[Businessmtg] "Participation" Discussion

[logmark at comcast.net]

Biz-Pals, 



Somethings I've been thinking over: 



Almost always we have only one person standing for a position. 

With no opportunity to choose between two or more candidates, 

the only means we have to assure good orderly direction for ASP's 

future is to: 



a) set minimum standards for candidates which would improve our 

   chances of a single candidate being a good trusted servant, 

b) set our minimum standards "low" enough to encourage multiple 

   candidates thereby giving us choices, or 

c) take our best shot at interpreting Al-Anon policies, which are 

   developed with only f2f meetings in mind, and trusting our 

   Higher Power(s) to see to it that everything works out okay. 



Or, perhaps a little of all of the above... 



Upon further consideration it has occurred to me that we have no 

"Exit Plan." What if an elected officer needs to be removed for 

the good of the group? Risks are easier to take if errors can 

be corrected. Do we need a policy on removal of an officer? 



Up until now we've been talking about all officer positions as 

requiring equal qualifications/participation. I think that's a 

mistake. The key position here as far as keeping the train on 

the tracks is the List Administrator position. At our Area level 

one doesn't stand for Delegate unless one has served as a District 

Rep for two years. I'd say that the LA position is as important to 

ASP as the Delegate position is to an Area. 



Why not set a minimum "Participation" requirement for the LA position 

to include at least a full rotation as a Chairman plus regular participation in the Business Meetings (or some such formula,) 

or even two years of active service to ASP? 



Other service positions are important also, but may not need quite 

the same limiting requirements - even much less than a year wouldn't 

hurt for some and it may encourage more participation from newer ASP 

members who have lengthy f2f service histories. 



Bottom line, I think the one-year blanket covers too much or too 

little ground. 

- - - - - 



Things others have mentioned that I agree with, or think is important: 



That the resume asks the probing questions about "How have you participated in ASP...," and service positions held to include f2f. 



That candidates identify themselves by both their name and email name 

so I can cast my vote with some knowledge of the person's ASP history 

both as a sharing member and as a past servant. 



That regular Business Meeting participation be an absolute requirement 

for principle officer candidates. 



That one year's participation in ASP is a prerequisite to serving [in 

the Secretary and Treasurer positions?] {Two years for LA} {Topic Chair 

could be for less, but would prevent elevation to LA, etc.} 

What I'm getting at is not recommending any details, but suggesting 

a sliding scale or some sort. 

- - - - - 



In our old "Twelve and Twelve" there is a statement which reads 

approximately, "Our meetings are made up of both listening and sharing 

[emphasis added]..." Anyone who does not share regularly enough to 

be readily recognized would not, in my mind, be an appropriate 

trusted servant (TRUSTED servant.) I'd hope the voting would take 

care of this. However, since it has been somewhat unusual for two 

or more to stand, I believe that we could consider implementing 

a "Substantial Majority" standard for electing any officer. Should 

no one receive [2/3's?] of the votes of the total membership 

of the Business Committee or other electing body, then no one is 

elected. We could follow the plan in the Service Manual for retaking 

votes until we come to a resolution. 



Too much thinking for this old noggin on a Friday night... 



Have a good weekend everyone. 



Jerry 

-