[Businessmtg] Clarification

Wed Oct 18 21:18:15 PDT 2017

I'd be glad to Apryl.

I'll present the facts as concisely as possible, although concisely is a huge challenge with such a complex situation. However, I’m confident that if you and the other members of the Business Meeting can sit down and read it with a clear and open mind, that it will make a lot of sense and explain where we are and how we got here. Just as in our own personal recovery, how we got here is a very important factor in where we are.

This compilation is presented in chronological order according to the times recorded by the server and recorded in the BM Archives

By providing hyperlinks to the supporting documents for each statement of fact I will make it clear what are simple statements of fact vs. statements of opinion, conjecture, etc.

Enjoy the stroll down memory lane.  J

Hugs,

Steve

May 1 05:03:58 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/htdig/businessmtg/2017-May/001869.html

Sandie posted the resume for the May 2017 Business Meeting

The text of the alleged motion by Jane was included as a 3-part agenda item. 

No motion was made in the May meeting, nor any second, on this topic. 

Oct 10 04:08:41 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002352.html

Sandie announced the addition of the website approval to the October Business Meeting.

Sandie stated "The motion will be brought to the floor . . ."

Sandie stated "This is not a item for Knowledge Based Decision Making as it is more of a housekeeping item."

NOTE: "Glossary of Parliamentary Procedure, A motion of a routine nature dealing with administrative or purely formal matters necessary to expedite House business."

http://dictionary.babylon-software.com/housekeeping_motion/

This is an extremely controversial issue and anything but routine, therefore the KBDM still applies.  

Oct 17 03:49:00 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002464.html

Sandie announced that 3 members had joined the Business Meeting.

Sandie stated: "The next item on the agenda is the following motion."

Sandie then quoted the motion and said it was moved by Jane.

Sandie stated: "Do we have a seconder."

NOTE: the Business Meeting is still in KBDM mode.

ASP KBDM Process:

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/ 

"B. 1. b. All motions are out of order during the KBDM phase of the group conscience."

Therefore, this motion - if it existed - was out of order. 

Oct 17 06:32:51 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/htdig/businessmtg/2017-October/002469.html

Barbara seconded Jane's motion. However, this is questionable at best because Jane has not yet made a motion. 

NOTE: the Business Meeting is still in KBDM mode.

ASP KBDM Process:

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/  

"B. 1. b. All motions are out of order during the KBDM phase of the group conscience."

Therefore, this second is also out of order.

Oct 17 07:12:55 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002473.html

Sandie stated: "The motion was seconded by Diane M and then by Barbara

NOTE: Diane M has posted 3 messages to this Business Meeting. None of them are even related to this topic, much less a second of the alleged motion. The following links are to Diane’s posts to the BM.

Oct 2 18:47:38 PDT 2017 <http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002332.html> 

Oct 12 15:27:14 PDT 2017 <http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002381.html> 

Oct 15 17:36:59 PDT 2017 <http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002454.html> 

Oct 17 15:28:00 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002505.html

Jane posted a message to the BM explaining some of her perspective on the history of the website.

Jane stated: ” And yes, I did make the motion and asked that Sandie post it.”

NOTE: the Business Meeting is still in KBDM mode.

ASP KBDM Process:

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/  

"B. 1. b. All motions are out of order during the KBDM phase of the group conscience."

Therefore, this second is also out of order.

NOTE 3a: Proxy voting is not allowed in Al-Anon.

http://www.serenitysys.com/A_Serenity_Place/Business/nbm/new_business_meeting.htm

Under the title of Important Notes in the original webpage entitled The NEW Business Meeting, dated 6/1/2008

“If a member of ASP wants to bring something to the Business Meeting, then they must attend the Business Meeting. There is no proxy voice or vote in Al-Anon.”

Oct 17 15:47:24 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002507.html

Jane stated: “The language of the motion was developed in an email exchange between

Sandie and myself. She sent it to the meeting at my request and wrote

"moved by Jane." I'm just letting you all know that I take ownership of

that motion.

NOTE: the Business Meeting is still in KBDM mode.

ASP KBDM Process:

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/  

"B. 1. b. All motions are out of order during the KBDM phase of the group conscience."

Therefore, this second is also out of order.

NOTE: Proxy voting is not allowed in Al-Anon.

http://www.serenitysys.com/A_Serenity_Place/Business/nbm/new_business_meeting.htm

Under the title of Important Notes in the original webpage entitled The NEW Business Meeting, dated 6/1/2008

“If a member of ASP wants to bring something to the Business Meeting, then they must attend the Business Meeting. There is no proxy voice or vote in Al-Anon.”

Oct 17 17:42:18 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002515.html

Jane stated: “Sandie is chairing the meeting, setting and following an agenda which is at her discretion to do.”

Jane stated: “reversion to Robert's Rules is at the chair's discretion”

NOTE: This is only partially true. 

The Business Meeting of ASP is governed by the KBDM process described in detail on the following web page.

“Business Meeting Process at ASP”

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/

There is a secondary description on the page entitled “Business Meeting”, however as it says on this page, “the detailed version can be found here” at the “Business Meeting Process at ASP” page. 

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting/ 

Sandie relied on #6 under the “Business Meeting Format” for the authority to add an agenda item and introduce new member to the BM after the meeting started. 

NOTE: this paragraph does not exist in the corresponding page on the old website:

http://www.asp-afg.org/ASP/nbm/Process_vs2.htm

Nor does it exist on the previous version of the corresponding page on the old website:

http://www.asp-afg.org/ASP/nbm/Process.vs1.htm

Nor does it exist on the original KBDM page on the original website:

http://www.serenitysys.com/A_Serenity_Place/Business/business_meeting_process_at_asp.htm

In conclusion, this particular verbiage must have been added to the website during Jane’s term as Web Master, and is therefore unauthorized. 

NOTE: Several more examples such as this have been discovered by others and brought to my attention. I will be addressing them in Part 2 of the multi-part post started last night. 

NOTE: This is true. However, the Chair has not announced that the meeting has reverted to Parliamentary Procedure, so the KBDM process is still in effect.

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/ 

“VII. B. 9. If the Business Meeting seems to be unable to function under the KBDM process for some reason, the Chair may revert to the Robert’s Rules of Order at his or her discretion.”

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting/ 

Oct 17 18:08:02 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002517.html

Jane responds to Beverly’s issues: “Motions are usually made by one individual, then seconded. Sandie helped me with the wording... I don't understand the objection.”

NOTE: The KBDM process states: 

“C. 2. b. Motions on issues that came from the KBDM phase must reflect all points agreed upon in the KBDM phase.”

http://asp-afg.org/members/business-meeting-process-at-asp/

NOTE: Beverly’s point is that motions must reflect all points agreed upon. Without any points being agreed upon, this suggests a collaboration between the two members with personal vested interests may well be out of order.

Oct 17 18:45:47 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002518.html

Jane stated: “I made decisions in my role as webmaster that were subsequently

approved by the SC.”

NOTE: This alleged “approval” has been disputed ever since the SC discovered that Jane & Sandie had been making changes to the website. Please see my post for a complete factual description of this issue.

Oct 18 01:38:31 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002526.html 

Jane stated: “Until now, the general membership was not consulted. They should be.”

NOTE: No argument on the fact that the general membership should be consulted. Unfortunately, the General Membership is NOT being consulted even now. Instead, the general membership is being coerced into passing ALL of the changes made to the website by Jane and Sandie since 2014, even though the membership has not been fully informed of those changes. 

Jane stated: “The old websites didn't have input from the general membership either.”\

NOTE: This is incorrect. The membership of ASP approved of the original ASP website on May 12, 1996. Ten years later in the Business Meeting of Nov 2005-May 2006, the membership authorized the transfer & continuation of the ASP website from its historical domain owned by myself (http://www.serenitysys.com/A_Serenity_Place/ )to its current domain owned by the membership of ASP. (http://www.asp-afg.org).  This was accomplished by Steve providing a DVD with the entire ASP website to the new List Administrator and Web Master in late April 2006.

Oct 17 19:20:28 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002521.html

Kristen requested that Jane: “show and quote the steering committee of ASP’s vote of

approval to accept all changes you made with the detailed results (similar

to how it is done when votes are taken and recorded on our website by the

webmaster).

NOTE: No response from Jane has been posted.

Oct 18 01:38:31 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002526.html 

Steve: I posted my response to the allegations that the Steering Committee “approved” the changes in text/content to the website. The SC has never authorized or approved these changes to the website. 

Oct 18 04:31:59 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002531.html

Sandie posted a quote from the ASP KBDM process page:

“9. If the Business Meeting seems to be unable to function under the KBDM process for some reason, the Chair may revert to the Robert’s Rules of Order at his or her discretion.”

NOTE: Sandie did not state that the Chair was implementing this option at this time. 

This post only advised the BM that this option was available.

Sandie posted the verbiage she’d posted earlier regarding the alleged motion. 

'That the current ASP member website asp-afg.org/members be accepted as is by the Business Meeting and be the basis for all future changes - All future changes to the content of the website, outside of regular updates and legal compliance, shall be approved by the business meeting ("Regular Updates" include financial reports, service rotations, motions made and other votes taken in the business meeting) Moved by Jane. Do we have a seconder.' I second this Motion. BJ”

Oct 18 05:16:53 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002532.html

Jane posted an explanation of why she made changes to the website. 

Jane stated: “Additions to the Newcomer page were suggested after Sandie became List

Administrator. As these seemed helpful to newcomers, I added them. It

wasn't until I brought these items to the attention of the SC earlier this

year that ANY objections were raised... And frankly, I still don't

understand why.

NOTE: I believe this was the first clue to the SC that Jane had made content changes to the website instead of just the design changes she was authorized to make. 

Additionally, the SC discovered that Jane and Sandie had not only created a new page, they had filled the page with unauthorized CAL in violation of our permission contract with WSO.  This CAL violation was a serious issue that could jeopardize ASP’s permission to use CAL. 

Furthermore, the primary CAL that they posted on the website was the Suggested Opening - this was redundant as all members receive a copy of the Opening every day. 

Additionally, the SC discovered that Jane and Sandie had also replaced a quotation of a past member of ASP on the subject of sponsorship with more unauthorized CAL. That particular quotation of our past member was (a) with her permission and (b) authorized by consensus of the Steering Committee. 

Subsequently, both of these pages have been further modified by removing the illegal CAL and reposting the sponsorship quote.

Oct 18 11:15:25 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002539.html

Jerry posted a different motion in search of unity:

"That the ASP website, as currently posted, be temporarily accepted while the Steering Committee, the Business Committee, and/or other created committees carefully review the differences between the "old" group conscience approved web content and the "new" posted content for future deliberations on final wording."

Oct 18 12:06:03 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002540.html

Steve posted a message describing how votes are counted at ASP. This is established by the Founding Policies.

http://www.serenitysys.com/A_Serenity_Place/ASP_INFO.HTM

Oct 18 12:09:45 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002541.html

Sandie stated: “To amend the existing motion on the table, this motion would first have to be passed prior to amending it.”

NOTE: this is grossly incorrect and has been rebutted by both Jerry and Steve.

Oct 18 13:36:18 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002547.html

Oct 18 13:45:05 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002548.html

Oct 18 13:28:27 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002543.html

Kristen made the following motion:

“The ASP website, as currently posted, be temporarily accepted while the

Steering Committee, the Business Committee, and/or other created committees

carefully review the differences between the "old” group conscience

approved web content and the "new" posted content for future deliberations

on final content.”

NOTE: the only difference between Jerry’s suggested motion and Kristen’s actual motion is the last word. Kristen changed “wording” with “content”.

Oct 18 13:31:29 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002545.html

Steve seconded Kristen’s motion.

Oct 18 13:57:14 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002552.html

Sandie reposted the verbiage of Jane’s alleged motion without comment.

Oct 18 14:07:52 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002553.html

Sandie stated:

“Kristen, your motion is out of order.”

“I am chairing this meeting and I have accepted a motion from Jane seconded by Barbara.  Any other motions are out of order.”

NOTE: The Business Meeting has not yet received a motion from Jane. 

Sandie stated:

“Steve we are following Roberts Rules of Order.”

NOTE: OK. The Chair has now declared that we are now following Robert’s Rules of Order.

All discussion, etc prior to this point has been under the ASP KBDM process.  

Oct 18 15:24:03 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002558.html

Apryl posted a request to Sandie and Steve that each provide a summary of where we are now. 

Oct 18 15:56:22 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002559.html

Sandie’s response:

“Keep it simple. Jane asked me to post her motion to the Business Meeting.. posted October 17 

Barbara seconded the motion. October 17

Jerry has made a suggestion to handle and 

We are waiting to hear from Jane.”

Oct 18 16:17:24 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002560.html

Kristen stated:

“A motion (not a request for one nor a request for an agenda item) must be

made TO the ASP business meeting as a WHOLE by the motioner!

****Please Find Said Motion (that you firmly state you have “accepted”)”

“Perhaps we all missed the email but it is clear to me that this “motion”

has been, repeatedly, stated and fairly questioned by multiple members of

this ASP Business Meeting.”

“As such, it is only equally fair, as the chair, that you provide proof of

said motion having been presented by the motioner to the ASP BM along with

proof of your acceptance presented to the ASP BM by means of copy and

pasting this exchange that occurred within the business meeting to us all

in a very timely fashion.”

Oct 18 16:44:32 PDT 2017

http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/private/businessmtg/2017-October/002561.html

Cathy stated:

“I have to say here. I do not feel Jane's motion is offical.

>From my own experience. Not from what anyone said here.

1. I did not think we or anyone here in Al-Anon made a motion through

another person.”

-----Original Message-----
From: Businessmtg [mailto:businessmtg-bounces+steve=serenitysys.com at asp-afg.org] On Behalf Of Apryl Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 3:24 PM
To: Steve - SC
Cc: ASP Business
Subject: [Businessmtg] Clarification

Would Sandie and Steve each please post a CONCISE summary of where we are with this process? One of the challenges for me with just enough ADHD to be dangerous and a remarkably intense full time job is that I struggle a bit to follow long drawn out email conversations. Now I’m a bit lost and from where I stand we shouldn’t even be discussing the website until the next BM. However, acknowledging the fact that I got a bit lost along the way, I would love a bullet pointed explanation, or something similar, WITHOUT rancor, and containing ONLY facts to date. Appreciate the assistance!

Apryl 