[Businessmtg] Website motion member position: Against and Why:

[Sandie Parkker]

Hi BM members.  I thoughtfully put together my opinion that I am against
Jane's motion/amendment. The issues I have responded to spoke to me the
most.


Points of summary:  This is not a conversation i had, just to clarify.
These are my open thoughts and opinions based on information i either
received here or looked up on my own.  So please don't shoot the
messenger.  : )

I agree with all of Steve's points in both of his emails.  On October 27
and October 28 2017.

Steve:  "My question is WHY should the new content, which was never
authorized,
become the accepted standard?"

Beverly:  I don't believe and I do not see evidence that new content was
authorized to be accepted as standard.


Steve:   "What Al-Anon principle supports this action?"

Beverly:  I have yet to see any Al-Anon principle to support accepting
unauthorized content changes to the current ASP website.  Ie: there was not
a Group Conscience for any of the content changes for the "new" website of
ASP.


Steve: "Why should ASP place a higher value on the "new" unauthorized
content than it places on its own group conscience?"

Beverly:  In my humble understanding of this statement, I see this as
"going to the hardware store for bread".

The intent may not have been malicious but why keep pressing the issue,
once it has been made known that there was no GC.

I see authorizing something that was not authorized as a conflict.  Al-Anon
principles were not used in my observation.

On Steve's October 28 email to Adele and the group, Steve outlines that the
B-F criteria for Group Conscience in Al-Anon process.  There is no
agreement in points B-F in the ASP group.  We do not have agreement except
that it needs work.

Important points I think Steve makes that I agree with:  Restating here.

"I haven't heard anyone trying to stay with the old group conscience because
they were wed to it. Remember that I supported Jane when she approached me
regarding making changes to the DESIGN of the website. I didn't like
WordPress then, and I don't like WordPress now. My reasons have to do with
real world issues like website & server security, a simpler website. Yet, I
didn't challenge Jane because she had promised both myself and the entire
Steering Committee that she would only change the 'design' of the website
and that she had worked hard to make sure that everything on the original
site was on the new site.

Then about two years later, Jane mentioned something being on the website
that I'd never heard of, and I asked about that. It was then that we
followed that trail and discovered a complete maze of changes that I still
struggle to understand myself.

What are dealing with is that MANY changes were made without authorization,
that those changes were substantive (not just fluff). Some of those changes
were merely substantive, but were major changes in the language which meant
major changes in policy. All done without the knowledge of anyone else.

This issue has become one of personalities over principles. I find it
interesting that both Jane and Sandie have made the case that Jane
"deserves" this, etc. Since when does a healthy Al-Anon group pass a motion
because a member deserved it?

No, a healthy group keeps its focus on the ball. What are the real issues?
Is the group conscience being followed? Is this situation being manipulated
to further an agenda? Is the group fully informed? Does the group understand
each and every facet of the issue?

We are not looking to be stagnant. In fact, I have a hunch that during the
coming months, we will be looking at making a variety of changes. It will be
interesting to see who is resistant to change then. How many will cling to
the idea that it wasn't broke, etc. OTOH, I'm hoping that with our leaders
following our group consciences regarding the process - HOW we go about
making new decisions - that the process will be smooth and relatively easy."



Beverly:  Closing statement:  My position was and continues to be, is, that
I have reviewed every page of the website compilation charts J. made up.
In doing so I have found many areas of content changes.  Either content had
been added, deleted, "created", changed or suggested by S., previous LA.

It is my opinion that these changes were done without a GC.

 Why do I think this?  Because no group conscience exists in any of the
looking over the compilation charts that I viewed and reviewed.   I don't
think these changes were, responsibly done, regardless of the intent.  I do
agree with Steve that I think it is a personalities over principles issue
as per Steve's statement:

Steve:  "This issue has become one of personalities over principles. I find
it
interesting that both Jane and Sandie have made the case that Jane
"deserves" this, etc. Since when does a healthy Al-Anon group pass a motion
because a member deserved it?"

Beverly:  It dawned on me that that is where my gut distrust comes from.
That two trusted servants were involved in changes that directly or
indirectly affected the content of this website without a group
conscience.  Irregardless of the rest of the group membership.  I don't
believe again, that it was responsible. I also do not think this is healthy
for the group as a whole.

For example, using J.'s website compilation:

1st page:  The bottom of the page that:   "I wrote and a list".  This is
content change.

2nd page:  There are multiple content changes.  Stating "some wording
changes (and links I added)"

"I did make one change".

"Explanatory text I wrote"

"I gave explanations"

"With only minor corrections"

3rd page:

"the text on the corresponding page of the old site didn't really jive with
my experience, so I assumed it was outdated.  I clicked on the links and
found lengthy explanations really confusing, so I summarized the
information, compared it to my own experience in ASP and explained it to
the best of my ability.  I added a link to a more lengthy explanation
called KBDM Meeting Process and Steps, but copied and pasted the text into
a new page."  It is my opinion, that this is making a judgement and acting
on it.

I have chosen a few of these sentences out of seven pages of compilation.

Bottom line is that this wording was not authorized using our ASP GC.
These are J's own words.  Not the words of the membership, regardless of
intent.

Thank you for your consideration.

Beverly










<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>