[Businessmtg] ASP BUSINESS KBDM PROCESS

[Steve Rankin]

Hi ASPers, The KBDM process at ASP is clearly laid out on the website. It is a detailed step-by-step process that we use to reach our group consciences at ASP. It is critically important that the process be followed as written, step-by-step. Otherwise the results are easily something other than an informed group conscience. 

 

When we established the KBDM process at ASP, we introduced the process with a few paragraphs before delving into the nuts and bolts of the step-by-step process. Perhaps this introduction needs to be re-read by everyone before we delve into the details:

 

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

 

“The process used for the Business Meeting at ASP is an application of the Knowledge Based Decision Making (KBDM) process as used by the World Service Office (WSO) of Al-Anon.  This process uses a blend of open discussion on a single topic or issue to reach a point where the key parts of the issue have been agreed upon by a substantial majority of the participants.  As the meeting reaches agreement on each sub-part of the issue, the Chair will post a note describing the sub-issue and the agreement(s) reached.  Once the meeting has agreed on all the sub-issues, the meeting will shift to the more traditional parliamentary phase where motions are made.”

 

“It is important to note is that “the KBDM process is very time consuming”.  It is not unusual for an issue to remain unresolved after one session of the Business Meeting.  It is possible that many sessions may be required to develop a true consensus and agree to the various points that are key to the consensus.  Because of this, the KBDM is exceptionally appropriate for policy decisions, but not housekeeping issues.”

 

“Remember:

 

* The decision isn’t as important as the discussion.

* KBDM requires new thinking.

* The purpose of the KBDM is to build consensus!”

 

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

 

I’d like to point out three things from the intro to the KBDM process that are pertinent to the current discussion:

 

1. “As the meeting reaches agreement on each sub-part of the issue, the Chair will post a note describing the sub-issue and the agreement(s) reached.”

 

It seems that we have reached agreement that providing newcomers to ASP with the Newcomer Packet is no longer supported by the ASP membership.  OK. Then the Chair should post a note to that effect and further discussion should be limited to the other sub-issues.

 

 

2. “Once the meeting has agreed on all the sub-issues, the meeting will shift to the more traditional parliamentary phase where motions are made.”

 

It is clear that we have NOT reached agreement on ALL the sub-issues, therefore it is NOT appropriate to shift to the parliamentary phase. Period. 

 

 

3. “It is not unusual for an issue to remain unresolved after one session of the Business Meeting.  It is possible that many sessions may be required to develop a true consensus and agree to the various points that are key to the consensus.” 

 

It doesn’t matter how bored or frustrated anyone is with the process. It is still the process that we use to reach a group conscience. There is no excuse for short-circuiting the process. 

 

Besides, we’d only been on this topic for 5 days when Laura posted her note saying she was “getting bore out my gut on this issue”

 

 

 

Laura stated the KBDM process says “If this process doesn’t appear to be working properly, the Chairperson may switch the Business Meeting to the traditional style based loosely on Roberts Rules of Order.”

 

However, that is NOT true. What the KBDM process actually says is:

 

B. “9. If the Business Meeting seems to be unable to function under the KBDM process for some reason, the Chair may revert to the Robert’s Rules of Order at his or her discretion.

 

It is clear to me that the Business Meeting has been functioning. We have been having a reasonably healthy discussion for the last 5 days, and there is no evidence that the meeting has not been able to function. As Jerry noted, we do have obvious agreement on the primary issue. Yes, some members have worded it differently and perhaps added a bit here or there, but that is what the Chair is supposed to pay attention to and make note of. We DO have agreement on one sub-part (the main part). NOW we should go onto the other sub-parts. 

 

Reverting to Robert’s Rules of Order is out of order. The KBDM process should continue for a period of time (the Chair does get to set a time limit) and if there is no consensus reached, then the Chair can table the discussion until a future meeting. In the mean time, any and all motions are out of order because the KBDM phase has not been thoroughly followed yet and there is no justification for reverting to parliamentary rules.

 

Hugs,

Steve