The Motion was Adopted.
There were 20 votes. Those in favor: 20; Those opposed: 0; Those with no opinion: 0. The motion received 100% in favor. As to a Town Hall discussion, 18 members voted. 11 said yes, 7 said no. While that measures 61% in favor, a Town Hall discussion is presently only held if a measure doesn’t pass.
Motion 24 – 2: Adopting the Recommended Proposal Process
This motion is being recommended by the Business Meeting Study Group
Issue: We make the motion that the proposal process outlined in this document be approved of for gathering a Group Conscience on issues before the membership.
Background: At the January 2024 monthly business meeting of the Strengthening My Recovery (SMR) ACA group, a motion was passed to utilize online polling as a way to determine the group conscience around a business proposal. The goal was to offer an opportunity to participate to a larger portion of the meeting membership. Given our resources – an informed and involved membership willing to do service, and a website, a newsletter and a mailing list – we expect this method to be very successful.
Implementation will require a small team of members to monitor the process in order to bring issues before the group. This team could be led by the Business Meeting Cochairs.
Please offer comments below – pro or con, questions or suggestions or personal experience. The comments will comprise our discussion of the issue and will include any type of Minority Opinion. If the motion has not been seconded already in the comments, please note if you would second this motion. The comment period will be open for 3 weeks. Return to the Business Meeting Practices page for additional clarity.
Comments closed on April 30th and are availabe to read below.
Now, Offer Your Vote! – The polling will be open until May 14th.
Thank you for participating in reaching a Group Conscience. (NOTE: It may take a day or two for your comments to appear on the webpage.)
I understand the desire for efficiency in decision-making in large group setting, and an on-line poll seems to lend a functional “direct-democracy” solution.
I am reluctant to endorse this approach, however.
It runs counter to the principles behind consensus decision making that tend to be heralded in ACA literature, including our big book. (sadly, my ebook does not have page numbers, but see for example the chapter on Group Organization and Procedures). Even if we set a passage requirement of 75% and call that “substantial unanimity,” we have still left out all the more organic, loving, and very important parts of the process that lead to unanimity sometimes, and, at a minimum, an opportunity for every voice to be acknowledge. Almost completely left out is the chance to ask and hear of dissenters, “can you live with this outcome?”
Again, I get that we are valuing widespread participation here, aiming for bringing in as many voices as possible. This is noble of course. But does it create too high a cost in the loss of dynamic, real-time consensus building?
I worry too that we are letting a desire for speed, efficiency, and determination to overcome the healing process and family love dynamic modelling that we are doing here. Maybe it takes a year, maybe a decade to decide issues as a result. We have a workable community based framework for dealing with practical issues already, the meeting goes on every day, this website is still up, adult children are recovering. We can (and do) form ad-hoc committees to address pressing issues. So what if it takes a longer time to decide these strategic issues? ACA is a process (not result) driven enterprise. Success is showing up, everything that comes after is just butter.
The picture painted here of “organic, loving” and “dynamic, real-time consensus building” has not been the experience of our business meetings. I wish it were. We are adult children. More often the experience is fractious and spirals toward addictive excitement and chaos.
This proposed method supports calm reflection of the ideas and suggestions of the group.
The real-time business meeting is the process that fosters “speed, efficiency, and determination”. In a real-time meeting there may only be 10 or 15 minutes devoted to a motion, at which time a vote is usually called for. With the proposal process outlined here, there are 3 weeks of comment and reflection before a vote is even begun. And then, there are 2 weeks in which to find the time to vote.
Here are some other points to consider:
– Everyone can participate. No one is required to fit into the business meeting time schedule.
– All voices are heard. In a business meeting, discussion may be cut short. Indeed the other format that we are looking at presently states that if there are more than 10 members present, then only 2 people will speak for each position, pro and con.
– Members may comment more than once.
– The 5 week process brings down the temperature of the debate.
– The opportunity exists within the process to choose to have a Town Hall discussion, if the issue is complex, nuanced or evenly divided.
– The Big Red Book was written for a different kind of meeting. An in-person meeting of 40 or 50 people was huge – a world-wide online group of 300 was unimaginable. If we are drawing from ACA liturature for guidance, then the OPPM, the Operating Procedures and Policy Manual, which describes the WSO Annual Business Conference and the Ballot Proposal Process would be much more appropriate. Indeed, since 2020, the World Service Organization has moved the Business Conference from an in-person event to an exclusively online and digital experience. And perhaps we could note that our daily meeting has more members than the number of world-wide delegates to the Conference.
Yes, change may be a bit frightening. It may also be liberating. I think this process could be given a chance.
Really good points, Eric.
I wanted to share a couple thoughts, if that is OK.
You’ll hopefully be happy to hear that within the process, there are multiple steps to keep the large, worldwide fellowship informed and involved, an important step being at least one Town Hall for the type of discussion you are recommending (which I agree with as extremely valuable for non-bread-and-butter issues that are not straightforward, and that deserve/need a discussion as part of the process.
As a member of the Safety Policy Study Group, in our tests/experimentations, we’ve found that a mixture of communication methods and outreach are part of the discuss of items – in many cases – before they come to final polling.
I am in agreement with using the online proposal process.
I tend to agree with Eric. The BRB makes it clear that business meetings can be contentious. Trying to fix it may be an attempt at control. This meeting has a tendency to seem like “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all” encouraging the “Don’t talk” rule. Also, there seems to be no room to propose amendments
I would suggest an amendment in the comments, and that is I may do as well…
The ACA WSO organization as a whole is struggling with this same issue – how to get more of the fellowship involved in collaborating in (productive) decision-making for the group. Many ACA groups – this one included – have suffered from a few making decisions for the many. I have been told this is part due to the “heatedness” of some business meeting participants (addiction to excitement? being a reactor instead of an actor? not bringing the loving parent?) which has turned members of the fellowship off to even attending. Plus, our group is truly world wide, which was not even a consideration when the BRB was written with guidance for meetings. For these reasons, I see this as a great solution… if done right… so I applaud the group conscience decision to execute this approach and learn.
I agree with this.
The Big Red Book was published in 2006 which was about the time the very first Skype video calls were happening and way before the 2013 rollout of Zoom. After that, we had 2020 and the pandemic which moved a whole lot of meetings to online and created meetings like our own that are strictly online.
I’m working from the premise that online/global meetings are inherently different than in-person/local meetings. Our membership is fluid with tons of new people coming in all the time. Those of us who stay in the meeting for a while get to know each other and, hopefully, a measure of respect develops as we wrangle with the relatively new questions of how to facilitate large meetings across world time zones. The process is very different from a static meeting of 20-30 participants that meets in one place and one time zone and will hardly ever entertain a single person from the other side of the world.
If we are to survive, we must adapt. Change is not comfortable for most of us and living in the space of the unknown (Will this work? Is there a better way? Will people hate me for having a different opinion?) is very stressful. But we know the process described in the BRB did not work for our group. We know because we struggled to make it work for years. It never did.
The process described here may not be perfect and will probably require some adjustments as we refine it, but already it’s proven to be more effective at gauging the will of the entire meeting. It’s a slow, methodical, and careful process that allows for a lot of feedback, and even creates space for Town Hall meetings to discuss proposals that need more development from the original motion.
The unknown can be scary, but it’s the place where creativity happens and where we truly must put our faith in a higher power leading us to harmony and resolution. Thank you, Business Meeting Study Group for you perseverance in creating a method for everyone to participate in the decision-making process.
I am a proponent of following a process such as this one that allows for a mixture of human-to-human discussion and use of online polling for the Group Conscience voting. In fact, this was the process used to get to the highest voting turnout (172 votes) ever in the life of this large, worldwide, 4-year old meeting.
And I do believe I understand this process will continue to include:
• A webpage with the description of the motion, background, etc. Comments can be added and viewed by others.
• Announcements can be made at the daily meeting with links, including linking to a News post on the website, for full fellowship awareness.
• If appropriate, a Town Hall for discussion. I believe this can be part of the initial comment period OR it can be the outcome of the initial comment period. [Some motions – slide layouts, for example – may not warrant a group meeting in many folks’ estimation, so keeping that as optional makes sense.]
• After all input has been received, a final motion is developed/refined and put up for vote.
My personal opinion is another side benefit: no “food fights” as someone labeled the extremely dysfunctional business meetings that existed a short year ago, and that caused three business meeting chairs (GC Secretaries) to “walk off the job” in the space of a single year. This new method helps us bring our adults to the process, knowing we will all have time to collect our thoughts, voice our opinions, and to be heard. And then to all be part of this thriving global fellowship in the truest sense, through our Group Conscience votes.
Thank you for this clear description of the problem and the value of polling as a solution. Polling doesn’t mean that there will be no discussion. There can be discussion in the after meeting or in a Town Hall. I believe there is also some discussion during the business meeting, but we have trouble getting to new business, ever, so a different venue is probably the best place for longer discussion.
This process makes sense to me and seems like a way of encouraging global fellowship and participation. It gives time for people to digest information, have their opinions be heard, and invites more of the fellowship into the process. I am someone who because of time constraints cannot come to the business meetings but I would like to participate in decision making.
Same person, this is me seconding this motion.
Overall, I find this meeting to be one of the most well-run meetings I have attended. Kudos to the founding fellow travelers and those tasked with its maintenance and continued growth. Creating opportunities for people to be heard safely, whether live or electronically, is an important part of the program and ultimately, our collective healing process. Slight changes to the format and layout will not deter my meeting attendance, but having heated and disrespectful disagreements frequently might. Thumbs up for an online commenting option.
I like the online proposal idea! Completing a survey is one of the only ways my inner child can participate in decision making for this meeting. The business meetings are too triggering to her and a reenactment of family trauma. Maybe someday I will be integrated enough to participate more fully in business meetings, but for now surveys help her to feel valued and welcome. Gives her agency. Thanks for implementing it!
I think it’s a good proposal and definitely worth trying. No way 100’s of people can make it to any meeting or even want to. This offers a chance, for those interested, to voice their opinions. I don’t see any other way really.
I agree with the proposal.
On another note, from my experience, over many years of being involved in many organizations, to this very day, it is quite common for a small number of people to do most of the work in any organization. This is unfortunate but sadly true.
I would say it’s worth a trial basis for a proposed period of time to see if it will be effective and show up any unforeseen pitfalls.