[Businessmtg] Qualifications +

[Jerry]

"One year's participation in ASP is a prerequisite to serving as an officer of ASP.  Participation may take many forms, but merely having one's email address on the ASP server is not participation."
- - - - -

This current back-and-forth has me worried. The only simple interpretation of ASP's stated qualification for standing for officer positions is "One year's participation in ASP".

It does not say one year of service participation.

Indeed it accepts that participation can take many forms. So, say a candidate has been a member of ASP for 365 days and during that year they have shared on topics regularly - let's just say they shared every day. How is that person excluded from standing for an officer position by the simplest interpretation of our stated policy? They have participated in ASP for one year.

Because there had been no reason for me to think otherwise, that last bit about "merely having one's email address on the ASP server" not being sufficient was meant to exclude from eligibility anyone who was officially a member by virtue of having joined, but who wasn't active in the topic meeting - lurkers and seldom sharers. We need to "know", as best we can, the people for whom we're considering casting our votes.

This may not have been the intent of the authors, but it is what the words say. A person who has been a member for one year and has participated in meetings is eligible to stand for office any way I read the language, and I'm a very critical reader.

For the record there would be nothing wrong with having a prior service requirement as a prerequisite for standing for officer positions. That pattern exists commonly within Al-Anon... i.e.: in order to stand for Delegate one must be first a current District Rep or past DR who's still active at the Area level [in my Area with a minimum of three years of DR service]. Because ASP formulated its policies and practices incorporating elements of procedures from the many levels of Al-Anon, prior service requirements wouldn't be out of line - but the words we chose do not state that.

Extending our chosen words beyond their simplest meaning, even to various recollections of intent or especially alternative interpretations, is confusing territory for us all.
- - - - -

A word on comportment.

It is my opinion that in order to be effective leaders it is necessary to behave kindly to one another. If a candidate or current trusted servant is unable to commit to this it would be my hope they wouldn't be elected to office, even though they may officially qualify for a position by policy, or they would step down.

This is especially true where only one person stands for a position as seems to be happening a lot here. No choice means, well, no choice. You get what you get, not what you want (or perhaps need).
- - - -

Lastly, there are a thousand recovering souls over in our topic meetings. Let's not screw this thing up. This Business Meeting needs to find its footing again. Of late it seems we can't discuss or disagree without getting into blood feuds. Back and forth bickering. Personalities bristling. Do we want this to continue? Not me.

I suspect it will come down to whether or not we as individuals are able to walk the path of the Principles our fellowship espouses and accept our Group Consciences as the expression our Higher Powers' will for our group. Guess we'll see.

In service,
Jerry
-