[Businessmtg] Issues with Current web site, Part 1

[Steve Rankin]

Hi ASPers,

 

This is Part 1 of my response to the approval of the website by Jane &
Sandie.

 

Part 1 addresses the issue of the alleged Steering Committee approval of the
current website developed by Jane & Sandie.

 

=========================================

 

Jane contacted me on Nov 30, 2014 because she'd hit a glitch with taking
over the ASP website. She didn't have the key to the software that ASP
purchased to manage the website, so she talked to me about changing the site
over to WordPress. 

 

First, there is the issue of the current website developed by Jane being
"approved" by the Steering Committee. Jane insists that the Steering
Committee "voted to approve" of the changes to the content of the web site
in Feb 2015 in spite of:

 

.       She was only authorized to change the design of the web site

.       Jane promised the Steering Committee that "The only difference would
be the design of the site."

.       Jane never requested permission to make changes to the web site

.       Jane never informed the Steering Committee that she had made changes
to the website

.       There was no motion in the Steering Committee to approve the changes
in content to the website.

.       There was no mention in the Steering Committee that we would be
voting to approve changes in content to the website.

.       Jane posted a "sample" poll at my request so we could see how the
polling feature worked in WordPress - at no time was there any indication
that this "sample" was somehow an official vote of approval. 

 

Please remember that ASP is an Al-Anon meeting where reaching a decision
means an INFORMED group conscience. If the group, meeting, committee or
whatever is NOT INFORMED there is no Al-Anon group conscience. 

 

So, that's what happened in February 2015. The Steering Committee authorized
Jane to redesign the website to create a more contemporary look and improve
functionality - no changes to content were ever discussed or authorized.

 

I'm extremely disturbed by the idea that Jane could take my request for a
"sample voting page" and without any discussion later insist that our sample
poll was an official vote by the Steering Committee to approve content
changes to the website that they were unaware of.  It is important to
remember that we considered Jane a trusted servant and believed her when she
promised "The only difference would be the design of the site."  Little did
we know that there were extensive changes to the content of the website. 

 

==========================================

 

It is also important to understand that Jane & Sandie made numerous changes
to the website AFTER Sandie became the List Administrator in November 2015 -
nearly a year after Jane's original poll. Clearly, the Steering Committee
authorizing Jane to change the design of the website didn't include numerous
content changes requested by Sandie roughly a year later. 

 

Among the changes made by Sandie & Jane were quotations of CAL that did not
comply with our permission to use CAL in our meeting. 

 

===============================================

 

What about the alleged Steering Committee approval in June 2016 approval
that Sandie mentioned yesterday?

 

Well, a similar "polling" technique was used by Sandie & Jane. After a
considerable lapse in discussing the website and never reaching a consensus,
Sandie announced to the Steering Committee that she had asked Jane to post a
poll regarding the website. 

 

Sandie on 6/25/2017:

"To simplify matters I am having Jane prepare a poll for the Steering
Committee and it will be sent out tomorrow.  It would really be appreciated
if everyone could repond." 

 

Jane posted the following poll at
http://asp-afg.org/members/steering-committee-poll/ 

 

Steering Committee Poll

Please mark each statement that reflects your position and add your own
thoughts/comments at the end:

Top of Form

1.      I believe that the websites (public and private) are part of the
technical operation of ASP.

2.      I believe that the steering committee has the "jurisdiction" to
approve the websites.

3.      I approve the current A Serenity Place websites (recognizing that
the websites are a work in progress).

4.      I would like to see the Business Meeting vote to approve both
websites. I believe the steering committee has the authority to make changes
and that they should be reported at the next business meeting.

5.      None of the options point to the difference between changing the
meaning and content of our sites versus the technical maintenance I I think
in its current state, we can't even choose the 4th option because we don't
really know what has changed. It is difficult to make an informed decision.

6.      I need more information in order to make a decision regarding who
has the authority to approve or change the ASP websites.

Bottom of Form

 

Please note that this is clearly a 'poll' of the SC regarding their thoughts
and position and is in no way a "vote". Certainly not a "vote" to approve
the website since there was neither a consensus of the SC nor motion on the
floor. 

 

There were 7 members of the Steering Committee at the time. ASP policy
requires a 2/3 majority vote of the members to pass any motion that is
either controversial or significant; 5 members of the Steering Committee
would have to "vote" affirmatively. Only 4 members out of 7 agreed with #3
according to Jane's tally of the voting - not enough to pass even if there
was a motion and valid vote being taken. 

 

Please remember that ASP has recently added the option for the chair to
conduct a straw poll of the members of the committee "before a motion is
formed, in order to collect committee attendees' positions and input which
may help form a motion that is acceptable to a substantial majority."
Asking the members of the committee to respond to a "poll" and then claiming
the "poll" was actually an official group conscience (approval) seems
deceptive at best. 

 

Bottom line? The Steering Committee did authorize Jane to change the design
of the ASP website, but has never consciously approved the many changes,
additions or deletions to the ASP website.

 

ASP is an Al-Anon meeting and as such we operate on the premise that all of
our decisions are an informed group conscience with substantial unanimity. 

 

 

 

Consider the following response from Jane to Anne in the Business Meeting on
Fri 7/28/2017 10:10 AM

 

Anne said that "although permission was granted to update the site to a
newer version, there were decisions made by one or two people that were
never discussed (to my knowledge) with the larger group."

 

Jane: "This is accurate."

 

Jane just acknowledged that only one or two people (Jane and Sandie) made
decisions about the web site, and that those changes were never discussed
with the larger group (the Steering Committee or Business Meeting).   How
can Jane or Sandie say that the website was "approved" by the Steering
Committee if the Steering Committee was never told of these changes?

 

Jane was a trusted servant. Jane had promised both myself and the entire
Steering Committee that she would not change anything but the design. We
trusted Jane to keep her word when she told us "The only difference would be
the design of the site."

 

Hugs,

Steve