[Businessmtg] a different take on Jerry's view

[Karen Clem]

Hi BM Aspers...

i have another way to look at this maybe.  back in my college days, i was active with student govt.  we were given a budget one year that required us to split it into 3 semesters, which meant that requests for funding from the students was limited based on their event and the amount they wanted...in most cases they were asking for amounts well above what they needed, but they wanted padding.  if they could not get what they wanted, they were at least, (in most cases) awarded something to assist them with their events.

there were several times that dominance and a lack of consideration occurred.  i will begin with the first event that set the rest of this experience off into a train wreck for all concerned.  we had a club on campus that was based in engineering and robotics competitions.  this club, while very active on campus was always asking for huge....i mean huge amounts of funding.  there was one event this club came to student government and asked for 25,000.00  (yes, it is not a typo).  when we asked them why they needed this amount they said they were building 2 robotic race cars and this is what they needed to build both cars.  they spoke to the event and why they needed two cars for this event.  (one was for back up only, while the other was for competition).  now this dollar amount is not only extremely large, but this group admitted straight up they did not want to do any fund raising towards this project.  all they wanted was to be funded so they could build the cars.  additionally, there was an issue with the presenter.  he was a student in the engineering dept, the club president and a member-at-large on student govt for engineering.  Here is the first problem with this.  as a student of the engineering dept, he was an  active member of this club.  he was also a part of student govt., which meant he needed to be aware that other clubs and events would be asking for funding and we were in the really early part of the semester.  the fact that the club did not want to fund raise ( a really big red flag) was another issue that student govt needed to deal with.  the guidelines stated that all clubs must provide documentation of self-funding actions before they could approach student govt with requests for other assistance.  (any type of assistance.)  the next problem was that this dollar request was more than half of what the student govt had for the year.  the last problem is that the club president always presented his proposals alone with no other officers present and he always voted for his projects while he consistently voted no on every other clubs proposal presented.  so now we have a problem.  
so, he gets up as club president and discusses his proposal.  at the end of his presentation he asked us if we had any questions for him.....(mind you he did not state that as a member of his club, it was unethical for him to vote for his club events).  The others on student govt, including myself always, always practiced good sportsmanship in a manner of speaking.  in order to prevent a conflict of interest, we always stated that as a club officer we were representing our clubs and would not, i repeat not vote on the issues when they came up for polling.  this young man never abided by this.  finally, at the end of this meeting, after many questions a motion was presented by the chair to vote on this.  on this particular day, the computers and polling clickers were not talking and so it required a f2f vote.  this meant each person had to vote for the entire group to see.  as the vote went around the table, there were many nays,  a couple yays (the club president being one of them) and several abstains.  needless to say, this was not approved.  the student govt gave this group another chance to present this with the following caveats.  1.  the group must do fund raising before coming back to student govt.  2.  student govt would consider doing a dollar match to what was raised within reason.  3.  the club president must bring another club officer with him to defend the proposal, (as it was a conflict of interest for this member) to represent both the student govt and the club.  they were given 3 weeks to provide proof they were working on this or the issue would be removed from the agenda.  in other words they were given a continuance.  fast forward 3 weeks.
the club president and an additional officer were present to again ask for funding based on what they had raised.  each member of student govt had the budget docs and the club documentation in front of them.  again the president presented the proposal...again they asked for more money than they raised.  again they said that they did not want to do any more fund raising as it was cuttng into their build time.  student govt asked additional questions regarding this.  i was unable to attend this meeting but had access to the minutes so before the next student govt meeting i reviewed what happened.  a change occurred that allowed for this process to work, but it still resulted in a nay vote.  the club president stepped back and allowed the other club officer to step in and address the meeting, answer questions and explain why they asked for more funding than the continuance guidelines outlined.  again this club was asking for more money than any other club and again it would have created problems for other clubs .  AT this meeting later in the semester; they were told that it was good they fund raised, but not appropriate to ask for 7,000.00 when they only raised 5,000.00  they were also told that since some of their funding was still pending, student govt could not award funding until the funds were actually in their acct.  again they tried to justify no more fund raising.  the amazing thing that happened is the club president abstained from the vote.  he allowed the group to vote their conscience and this was a good thing. It was not approved, but this time several members changed their vote.  several months later this group came to student govt with a different proposal.  they were now asking for travel funds for the event.  they managed to raise enough money to build one car and to obtain extra parts for the event.  they asked for 3,000.00 but had not provided any documentation for the required expenses and were told that they needed to provide this.  the club president said they did not have any documents for this at this time.  (it was readdressed that they needed documentation for all requests).  once again the club president spoke for the club and voted for his own stuff as he continued to deny all other clubs on campus.  the end result is that if he had abstained, student govt may have given them a chance to come back one more time.  the fact that the club president/student govt member kept creating issues of dominance and a conflict injured the club. they were not awarded any funding for this event.  it put student govt in a position to have to govern, which they typically did not do.    
my point is simple.  trying to force issues through a student govt meeting with dominance did not work.  trying to work within the framework of the meeting rendered better results.  if this club had followed the guidelines they may have been given limited funding but due to their actions they were not able to achieve what they wanted.  I would like to add here that this club was one of the wealthier clubs with access to many outside funding sources do to the nature of what they were building in order to compete.  There was no animosity towards this club.  they represented the university and the student body with pride and brought back many good things.  the problem came with pushing an agenda, trying to load the agenda and not being able to get out of thier own way.  Student govt was one hell of a learning experience for me.  i am glad i was able to gain experience from this,  it was also a teaching  tool on how to create group unity, harmony and to be able to do so without dominance being employed.  those that did not practice this often left disappointed, instead of giving the process and the group members the time needed to come to a positive outcome or at least to meet others half-way.  

 If as a voting body each member realizes that pushing their own agenda's does not provide a good outcome, it would be easier for those looking at and deciding on how to handle any issue (based on a group conscience) the chance to take this and look at a better way to solve the issue.  lastly, i actually ran into this individual a few days later on campus and had a conversation with him regarding this.  we talked for some time.  finally, i said to him, if you could step back from your wants and let your club stand for itself, including but not limited to abstaining for your votes, it allows the rest of student govt to vote for or against something with no  malice or fear of conflict of interest issues.  it gives the clubs their dignity to come and ask for what they really need, not just what they want.  while this clubs presidential actions did not change much, he learned how to step aside and let others carry the message to student govt and to those in the community.  lastly, by allowing those that were not comfortable awarding funds to this club a way out, they had a way to abstain and vote their conscience without making the rest of the group feel like they had to approve or disapprove the propositions.  in this case abstentions did not affect the total count in the way the votes are counted.  it was simply based on majority vote.   Abstentions were simply that, abstentions.

how does this apply to our bm?  first of all while this is example is not Al-Anon they practiced many of the principles we have in our program.  secondly, the process was allowed to move forward and to have equal voice.  thirdly, the practice of dominance was seen as a way to damage the student body based on funding excessive expenses for university clubs.  it forced the club to be self-supporting, which was a really valuable lesson for all.  it also brought forward that what you want may not be what you get.  lastly, by allowing the process to work in its own time, the issue was addressed fairly and without prejudice.  
what i see happening in the bm is similar to this experience.  if you are uncomfortable voting for an agenda item, you have options.  you can abstain, not vote, vote nay or yay or withdraw from the process.  the decision is yours.  the outcome will ultimately affect the many if done in haste.   dominance affects everyone and helps no one.  you have a voice in making a motion to continue the agenda item until it can be addressed fairly, or you can approve something that may need time to be scrapped, reworked and adjusted or tweeked.  regardless of what happens, it will be given adequate time to make it right.   in the meantime the fallout will cause more problems than it may be worth for the entire fellowship.   if you vote just to vote, it may affect the Al-Anon membership as a whole causing damage for and to us all.  This also applies to ALL of us who are part of this this bm.  regardless of how you see this issue or feel about the process, your vote/voice matters.  given the complexities of this issue (the webpage), please consider the consequences that may follow.  you can only vote your conscience and regardless of how you choose to vote we will all have to deal with end result.  lets give this matter a fair chance to be addressed in a respectful manner.  when this bm ends, there is no reason to walk away....you can always join the next bm to keep working on your concerns.  just because someone is rotating out of a position, does not need to mean that the agenda item will disappear.  it can be carried forward and handled in a manner that will benefit us all, within the next business meeting.  while bm members change, the principles of Al-Anon must be honored here. thanks for listening and reading.
hugggsss
karen c.