[Peace-discuss] AWARE Minutes-10-10-04 (objection and voting rules)

[C. G. Estabrook]

Randall--

I still wonder a bit about how such a constitutional decision could be
made. Could it have been concluded if there had been an objection?  (I
would have objected.) But as I've said before I think AWARE, given its
fluid membership, works best on moral (not necessarily statistical)
unanimity: those who thoroughly disagree will simply go away.  That said,
it's obviously in AWARE's interest to maintain that moral unanimity.  One
of my objections to the rally sponsorship is that it threatens that unity,
in a predictable way (as the Frank book describes).

As a group dedicated to opposition to the war policy of the US government
and its concomitant racism, AWARE should realize that these sentiments are
not restricted to conventional liberals or to the narrow self-described
"left" in American society.  AWARE will lose some of its effectiveness if
it's seen as confined to those precincts. It was founded (long ago, in
2001) precisely to bring together local people from a variety of positions
who were shocked at the US war policy and the attitudes to peoples around
that world that went with it.

I've suggested why I think this sponsorship is a mistake for AWARE, both
substantively and tactically.  (As Wendy Edwards remarks perceptively,
"most of us probably would not expect to see Planned Parenthood organizing
anti-war demonstrations...")  But I think it would simply compound an
error to spend meeting time on considering whether to affirm or rescind
the co-sponsorship. That would be being distracted in exactly the way that
I'm objecting to.

And it would perhaps be even worse to make this matter a constitutional
crisis for AWARE, perhaps resulting in even more rigid rules.  (The
rigidity of the rule decided in the summer -- apparently when I was out of
town -- seems to me already a wrong turning. What's to be gained by
"winning" a vote in AWARE?  The losing side will simply drift away.) It's
been observed that many voluntary groups come together around a particular
way of being concerned about the world -- and slowly become a particular
way of being concerned about the group itself...

I'd suggest we -- to coin a phrase -- move on, let the matter stand, and
not consider it any further at the meeting.  I'd much prefer AWARE return
to being concerned about the world, and the war our country is waging
against it.  

Regard, Carl
 

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Randall Cotton wrote:

> Yes, there were rules agreed on in June/July of last year regarding
> consensus and a percentage vote alternative for making
> decisions/resolutions within AWARE. Also, for better or for worse,
> there was a provision for raising objection regarding a decision made
> when one was not in attendance.
> 	... Now, from these two excerpts (and from my own personal
> recollections, which essentially match the text), it is clear that if
> Carl wishes, he may raise his objection in person on Sunday, whereupon
> the decision will be revisited. That is:
> 
> 1. Carl raises his objection (if he attends and wishes to)
> 
> 2. There is discussion.
> 
> 3. Consensus without objection is checked (and if it exists, the
> decision is finalized)
> 
> 4. If, however, there is an objection (which prevents consensus),
> anyone may call for a vote. A 90% or greater vote in favor finalizes
> the decision, less than 90% cancels the decision. We have no provision
> for "abstentions", so the 90% would be with respect to the total
> number of votes (as opposed to the total number of people in
> attendance, some of whom may choose not to vote either way).
> 
> Most folks in AWARE, I estimate, are probably unhappy with the specter
> of hashing this out at the next meeting. I'm not particularly thrilled
> with it myself. However, I also suspect that most folks would dislike
> arbitrarily discarding established rules even more (and I have to
> count myself in that group).
> 
> Perhaps Carl will abstain.
> 
> But if not, I feel we should prepare for the ramifications.
> 
> Carl, I think it would be of great help if you would disclose whether
> you plan to raise formal objection in person at the next meeting.
> Would you care to oblige?
> 
> R
>