[Businessmtg] SRRE: Districting

[Steve Rankin]

Thanks Anne,

As I've mentioned before, I have several problems with the GEA Task Force and the GEA "plan".  
*   The Task Force recommendation differs from the Thought Force recommendation, yet fails to describe why.
*   The Task Force recommendation is contrary to the policy described in the Service Manual, yet without any explanation as to why.
*   The Task Force recommendation is incomplete, yet we are being asked to approve a blank check that will encumber the groups permanently.  
*   Al-Anon is an upside-down organization. . . The purpose of the WSO is to serve the Fellowship.  The purpose of the Area is to SERVE the Districts.  The purpose of the Districts is to SERVE the Groups.  The Task Force COMPLETELY FAILS TO CONSIDER HOW THE DISTRICT SERVE the Groups.  Instead the only purpose of the District mentioned in the Task Force recommendation is to somehow unity the groups by forcing one type of groups to belong to the same district as other types of groups.  This does not serve the groups.
*   The Task Force has repeated treated GRs worse that I treated my subordinates when I was a Staff Sergeant in the Arm 50 years ago.  Pathetic.
*   The GEA has spent many months on this issue, and then suddenly the GEA has repeatedly given very short notice of meetings on the issue.  
*   The GEA has not only failed to provide the groups with the background information on the districting issue, they have actually refused to do so.
*   The GEA meetings with the groups have had minimal opportunity for the groups to respond to the GEA meeting.  
*   The GEA plan is to black mail the groups into accepting the incomplete and problematic Task Force recommendation, including the GEA completely administering the incomplete recommendation without any group inputs or recourse.

Nine ways this is unacceptable in my opinion.

DISTRICT VISITATION.  For some reason, some members of the GEA seem to be fixated on DRs attending all the meetings in their District.  
First, we need to understand that this is not a DUTY of the DR.  The Service Manual states:
    " Each District elects a District Representative (DR), who MAY visit the groups and represents their voice at Area World Service Committee meetings."
Second, this is a total non-issue in electronic groups because the DR can visit every group without leaving the comfort of their home.  
Lastly, a personal note.  Back when my wife and I were Area Officers of our respective Al-Anon and AA Areas, we visited the Districts in our Areas of Northern California.  In fact, she'd visit each District at least 3 times a year.  This is in Northern California, which is larger than West Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined.  A run from our house in Alameda to Fresno to the south is 175 miles, or to Eureka to the north is 280 miles.  We put over 16,000 miles on my car each year just going to District meetings.  

PLATFORMS.  Different platforms do have different issues, both interpersonal behavior issues and technological issues.
     PLATFORM TECH ISSUES
     *   Districts are closest level of service to the Groups and the first place that GRs should go to for assistance with problems affecting their Group.
     *   Area is NOT the go-to source for Group problems.  
     *   The Area Tech Coordinator's job is to serve the needs of the GEA itself, not the Districts nor the Groups.  Good luck finding a Coordinator if you told him he was responsible for dealing with the tech problems of 1,000+ groups.   
     *   Looking at WSO's list of platforms tells us that 10 of the 14 platforms are actually individual commercial businesses.  Groups using those 10 platforms simply need to work with the professional support staff of their platform to address their group's tech issue.  
     *   Looking at the 4 platforms that are generic platforms we will see that (a) these are the 4 legacy platforms that have been in Al-Anon for decades, and (b) that these generic platforms use a variety of software, with a similar variety of support available.  In other words, these legacy groups have a common bond in their need for assisting each other with their tech issues.   

    PLATFORM BEHAVIOR ISSUES
    *   What about behavior issues common to platforms?  The reality is that each type of platform tends to encounter its unique set of behavior problems, AND each of platform also comes with its own set of tools for behavior problems.  This is another area where GRs can share their ESH at District meetings that would be missing if districts are intentionally & arbitrarily mixed platforms.  
    *   LAST BUT NOT LEAST. . . ASP is one of those legacy platforms which means that belonging to the same District as groups using similar platforms would provide both ASP and those other groups much added value.

KBDM.  I am seeing zero application of the KBDM process in the GEA districting meetings last month or the Assembly on the 20th.  None.  There may or may not be some KBDM processes used in the Thought Force & Task Force. 
However, a critical facet of the KBDM process is that the parliamentarian phase of the KBDM process gets turned on ONLY at the level that the KBDM process was used in.  What that means is that the Thought Force would use the KBDM process in their development of a consensus, then use the parliamentary process to develop a motion for THEIR group conscience.  Then, the same two-part process would move on to the Task Force.  And finally, the two-part process would move on to the GEA Assembly where the GRs discuss the entire issue, reach a consensus and only after the GRs reach a consensus does the parliamentary process kick in to develop a motion to be voted on.  

The GEA does not, or at least should not, have the authority to give the GRs motion to be voted on without the GRs having the opportunity to fully discuss the issue, reach a consensus, yada yada.
 
Instead, I am seeing the GEA forcing a yes or no choice on an issue that is ripe with alternatives without a trace of KBDM process used in the Assembly.  Several of which are much better alternatives.  

GEA APPROACH TO. . . 
Early last year, I had the opportunity to speak with and exchange a few emails with Rosemary, the GEA Chair.  We were hoping to meet face-to-face in November, but CJ & I had to change our travel plans in October and return home from southern Utah instead of continuing on to Arizona.  One of the things that came up in our communications was the incorporation of the GEA, resulting in Rosemary asking me to serve on the Incorporation Task Force, since I'd been directly involved with the incorporation of ASP.  OK, I'm in.  A few months later, that got sidelined as the new GEA opted to hand the GEA incorporation solo.  See a trend here?  What started out as a committee devolved into an individual making the decisions.  While, I'm certain that the GEA officers will be involved in the approval process, the tenor of the incorporation and bylaws have shifted from a KBDM process in a committee to an individual.  

ONE AREA.  I agree completely that ONE Area cannot adequately serve or represent the GLOBAL electronic groups.  As Jerry said so eloquently " WE MAY AS WELL NOT BE REPRESENTED AT ALL."

However, if we continue with the Task Force recommendation, the result will be an Area that will be almost impossible to disentangle in order to spin off new Areas that truly serve and represent their constituent groups.  Groups that SHOULD be in separate Areas will be forced into a maze of disconnected Districts.  This is entirely contrary to the well-oiled practice in the face-to-face service structure where districts over yonder (where ever that is) split off to form a new Area.  FWIW, the same process applies to Districts when Groups over yonder split off and form a new District.  

TEMPORARY SOLUTION?  I disagree.  Once implemented, it will be next to impossible to undo and fix.  The GEA has stated that they do not want groups changing districts, so given that as a foundation of their thinking on districting.  If the GEA does not want to deal with groups changing districts, why would the GEA consider a restructuring of the districting plan?  Given what we have seen so far, it is clear that the GEA is determined to administer the districting of the GEA themselves without assistance or additional input from the groups.  It is equally clear that the Task Force recommendation is intentionally incomplete and vague which gives the GEA almost unlimited latitude on how they chose to implement the recommendation.  I can't imagine a reason why the GEA would encounter a problem with the implementation that they couldn't solve with a dart board given the incomplete and vague guidelines of the recommendation.  
If the incompleteness & vagueness of the Task Force recommendation was of any concern to the GEA, they would not be presenting the recommendation as their complete solution.  

In closing, I'd like to ask everyone here in this Business Meeting to think about this . . . how would you like it if the ASP Steering Committee operated like this?  

Instead, when we have an issue that involves a change in ASP operation, even changes much smaller than the districting issue, we discuss the issue over a period of 3 Business Meetings, minimum.  Serious decisions deserve serious discussion and consideration.  

Time to take the puppy outside.  😊

Love and SERENITY,	
Steve

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Businessmtg On Behalf Of Anne 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 3:34 PM
To: steve at serenitysys.com
Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
Subject: [Businessmtg] Districting

Hi folks,

First, thank you all for your input, grateful to see so much dialogue.  

I am back online and trying to catch up with the discussion/questions.  I am pausing again, Steve and I had a long talk yesterday and I have been sorting through all of his points now.  The biggest issue for me is that there is so much intertwined into the simplistic approach the taskforce has taken, which is simply to break the groups out into meeting start times and the map of the world to get a good cross section for the districts without really considering platform or language.  I continue to believe that this is really what was done in the world of brick and mortar and so I am a little "okay"
with this.  Consider this when looking at F2F meetings.  They meet in a variety of spaces, churches of all denominations, supermarket common areas
(went to one of those), schools, parks, etc.    Districts were/are defined
by geographic boundaries, years ago, when I was a GR, my district met locally but the Area we were in had their meetings more than an hour away and so I opted out of attending those.  The only constant that I saw then was that the geographic boundaries made language a non-issue.

There are some strong feelings against this task force recommendation, and so I would like to understand what those objections are from those of you have experience with district meetings as a GR or a DR, I would like to hear more from you.  I am struggling to understand why platform is so important to some of you.  

>From my perspective, I don't think platform matters, if there are tech issues, all groups can reach out to the GEA tech coordinator if there is an issue with their platform.  I don't think that I, as GR or DR would be able to fix another email groups technical issue and I don't think district meetings are intended to include that.  Beyond that, I am not sure I am clear on why we can't be part of a district that has a mix of platforms or as a "minority" platform.  

Yes this is a simple yes/no vote and the GR's have had little say in this and while the presentation covered many things, I am not sure it really is KBDM in action.  I continue to be uneasy with the fact that once we vote yes, we don't know what the "plan" is.  We know that if we vote no, a new task force will be created and we start over again.

It seems to me, that if this recommendation is accepted, those that are responsible for the next step towards implementation may run into an issue with it and have to modify it to move on - which means a new task force and new/modified recommendation.  Seems like our votes may be temporary and change as the process moves forward.

Tangled within all of this is the fact that one area simply cannot serve all the electronic groups.  Languages other than English, Spanish and French are a large problem for WSO, there is little representation in the current structure, with the addition of electronic meetings, it has become even more apparent.  If there was an area that served those countries and groups it may be that with the help of a GEA or WSO tech coordinator that area could come up with a solution.

Based on the outcome s of this week's discussion, I may bring some of our points to the GEA leadership for their consideration.  A separate topic from districting but an important one.

FYI, I have copied the report Lynne shared on my behalf below for easy reference.

I will continue  reading all of your input, it has been very helpful!

Anne

 
Here again is the Task Force recommendation that GR's will vote on January 20th 

Recommendations of the GEA Districting Task Force

* All groups registered in the GEA, regardless of whether or not they have a GR, will be placed in districts.

* Groups will be assigned to districts. Groups will not choose their district.

* Districts will, whenever possible, consist of up to 20 groups.

 

* DR terms will align with the terms of the current panel. Thus DRs elected during this panel will serve until 12/31/24.

* Because 57% of the GEA groups do not have a GR, it is recommended that districts include a mix of groups that have and do not have a GR, so as to avoid inadvertently creating districts in which none of the groups have a GR.

* The UTC meeting start times displayed in the electronic meetings list on Al-Anon.org are to be the primary consideration for sorting groups into districts. Language and platform will have the next highest priority followed by language.

* To promote unity and understanding in the GEA, each district where possible will include a mix of at least two platforms.

The primary means of sorting groups into district will be based on meeting start times, and those will be mapped to UTC - Coordinated Universal time.
The Task force had a pie chart that broke the world into these "buckets" - a great visual that was not shared with GRs to 

bring back to their groups.   And while, I don't have the pie chart that 

illustrated how the groups would be mapped to districts, this site has helpful information UTC Time Standard (timeanddate.com) [1]

 

The taskforce used the KBDM process to put together their recommendation, It is not perfect but it is a start. For us as an email meeting that meets 24/7, our placement into a district that is based on UTC and meeting start times will be tricky.  I haven't really heard much about how that will work for the 24/7 groups and there is still the question of accessibility for those groups that are not English, French or Spanish speaking.  Again, the plan is not perfect but is a start and one that I am sure will be refined over time.