[Businessmtg] Response to Steve R.'s Share

[List Administrator]

Biz-Pals, 

Steve R's commentary necessitates a detailed response. His past
accusations of this List Administrator attempting to control outcomes
coupled with some of his content in this recent email make maintaining
unity difficult. 

- - - - - - - - 

As preface I offer the following role of BM members' positions on the
archiving issue in the order they were received: 

1. "I believe we must purge our archived shares and discontinue this
practice." - Kim C. 

2. "I agree with Kim C.'s view that archiving our shares is not a good
idea." - Nancy L. 

3. "I am in favor of ASP not archiving any shares..." - Linda F. 

4. "I am not in favor of archiving ASP shares." - Linda Lee H. 

5. "I don't believe archiving ASP shares should be done." - Susan L. 

6. "I think, for me, it is a moot point"...[emails are out there] -
Beverly A. 

7. "I believe our current archives should be permanently deleted...If we
wish to archive future topic shares we would have to have an approved
[Group Conscience] clearly permitting it." - Jerry H. 

8. "I do not support archiving emails." - Sherrie W. 

9. "...Archiving is not appropriate. I say no to archiving." - Alison M.


10."I do not see the necessity for any Al-Anon meeting to archive
personal shares." 

   - BJ 

11."I am completely against archiving shares." - Anne K. 

12."I am against archiving for the reasons mentioned." - Diane M. 

13."I believe we should stop archiving member shares. We should also
delete any existing shares." - Jenny K. 

14."...my wish is to purge the archived shares and uncheck the box"
[stop future archiving] - Nona D. 

15."I think we should no longer archive shares." - Anne O. 

16."I do not support archiving shares..." - Sarah B. 

[NOTE: Six (6) BM members did not participate in this KBDM phase.] 

- - - - - - - - 

Steve R's share - [with my responses to his points interspersed]:

ESSAGE BODY

Hi folks,

I have a problem with the . . . how can I say it? The alleged consensus.

       - [Alleged consensus? There is absolutely a consensus.] 

Three problems, actually.

First, I don't believe that we have a consensus as stated. The problem
is
that Jerry's description of the consensus contains two parts:

 * ASP should purge past archived personal shares
 * discontinue all future archiving of personal shares

While I'll agree that there seems to be agreement that members are not
in
favor of archiving shares, 

    - ["seems to be"? I say absolutely. Members are not in favor of
archiving.] 

I have not seen anything like a consensus
regarding purging the existing archives. 

    - [One has to selectively parse positions like, "I do not support
archiving shares" to arrive at a conclusion that this position means
only future shares, not both past an future. "Archiving" covers all
archiving in general, not just past or future. I take members' use of
the word to be all-inclusive, not selective as Steve chooses to. I
suggested wording for the motion so that there would be no question on
any member's part whether or not all archiving was included.]   

Also, my experience in Al-Anon is that we do not make motions about the
future. Jerry's "consensus" and the subsequent motion talk about
discontinuing ALL FUTURE archiving. Al-Anon is a One Day at a Time
program.
It's one thing for an Al-Anon group to make a decision to stop archiving
today. It's something else for an Al-Anon group to try to make a
decision
about the future. 

    - [Anyone with any service experience knows that today's Group
Conscience can be amended or reversed by any legitimate future Group
Conscience. I know this. Steve knows this. I can only construe this
argument to be an attempt to paint me in unsavory light.] 
   - [Point two on this: This is not "Jerry's 'consensus.'" I have my
personal positions, but follow the expressed will of the group. I fully
believe the seconded motion is the expression of the group and support
moving through motion discussions to a poll when the allotted week is
complete.]

Lastly, our KBDM procedure tells us that when there are more than one
point
to an issue - such as we have here - that we work towards a consensus on
one
point and when we reach a consensus on that point, the Chair announces
that
. . . 

"2. When agreement is reached on a point of the issue, the Chair will
post a
note to the meeting stating the point and the nature of the agreement
reached."

And then . . .

"a. When subsequent agreements are reached on other points of the issue
being discussed, the Chair will repost the note, appending simple
descriptions the new agreements reached." 

    - [To address these last three paragraphs: Again, "Archives" means
"Archives." Only by wordsmithing can one arrive at the supposition that
being against archiving shares means this is a two-part motion. Whether
the motion reads as it currently does, or more simply stated "I move we
eliminate archiving," eliminating archiving includes eliminating those
we have and the process we now use to collect and archive personal
shares. No archives.]

In other words, I do not believe that we have the consensus described by
the
Chair, nor do I believe that the motion made properly reflects a
consensus 
of the discussion. 

    - [And I completely disagree with Steve's assessment. I'd also add
that by not participating in the process which led to our seconded
motion, Steve kept the Business Meeting from being able to clarify these
points through discussion, contributed to his own dissatisfactions with
the results, and thereby presses the Business Meeting with a
foreshortened opportunity to conclude this topic.] 

- - - - - 

~ We are now in the discussion phase of the seconded motion. Steve's
points need addressing. If anyone's position on archiving as related
above has changed, or if my interpretation of these positions as
intending to eliminate keeping archives of personal topic shares as an
ASP practice entirely is wrong, please speak up. This discussion phase
ends Sunday the 27th approximately mid-day Eastern Standard Time. 

  Depending on responses, if the current consensus holds a poll would be
posted Sunday afternoon the 27th (seven days for motion discussions.)
This means the polling period (seven days) would extend from the 27th
through Sunday, February 3rd - such extensions permitted by posted ASP
business practices. 

~ Would anyone care to offer an amendment to the current motion language
which would bring us closer to unity? 

We can still get "there" wherever that is folks, or we can continue
discussions in March's Business Meeting. Getting it right is more
important that getting it now. 

In service, 
Jerry H., acting Chair 
-