[Businessmtg] further thoughts on donations, etc.

[logmark at comcast.net]

Biz-Pals, 

  

[Odd thing just discovered: all my ASP addresses in my email 

address book have disappeared - nothing else, just ASP addys . 

H-m-m-m-m - did G-d do for me what I couldn't do for myself? :-)] 

  

First off, I didn't know it was proper to solicit particular 

types of input. I would think we would be interested in hearing 

from all points of view, not just input from those against 

sending monies to the WSO. Possibly just bad wording, but 

it sure sounds like only "No's" need apply... 

_ _ _ _ _ 

  

Just because a bunch of folks decided to form online Al-Anon groups 

does not and never did force Al-Anon's WSC or WSO to acquiesce to the 

demands of these groups. What Al-Anon decided to do was apply the 

policies it had always had for Lone Members to online groups: they 

both, by policy, have their interests represented within the WSO. 

  

I think they could have chosen better - that an online information 

service [think the OLA.IS] could have been a better way to go. That 

on line group representation could have served Al-Anon well without 

tipping the Al-Anon boat. But, for reasons I am not privy to, they 

did not. For all I know they had very good reasons. Maybe they just 

acted out of a lack of information, or even out of fear of the unknown. 

It's unlikely they acted out of disregard or disdain. 

  

Now Steve has made it abundantly clear that he is at loggerheads 

with the WSO on this issue as he has been on other issues for some 

time. I have to take that into consideration when I read his contributions 

to this business meeting. This doesn't make him wrong or the WSO right. 

It's just the way it is right now. 

  

Six years ago, at the end of the first quarter of 2007, we finally 

reached the point where we had funds in excess of our then $1280 

Prudent Reserve. When I as treasurer sent that first (and only) check 

to the WSO for $19.51 as I mistakenly thought was the group's agreement 

at the time (in large part because I had never been a part of a group that 

refused donating to the WSO) I caught quite a scolding. Here we are six 

years later and we are only now getting back around to addressing what has 

been a pressing issue for many of us for all these years. 

  

The following are the year-end balances ASP has carried for the last 

six years: 

  

2007 $1344.76 

2008 $1624.67 

2009 $1549.20 

2010 $1975.66 

2011 $2051.49 

2012 $2037.62 

  

What this means to me is that we have continuously had member donations 

which reliably covered our group expenses for all these months plus extra 

on top which built up our treasury to reach our prudent reserve within the 

first two years that ASP accepted donations (11/2005 - 12/2007.) Since then 

we have continued to have donations grow well beyond our monthly expenses 

despite some of our past donors withholding until this issue is resolved. 

  

I have no doubt that ASP's membership will continue and even expand our 

financial security once we get past this. So how do we go about this? 

  

It seems there is movement afoot to fund the "ola-is" directly rather than 

have it be supported by its parent organization [is it not now a committee 

under the WSO? If not then the problems minimize. But if it is indeed now 

a committee acting under the WSO's umbrella then there are Al-Anon Policies 

against earmarking funds for particular committees and purposes [see the 

Service Manual.] How do we donate to [the ola-is as their site address 

indicates, or the On Line Al-Anon Outreach Committee as their web site 

states] until these details are clarified? I say we can't because we 

would be then at risk of either avoiding Principles agreed to by the WSC 

group conscience or donating to an outside entity - another no-no. 

[Why is there no Al-Anon logo on their website?] 

  

Locally we are setting up an I.S. office. There are many specific things which 

have to be done to keep within the bounds of Al-Anon Principles and relevant 

State laws. Is the "OLS-IS" a registered non-profit?. Are its financial statements 

public record - or at least available to member groups? Years ago they posted 

their financials on line (which revealed they had almost no expenses and that 

nearly all of their funds were re-donated to the WSO - which DID accept them 

from what could be then known.) Today I see no such transparency, and their 

web page content is nearly all just links to the WSO content with a meeting 

list attached. 

  

For the record this is what most Information Services do. Nothing wrong with 

it. Too bad we can't have an OLA-IS, but (see paragraph 3 above.) 

_ _ _ _ _ 

  

I think we still do not have enough clear information to donate to the OLAOC . 

Their website asks that checks be made out to "OLA-IS" yet they're the OLAOC . 

We DO have enough clear information to donate to the WSO. If we can't arrive 

at an ASP Donation Policy which covers all possible recipients, we can at 

least make progress where there is little disagreement in principle if not 

amount. 

  

1) I suggest that we make an immediate donation to the 

  WSO of 70% of our 2012 end-of-year excess over our set 

  Prudent Reserve, and that we hold the remaining 30% 

  for re-consideration when we get full clarification of OLAOC's 

  official position within or outside of the Al-Anon structure, 

  and how we might go about making donations to various GSO's. 

  I have no problems supporting the OLAOC should it be shown 

  to be acting within the Al-Anon structure and the WSC's 

  group conscience, and certainly no objections to donating 

  to GSO's should we agree to doing so. 

2) I suggest that rather than have Steve appoint himself as ASP's 

  representative to the OLAOC we have an open call for all members 

  to stand for the position should they wish. He's the obvious 

  candidate from my point of view, but there may be others so inclined. 

  

Lastly I'd like to say that Knowledge-Based Decision Making's 

goal is to find areas of agreement and to then act on them. Our 

differences are important, but not so important that they should 

keep us from making progress where we can. Somewhere between the 

"absolutely yes's " and the absolutely no's " there is a ground 

upon which we all can stand together. If Steve is willing to send 

the WSO 50% and others are willing to send 100% I'm guessing there 

is room in the middle for a percentage most of us can vote "yes" to. 

  

Jerry 

- 

Do what you can where you are.