[Businessmtg] Districting - Comments on Steve's Post

Jerry logmark at comcast.net
Mon Jan 15 22:49:19 PST 2024 

Biz-Pals,

KEY:
> Steve's email content (marked with >'s.)
~ My comments begin with indented copy (see ~)
[ALL CAPS is for emphasis only, not yelling.]
- - - - -

>Hi Lynne and everyone else here,

>PROBLEM #1:  Actually, I believe that the GEA can solve the biggest problem - " that is that there is only ONE Area for all 1000+ electronic groups across the world".
- - - - -
     ~ This is why my input suggested multiple Areas. I don't know what the largest Area is in Al-Anon (in # of groups), but there is no excuse for making electronic Areas larger by far than the biggest f2f Area. Better still would be to have electronic Areas have approximately the average number of groups as f2f Areas do. (I suspect a scary concept to the WSO.)
     ~  Remember, we're a Group just like any other group now. In order to be on an equal basis with any other group we ought be equally represented at every level, particularly when it comes to Delegates. We will not be represented equally at the World Service Conference (the WSC - where the heavy lifting and big decisions are made in Al-Anon) unless each delegate (those who represent f2f AND Electronic Areas are speaking for about the same number of meetings. One Delegate for 1000+ electronic meetings is a drop in the big ol' WSC bucket. WE MAY AS WELL NOT BE REPRESENTED AT ALL.
- - - - -

>The solution is to split the Area.  Consider that there are 50 states and 3 Canadian provinces represented by 78 Delegates. That tells us that more than a few of the original State Areas have split over the years.  Sometimes that was because the Area was so large (think California, New York and Texas) but other times it was because the state demographics challenged it.  Washington state is a classic example where the Puget Sound/Seattle region is very different from the eastern 3/4 of the state.
>To affect this solution, I believe that the GEA would be best served by:
>a. Incorporating this scheme into their districting plan by creating districts that are ripe for splitting off into new Area(s)
>b. Incorporating this scheme into the GEA's long range overall plan

>PROBLEM #2:  I absolutely agree that this is a problem, although WSO denies it.  The proof of the pudding is in a share I stumbled across the other day when perusing the CMA Connects Forum for something else.  A CMA shared that her face-to-face group went electronic in response to the COVID lock downs.  Later, when the lockdowns were lifted, her group decided to (a) continue their face-to-face meeting as a HYBRID meeting with both f2f and Zoom, AND REGISTER THE ZOOM MEETING SEPARATELY.  The result is that members of that meeting have two votes in the overall Al-Anon service structure.  Is this a unique situation?  I seriously doubt it.
- - - - -
     ~ This over-representation is not unusual in my experience. I know meetings where some members of a f2f meeting created a zoom meeting during Covid AND USED THE F2F GROUP # AS THEIR OWN even though the f2f was still operational. Quite a number of meetings in my District remain Hybrid meetings, both f2f & zoom. [I do not know if they are registered separately, though.]
     ~ I imagine it would be quite a mess to filter all this, though Districts should be able to sort things out.
- - - - - 

>PROBLEM #3:  Districting ASP with other 24/7 groups.  While this appears to be a part of the GEA plan, it is a subordinate part.  The GEA has earmarked 64 groups to place in districtS delineated by the 5am to 11:45am UTC Time Zone.  Of those 64 groups, 13 are email meetings, 2 are Bulletin Board, 1 Facebook, 1 WhatsApp and 47 groups of unknown types, but assumed to be primarily Zoom meetings.  However, the GEA's plan is to (a) limit districts to 20 groups max, AND (b) prioritize a spirit of unity by mixing groups up in districts OVER the priority of placing groups in districts by platform, and (c) include groups without GRs in those 20 groups/district maximum.  
>Applying this algorithm results in 4 districts, EACH with:
>     12 members primarily from Zoom groups, 
>     3 members from Email groups,
>     1 from BB or Facebook groups
>Next factor in the reality that 57% of the electronic groups do not have GRs and the end result of members attending the district meetings would look like this:
>     5 members primarily from Zoom groups, 
>     1 Email group
>     0 from BB or Facebook groups
>The result is a 5:1 ratio of Zoom groups participating in the district meeting to email groups.  
>Why split up the 13 email groups?  What purpose does that serve those groups?  
>It is almost guaranteed that the predominate Zoom meetings would require that the district meet via Zoom, while if the district was the 13 eMail groups instead, it would have the ability to decide whether to continue using email to meet as a district, or any other platform it wished.
- - - - -

     ~ What concerns me here is my suspicion that almost all these zoom meetings are comprised of former f2f members - who have little or no experience with "legacy" electronic groups and, other than having to learn how to keystroke themselves in to hookup with their meetings, HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICULAR NEEDS of other electronic meetings.
     ~ The domination of Area(s) and District(s) by zoom Group Reps will effectively take away the ability of other electronic platforms (email, phone, etc.) to influence votes at those levels. NOTE: In effect "legacy" electronic groups like ASP will end up in pretty much the same position as we were BEFORE THE WSC APPROVED MAKING US "EQUAL" GROUPS, with little if any voice and not enough votes to effect change.
- - - - -

>PROBLEM #4:  I attended an "Al-Anon App" meeting on Friday evening.  What I discovered in the process of attending that meeting was that joining the Al-Anon App meeting actually resulted in joining a Zoom meeting.  Hmm. The Al-Anon App is little more than an app that triggers Zoom.

- - - - -
     ~ This seems to me to be simply a decision to use this existing app rather than rigging up something proprietary. However, if these are registered zoom meetings and have representation and are under the oversight and control of the WSO (not autonomous) then I have a Tradition problem with them.
- - - - -

>PROBLEM #5:  It is confirmed that the GRs will be presented with a single choice - accept the Task Force recommendation, or nothing.
- - - - -
     ~ Ain't it grand when Black and White thinking sneaks its way into our Al-Anon deliberations! Makes me curdle a little bit - no, a lot. A very good time to ring the, "When in Doubt, Don't" bell I'd think.
- - - - -

>The GEA is denying the groups the right to use the KBDM process, as well as denying the groups the right of decision in the broad sense.
- - - - -
     ~ The entire premise behind the WSO proposing the wide use of KBDM (Knowledge Based Decision Making) was that it's process encouraged broad participation and in many ways was in sync with Al-Anon philosophies and traditions - rather than use the motion-driven process which discouraged all members from participating in forming a consensus. That the GEA is actively turning its back on an opportunity to use KBDM to its fullest leaves me with that old "icky" feeling.
- - - - -

>As I mentioned before, I see this as blackmailing the GRs into accepting the Task Force recommendation.  Recall that the Task Force recommendation differs significantly from the Thought Force recommendation AND is contrary to the policy described in the Service Manual.  
>If the GRs pass this recommendation, the result will be:
>     1. The GEA will permanently place groups into districts as they choose,
>     2.  The groups will have no voice in how or where the GEA places them,
>     3.  THIS WILL BE A PERMANENT DECISION. 
>As far as I know, there is no provision for this being a provisional decision, a trial or anything of the sort.  Once in place, this decision will be permanent and almost impossible to reverse.  
>In my usual less than humble opinion, there is far too much wrong with BOTH the Task Force recommendation AND the GEA's handling of this issue for this to be acceptable.
- - - - -
     ~ To the rest of Steve's input I simply repeat my comment to his PROBLEM #5, and concur that this recommendation as it stands is shortsighted, incomplete, and in need of an overhaul in order to place electronic meetings on a par with the F2f meetings within Al-Anon, Inc.'s structure.
- - - - -

In service,
Jerry H.
-



- - - - -
>Love and SERENITY,
>Steve
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Businessmtg On Behalf Of Lynne
>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 2:48 PM
>To: steve at serenitysys.com
>Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
>Subject: [Businessmtg] Districting
>Hi, 
>First, it seems to me that the biggest problem is one that the GEA cannot solve. And that is that there is only ONE Area for all 1000+ electronic groups across the world. 
>The second biggest problem in my opinion is that F2F groups that went electronic during the pandemic, are now being counted as an electronic meeting in the GEA instead of in their Geographic based district/Area. I get that once you open a meeting to the world that there could be people joining a meeting in San Diego that live in Argentina, etc. However, I’d be interested to know if that is actually common. I don’t know. But if a meeting is electronic but based in one city/region, then I don’t understand why it is in the GEA and not their geographic Area. But again, I don’t know if this is something the GEA can fix. It sounds like an WSO issue. And it is not in the scope of the district task force. 
>I mention those though because the issue of forming districts in the GEA is linked to both of these other decisions, which we have no control over. 
>Aside from all the issues I have with the GEA and the district task force recs, I want ASP to be in a district with other 24/7meetings. That is the most important thing to me. It is not clear to me whether or not that will happen based on the task force recommendations, as so many details will not be ironed out until after they are approved (or not). But I trust Anne to represent our interests. I also want to thank her for her hard work as our GR! 
>Hugs,
>Lynne
>Sent from my iPhone
>____________________________
>To Unsubscribe, go to: http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/asp
>The ASP web site with all kinds of info for ASP members is http://asp-afg.org/members/ For assistance with other ASP issues, contact Lynne, the List Administrator of ASP, at lynne at asp-afg.org
>____________________________
>To Unsubscribe, go to: http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/asp
>The ASP web site with all kinds of info for ASP members is http://asp-afg.org/members/
>For assistance with other ASP issues, contact Lynne, the List Administrator of ASP, at lynne at asp-afg.org

More information about the Businessmtg mailing list