[Businessmtg] Service Discussion II.
List Administrator
la at asp-afg.org
Sun Sep 22 18:19:59 PDT 2019
On 2019-09-21 21:29, Kim C wrote:
> My understanding is a little different Jerry. Each Area determines for itself the votes required to carry all motions. In my experience "two-thirds vote" means two-thirds of the votes cast, not counting abstentions or voids, as long as the total vote count constitutes a quorum. For example, if there are 92 voting members, 62 affirmative votes would be required for substantial unanimity. However, if three people abstain and two people's votes are void, the number of voting members would be reduced to 87 and 58 affirmative votes would be required for substantial unanimity.
> Abstentions and voids are not considered votes. They are reported.
> Therefore, the number of voting members necessary for substantial unanimity may vary from motion to motion.
> Voids are members who did not vote, usually not in their seat. Sometimes with electronic voting the vote does not get registered because a member fails to select yes, no, abstain during the 30 second timeframe (or time agreed upon) and it becomes a void.
>
> I agree no must in Al-Anon, only suggestions...
> Tradition 9. Speaks of flexibility. Boxed in doesn't seem very flexible.
>
> For this reason I asked the question.
>
> In gratitude,
> Kim
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:22 PM List Administrator <la at asp-afg.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-09-20 15:22, Kim C wrote:
>>> Thanks Jerry for your service and share. I found it thoughtful and a
>>> fair
>>> assessment.
>>>
>>> Conflict resolution is the Al-Anon way, not personalities digging in
>>> with
>>> controversy.
>>> Perhaps the Tradition meeting or special business meeting focused on
>>> conflict resolution.
>>>
>>> Why does a none vote count? What purpose does it have in KBDM process?
>>> Yes, No, Abstain, tells the group conscience.
>>> Business meetings using KBDM process coming to a motion and not passing
>>> I
>>> believe is a deterrent for participation. The process is not meant to
>>> cause disharmony.
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>
>> Hi Kim,
>>
>> I'm very glad you asked. I don't know your Al-Anon background so I'll
>> answer your questions as if you're relatively new to Al-Anon service
>> because we probably do have some members here who are newer and this
>> will help them to understand some of Al-Anon's practices and procedures.
>> Please don't be offended by my simplistic explanations...:
>>
>> "Why does a none vote count?
>>> ASP elected to use Area and WSC business practices as examples for
>>> its administration and business meetings.
>> Area Assembly meetings are attended by the Group Representatives
>> (GR's) of all the Al-Anon Groups (AFG's) in a designated Area (often a
>> State, but also in some cases parts of States or occasionally across
>> State boundaries), the Area officers, Committee Chairs, and certain
>> other official positions - all of whom have voting rights. A required
>> percentage of "yea" votes by the qualified voters are required to pass
>> any motions - often 2/3rds or greater (called the "substantial
>> unanimity" requirement.)
>> Attendees sign in to the Area Assemblies and note whether they are
>> eligible to vote. If a motion comes to the floor and moves to a vote my
>> Area has all eligible voters stand and count off so the "substantial
>> unanimity" minimum can be calculated.
>> Say hypothetically that there are 100 eligible voters present. The
>> substantial unanimity would calculate to 67 "yea" votes. Now say that 66
>> voted "yea" and 30 voted "nay", 3 abstained, and one chose not vote but
>> was in the room. The result would be that the motion would fail because
>> there were not the necessary 67 "yea" votes to reach the "substantial
>> unanimity" level. Al-Anon does not have the means to force someone to
>> vote. {"There are no "must's" in Al-Anon.]
>> I should say that this has never happened in my Area on the many
>> occasions I've attended. That it happens often here at ASP is, I think,
>> a matter of the online medium we exist in. When a member joins ASP's
>> Business Meeting (BM) without F2F service experience they are often not
>> aware of the importance of casting a vote, or the spiritual aspect of
>> seeking a Substantial Unanimity. I have received notes from a few ASP BM
>> members who have said they had joined the BM to find out how it works,
>> but didn't feel they were experienced enough to cast a vote. This could
>> well attach to a lack of understanding of Tradition 2 which asks all to
>> participate to the best of their abilities - that our Higher Powers'
>> guidance, whatever our collective experience levels, will express His
>> will for the group when all participate. And this could also attach to a
>> lack of having or using sponsors, personal or service sponsors, who
>> could help newer members get up to speed.
>> Bottom line is - if we don't reach the Substantial Unanimity levels
>> our policies require, motions fail.
>>
>> "What purpose does it have in KBDM process? Yes, No, Abstain, tells the
>> group conscience."
>>> Not exactly. A Substantial Unanimity of "Yea" votes states the group
>>> conscience. As unfortunate as it may seem that non-voters seem to
>>> sometimes determine the outcome of motions, Tradition 2 tells us that
>>> God's will is expressed when a substantial unanimity is reached. If it
>>> is not reached, does than not also let us know what His will is?
>>
>> "Business meetings using KBDM process coming to a motion and not passing
>> I believe is a deterrent for participation."
>>> Okay, it might at that. But does this mean that His will has not been
>>> expressed? My noggin tells me that I and perhaps others just may not
>>> understand what that will for us is. Sometimes the answer is, "No." Now
>>> could we jimmy the process - say alter the number of eligible voters in
>>> the BM by ignoring the "did-not-votes?" Why sure. Or we could read our
>>> approved practices very literally and determine outcomes based only on
>>> those who voted, but we'd have to first have that discussion and
>>> affirming action in the appropriate body.
>>
>> "The process is not meant to cause disharmony."
>>> The disharmony I've noted is not attached to ASP's business
>>> practices. We had a few members in service who did not follow ASP's
>>> existing group consciences. Some of us successfully resisted their
>>> attempts to alter ASP without going through a group conscience
>>> procedure to do it. Some members who were emotionally attached to those
>>> who then left ASP as a result sure didn't think much of those of us who
>>> resisted those changes. Following the approved Group Conscience process
>>> promotes harmony. It's when the approved processes are not followed
>>> that disharmony follows.
>> Acting according to ASP's Group Consciences (our Higher Power's will
>> for us) is essential to our recoveries at ASP; changes to our Group
>> Consciences need to be made through the accepted Group Conscience
>> process, not by autonomous action by someone in service to the group.
>> I've spoken previously about personality conflicts. We do have some
>> strong-willed members around here - not afraid of stating their
>> positions and disappointments. There's a line in the suggested Closing
>> for Al-Anon meetings which I believe applies here: "After a while,
>> you'll discover that though you may not like all of us, you'll love us
>> in a very special way - the same way we already love you."
>>
>> I hope this answers your questions and possibly helps some of our newer
>> BM members.
>>
>> In service,
>> Jerry H., LA
>> -
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The ASP Instruction page is http://asp-afg.org/members/asp-instructions/
>>
>> The ASP web site for ASP members is http://www.asp-afg.org/Members/
>>
>> For assistance with other ASP issues, contact Jerry the List Administrator, at la at asp-afg.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Businessmtg mailing list
>> Businessmtg at asp-afg.org
>> http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/businessmtg
Hi again, Kim and all,
I can not attest to the autonomous decisions of other Areas you
describe, though my example was not clear enough on this point.
I should have said that before each and every vote on any motion
there is a head count of eligible voters present at voting time. The
Substantial Unanimity requirement to pass any motion is (usually) 2/3rds
of all those eligible voters IN THE ROOM at the time of voting. This
matches well with what you have said in your reply - the 2/3rds
requirement applies and can change as eligible folks come or leave the
meeting.
[ASP does not have a quorum in its voting policies.]
In order to understand ASP's practices it is necessary to recognize
that ASP's Business Meetings (BM's) are not held in one room at one
time. We have a common practice of extended windows for participation (7
days) so that members from around the world can participate according to
their waking hours and daily/weekly schedules. This distinct difference
between any F2F voting practice, resulting from our online medium, is a
clear and necessary exception to F2F practices which we need to allow
full participation by all ASP members; we use it for a number of our
business purposes.
It would be interesting to hear workable suggestions which would
permit instantaneous polling of members present at an appointed hour so
we could replicate this F2F practice though I doubt members in Europe,
Africa, or Asia would pleasantly receive notice that they had to get up
to vote in the wee hours or not be counted :-)
- - - - -
Now comes an interesting (to me) and possible solution. Bear with me
because there are some moving parts....
ASP's Founding Statement & Policies (FS&P's), formulated and accepted
back at or near the beginning of ASP, include the following:
FS&P #6,
a) "[substantive changes]...require a 2/3 majority of the VOTING
members."
b) "[minor changes ]...require a simple majority of the VOTING
membership."
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
One could easily (I'd say should) read these FS&P substantial unanimity
requirements to mean exactly what they so simply state >>> that ONLY
those BM members who participate by actively voting are to be counted.
Those who do not vote are not "voting members" by definition. <<<
It will no doubt be noted by some that Motion #4, which defines ASP's
Service Structure, specifies in part:
"Changes to ASP Core Policies require a 2/3 majority of subscribed
membership of Business Committee."
(Passed 2/24/2006, 11 in favor, 0 against)
Here's the thing:
Motion #4 was approved by the BM, BUT the Business Meeting DOES NOT HAVE
THE AUTHORITY to change our Founding Statement & Policies where a 2/3rds
affirmative vote of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP of ASP is specified as the
requirement to change any part of our FS&P's as they were accepted at
our beginnings and remain as our guiding principles. The Founding
Statement & Policies "outrank" any attempts by the BM to change them. We
could only suggest to the entire membership that they change them. [I
have to admit here that I was the guy who proposed Motion #4 which is
more than a bit embarrassing for me now.]
What would this mean should our FS&P language be recognized as
required?:
~ It would mean that only Yeas, Nays, and active Abstentions will count
in determining ASP's Substantial Unanimity calculations and vote
outcomes.
~ It would mean two past motions:
- Motion #18 on rescinding Motion #7 (newcomer packet distribution)
which was calculated as failed [16 for/ 1 against/ 0 abstaining/ 12 did
not votes] actually passed 16/1/0.
- Motion #19 (on discontinuing Archiving) which was calculated as
failed [14 for/ 3 against/ 0 abstaining/ 5 did not votes] actually
passed 14/3/0.
It is my position that ASP's Founding Statement & Policies are
exceptionally clear in their language and certainly supersede any BM
vote attempting to change them.
The only conclusion I can come to is that ASP has been calculating our
Substantial Unanimity levels wrongly for years and any past motions
which have been affected by past wrong calculations should be altered to
reflect ASP's Founding Statement & Policies requirements and therefore
represent ASP's Group Conscience on these matters, not the BM's mistaken
calculations.
Either all of our Founding Statement & Policies hold true or none do...
Motion #18 did pass according to ASP's Founding Statement & Policies.
Motion #19 did pass according to ASP's Founding Statement & Policies.
Future vote counts and results, according to ASP's Founding Statement &
Policies, will not consider BM members who do not cast votes or actively
abstain.
The language of our FS&P's is, to me, very clear.
In service,
Jerry H.
-
More information about the Businessmtg
mailing list