[Businessmtg] "Participation" Discussion

[Edward Graeff]

To this I would add the 'what if' what if only one person stepped for ward for a position?  We have to be careful; the more we write about these things, the more complicated they seem to get.

ED

On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:36 PM, logmark at comcast.net wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> -    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>