[Businessmtg] Point of Order

[Steve Rankin]

HI Jerry et al,

I disagree Jerry. 

ASP's "methodology for declaring a consensus" makes no mention of any
minimum percentage of the body (or any form of mathematical formula) to be
in agreement for the Chair to declare that we have reached a consensus.
Declaring that we have reached a consensus comes across as a declaration of
fact which seems to imply something essentially the same as a group
conscience. 

The Chair at ASP does not "declare" a consensus. That language is not part
of our process. However, it is the Chair's job to note to the Business
Meeting that we have reached an agreement on an issue. I see that the Chair
noted that "it appears that we have a consensus". That seems obvious to me
as we have had nothing but affirmative comments from the members for the
last few days, and no negative comments during the entire discussion. 

It is not until we vote that we use a numerical percentage of the Business
Meeting members to determine whether a MOTION passes or fails. Why would we
require a 2/3s majority to declare a consensus, and then require a 2/3's
majority to pass a motion? That's redundant. 

Below is the complete section of the KBDM process that covers the process of
a discussion, the development of agreement(s) leading up to the consensus. I
agree with Beverly's assessment that it appears that we have reached a
consensus in the Business Meeting on this issue. The way I read our KBDM
process, it is the Secretary that has the responsibility to Chair the
Business Meeting and the authority to make the decision that it appears that
we have agreement on the issue at hand. 

It may help to understand that in our KBDM process we talk about reaching
AGREEMENTS. Some topics are complex and our process addresses complex topics
by providing for a series of 'agreements' to be reached one at a time, until
all the parts of the larger complex agreement have been covered, then the
Chair assembles all of those parts into a single complex multipart
agreement. However, this topic is simple, so the process of reaching an
agreement was also simple. Once the discussion seems to be complete, then
the "agreement" that appears to have been reached in the discussion becomes
the consensus. 

KBDM: B. 6. "If there is no further discussion, then the most recent posting
of the points and agreements made represents the consensus of the KBDM phase
of the group conscience process."

That is the first time in our step-by-step KBDM process that the word
"consensus" is used. Everything up to that point is about reaching
agreements. 

It certainly appears to me that we have reached agreement in this
discussion. The Chair has followed our KBDM process and noted that our
agreement represents a consensus. Maybe not her exact words, but she's
following our process more closely than I can remember anyone doing before
her. 

Love and SERENITY,
Steve



==============================================
Quoted from http://asp-afg.org/members/kbdm/ 

B. The Knowledge Based Decision Making process begins
1. Open discussion of issue or topic.
a. Discussions of issues or topic not relative are not appropriate.
b. All motions are out of order during the KBDM phase of the group
conscience.
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.
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.
3. If the meeting runs out of time, then the issue is tabled for a future
meeting.
a. Other issues may be a higher priority and therefore placed higher on the
next meeting's agenda.
b. There is no presumption that an issue will be resolved within any time
frame.
4. When agreement is reached on all points of the issue, the Chair will
repost the note describing all the agreements reached on each sub-part of
the issue, and note that there appears to be agreement on the entire issue.
5. If there is further discussion, it is assumed that agreement on the
entire issue has not been reached.
a. If there is strong opposition to a point (more than a few), then the
discussion continues.
b. If there is a small, but vocal, minority, the Chair may ask the
dissenters, what would have to change for them to be able to accept the
idea. If the answer is nothing constructive or informational, but instead
continued opposition, then it's time to move on.
6. If there is no further discussion, then the most recent posting of the
points and agreements made represents the consensus of the KBDM phase of the
group conscience process.
7. The Chair closes the KBDM phase of the business meeting and opens the
Parliamentary phase.

================================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Businessmtg On Behalf Of Jerry H.
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 10:06 PM
To: steve at serenitysys.com
Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
Subject: [Businessmtg] Point of Order

All,

Point of Order

ASP, in it's methodology for declaring a consensus, has used the entire
Business Meeting body to determine whether a minimum of 2/3rds of the body
is in agreement on issues. The Chair has stated that we have a consensus on
the current issue on the table based on a consensus of only those who chose
to speak on the topic. 

If ASP is to accept the notion that 2/3rds of only those who chose to speak
in the KBDM phase is the bar for determining that a consensus is formed, as
the Chair has announced, then it follows we also accept this same consensus
standard in all circumstances - 2/3rds of only those who spoke or voted.
Applying this standard to BM votes on  recent motions, the votes on the
motions to discontinue the archiving of members' topic shares and the motion
to rescind a prior passed motion to continue sending beginners' packets to
our new members actually passed not failed as currently listed. In both
those cases BM members who did not vote were the determining factor in the
calculations of the results; a clear consensus of those who did vote was
that they should have passed.

This new notion that only BM members who speak are used in determining
whether or not a consensus exists in the BM is a new and unaddressed
practice. As such I request that the Chair announce whether a minimum of
2/3rds of the entire registered Business Meeting membership exists which
would then form a consensus of this body, not just of those who spoke.

Jerry
-

_______________________________________________
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