to hurry things along by switching
> over to Robert's Rules, our List Administrator very quickly made a motion,
> and another member of the Steering Committee followed closely with a
> second, we have been forced into a process that's adversarial by design -
> for or against - where we once were heading toward an agreement we all
> could swallow.
>
>
> Let me tell you why this bothers me: Accepting this quick switch solution
> to satisfy some arbitrary time constraint will give precedent to every
> future Secretary to switch to Robert's Rules if they are in disagreement
> with the speed or direction of the Business Committee's discussion of a
> topic. To go back to that book I mentioned earlier, same page, "[Tradition
> One] suggests we evaluate every question with an open mind, taking into
> consideration each member's views......everyone's ideas should be welcomed
> as a basis for discussion, for freedom of opinion and expression are
> nowhere greater than in Al-Anon."
>
>
> Now the only reason to force a solution by switching to Robert's Rules,
> with a motion and second at the ready I can conjure, with nearly two weeks
> still left in this Business Meeting, is that somebody wants to get around
> to the next item on the agenda. If that next item is so important the
> current topic could have been tabled for later. Or the question could have
> been posed so: Do you want to resume sending Beginner Packets to newcomers?
> Yes or No. I believe we would have been done a week ago.
>
>
> This next set of topics on the agenda could prove to be quite contentious
> since it involves Al-Anon Traditions and ASP's standing Group Conscience on
> its Policies and Practices. If a chairperson is so willing to abandon our
> KBDM process on something so relatively simple as offering packets or not I
> will be entering into these very complex discussions without an assurance
> that "...every decision and every action taken by a group must consider its
> ultimate effect on the group as a whole." (Yep, same book, same page.)
>
>
> So, while I would normally have no problem going along with this current
> motion to rescind our formerly approved motion to send packets, I can not
> in good conscience condone the process which may bring us to this decision.
> KBDM works, and even where it doesn't seem to be working at any given
> moment I trust that our Higher Powers have arranged that to be so for some
> good purpose.
>
>
> I will be voting against the motion to rescind when these full discussions
> are past and we come to the vote.
>
>
> In service,
>
> 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
>