[Businessmtg] Active Participation

[Mary Beth]

I am hearing that the "healthiness of one's program" is very important to a number of people commenting here.  Email (w/o its f2f non-direct communication capacity) offers a hinderance in refecting this properly, so the mode in which the meeting functions challenges that goal slightly here.  But I do believe we can find good resolution.  I have a request for two items that would be most helpful, if not just for myself but possible others, moving forward.  I offer this at this time of discussing the term "active participation" because I see issues of importance trying to be "squeezed to fit" the reference:  "active participation." I actually think three different areas may collectively evaluate effectively the healthiness of one's program:  the "service description," the resume, the directions given to the voting body before voting takes place.  

So for my own reflection, can I ask these two requests:
1)Could a "service description" for each officer position be posted or sent to me?
2)Could a copy of the resume questions be posted or sent to me?

For myself, I don't believe we can "legislate" something subjective like the quality of shares.  What might be written in a share could be a stream of consciousness offered to the group that is an important tool  for someone to, in fact, work their program.   The once-in-a-while share could indicate that.  If dysfunctional shares were the typical, it may not.  Subjectivity is difficult to communicate byway of service description.  Yet the overall quality of shares would influence voting.  The service description is only one filter in the assessment process.  The health of one's program can also be exhibited in the resume.  Both of those would work in tandem in my mind when evaluting a person.  I offer a third suggestion to incorporate that idea of "how does one evaluate both of these together?"  Similiar to how a judge would offer directions to a jury when deliberating on a case, I think offering directions to the voting body reminding
 them of the group conscience's desire for a given position, will offer an opportunity for all to evaluate an important decision for officers of this group.  

For myself at this time, I need to step back and look at the position itself, what our goals are for this person, and then what this issue of active participation represents in relation to the rest of the process.  If our checks and balances are in place, having an email listed on ASP for one calendar year could very well serve its purpose, qualifying that within that year, the individual holds a seat at the business meeting (maybe for six months?) and holding a chair position (which secures a time commitment as well).  "Active participation" is not the only attibute I would evaluate a person for an officer, but for that one particular component, I believe I would be comfortable.  But I do wish to review the other materials so that I can refect upon them.
Thank you, Mary Beth