[Businessmtg] Note on Our Founding Documents re: Substantial Unanimity

[Jerry]

Biz-Pals,

I believe our decision on archiving members' topic shares is a major change requiring three Business Meeting discussions before a motion could be formed.

Further it's high time we consider how our Founding Policies [FP's] apply to voting and importantly how to count the votes.

Worth noting, the Business Meeting can not change ASP's Founding Policies [see FP#1.] Changes to Founding Policies can only happen if there is an approval by 3/4s of the ENTIRE ASP MEMBERSHIP. (not yelling)

Motion #4, which seems to imply that a 2/3rds vote in the BM could change our Founding Policy, is superseded by our Founding Policies, and is therefore improper in this respect. The BM is not permitted to change Founding Policy per FP#1.

Note that the Founding Policies state that in order to make substantive changes to the meeting it specifies that 2/3rds of the VOTING members approve (again, not yelling,) are required, not 2/3rds of all the attending members [FP#6c.] This is in stark contrast to how ASP counts its votes, where the voting members and the not voting members are combined when calculating whether the 2/3's or 50% thresholds are met. We ought to be counting only the yeas & nays, not the "did not vote's" if we're to stick to our Policies.

The original motion to stop archiving members' topic shares, according to how ASP's Founding Policies specify how to determine results of Group Conscience voting, passed. It did not fail - except that it did not get discussed over three Business Meetings before the vote.

One could reasonably determine that we've had two Business Meetings discussing archiving shares, and one more BM would satisfy Policy where upon a vote could be held and votes counted as required by Policy and we could move on.

In service,
Jerry
-