|
How does it differ from consensus?
CONCURRENCE
Concurrence, the idea of concurring in another League's consensus or
affirming its position on a common program issue, began to have
currency during the early years of our water study when Leagues in the
same river basins found it necessary, indeed imperative, that they
speed up their consensus process on management of water resources in
their common river basin. Local League members in river basins have
managed this technique for almost 20 years with little difficulty, with
ease, aplomb and confidence mainly because the technique made good
sense.
With the approval of the area League concept that began in the
early sixties, the national board incorporated the concurrent theme
into the organizational structure of area Leagues. Members in area
Leagues are in the habit of regu1arly concurring in the consensus
reached by the separate components of their League's organizationa1
structure.
Concurrence in previously reached positions by League members
other than those in our local League is a1so operative every day,
although many of us may not have previously recognized it as such.
Every member who joins the League concurs in program positions a1ready
in place, such positions having been researched, studied, discussed,
and agreed upon before the new member's arrival on the League scene.
The same concurrence is applicable and operable for those League
members who move from League to League. The positions of your new
League, local and state, automatically become your positions. If you
took the time, and energy to research, study and discuss, you would
probably arrive at these same positions. I can concur with the
conclusions drawn by those members who attended unit meetings and
studied a specific item.
Another form of concurrence occurs regularly when a position is
adopted at a local annual meeting or a state or national convention. At
the 1971 nationa1 convention, delegates not only adopted a position
extending the apportionment principle, but a1so extended the Human
Resources position to include women and Indians. The delegates also
went a step further to declare a position on a specific piece of
legislation to implement a position--the Equal Rights Amendment. While
many state and loca1 Leagues had a long history of study and action on
this subject at the state level, there had been no national study per
se by all Leagues. Yet, there was overwhelming concurrence and
acceptance of the position adopted by convention de1egates. In 2006,
the LWVUS convention delegates concurred with the Illinois League's
consensus on abolishing the death penalty. The Illinois League had
spent several years on this item. It seems logical and sensible to
pursue and expand the a1ready tried and accepted League procedure of
concurrence in order to maximize the time, energies, and talents of the
limited member resources availab1e to the League of Women Voters.
The St Petersburg League has reached consensus on Alternative
Voting Systems and is asking concurrence from the other Florida
Leagues. For more information on Alternative Voting Systems, go to the
State website http://lwvfla.org
|