[Businessmtg] Motion #20 - Lowering the Requirement for ASP Service

[Jerry H.]

Morning, all,

First off, I believe we should enshrine Steve's comments on how ASP and F2F
Al-Anon are different critters. Thinking of ASP as just another Al-Anon meeting
instead of a new and different format which can reach thousands rather than
dozens with the concomitant increase in administrative demands is foolishness.
Indeed the WSO and the WSC struggle with what we are and where we fit - and for
good reason: we don't exactly fit and we are, technically, nowhere without an
Area or true Al-Anon representation.

All that said we are effective, we are Al-Anon, and we help friends and families
of alcoholics. In many senses we are alone, left to figure many things out on our
own. Steve's reminder of how and why ASP is organized would serve well to bridge
the gap in our members' understandings of ASP administration and the necessary
differences we have from small F2F Al-Anon meetings and the structures which
sustain them.
- - - - -

I do not, however, see the process of change as Steve does. ASP is a much
different critter now than it was in its early days. His numbers are skewed and
inaccurate. In early 2006 ASP had 250 members. Slow growth got us up to that
size over our first 10 years (averging 25 new members a year if my math is
right.) Today, right now, we have 2,808 members. And this has not "suddenly
increased to about 5-6 per day and has remained at that level since" as Steve
claimed - much of this growth having happened since we recently simplified our
enrollment process to make it easier for folks to join us. No, we often experience
much more net daily growth than that today - and more importantly our membership
has NOT remained at either a constant level or at a constant rate, we are growing
constantly and by greater numbers.

With this growth we have NOT had an increase in the underlying support which
sustains us. I haven't seen a Treasurer's Report in a while but I'd be very
surprised to see that members' total donations have risen. Last I saw we had
something like the same old $1,300 plus a few hundred in our account. We CAN NOT
find two (2) members from the full membership to attend the Business Meetings
and stand for the vacant Secretary and Treasurer positions! Beyond that we can't
or won't fill the other Steering Committee seats required by our Founding
Policies*. It's difficult to get Greeters and even Topic Chairs. I manage two (2)
SC-level jobs, Steve manages two (2), Anne O. manages a much larger workload.
Only four (4) people on our SC and we're 1123% bigger than we were 13-1/2 years
ago. We didn't have these problems when we had only 250 members as I recall.
-
* Short one Founder position, short two members-at-large, short one treasurer,
short one secretary, and, technically, short one OLA rep - who could be handling
the new WSO webinars and bulletin board conversations being hosted by them.

No, I disagree that we are lowering our standards when we expect that members
will fill our vacant positions. Increasing service participation, even if it
requires less active ASP participation, raises the standard of service for ASP.
We simply can not continue as we are or into further growth with fewer than the
necessary number of bodies to support ourselves.

What, then, if we were to agree to reset our minimum standard for service for
some positions from 1 year to 6 months and Steve proves correct? If quality
service begins to disappear and the meeting begins to face dire consequences
because of it? My simplest answer is that change isn't permanent and if problems
do arise we can switch back. Not as easy as it sounds, but it's a remedy we have
in our pocket.

What I DO know is that ASP is CURRENTLY suffering from a lack of service and the
consequences are not hypothetical. Four people making the SC decisions instead
of eight? A LA spread thinly who spends 15-20 hours a week (part-time job hours
folks) responding to the increase in member requests and doing the LA and
Secretary and SC jobs (imperfectly.) No or few treasurer's reports or "passing
the basket" emails to the group, beleaguered greeters, repeat topic chairs, and
unresolved differences at many levels.... And even when we have exceptional
agreement on matters in the BM (currently and historically) one or two strong
voices in opposition coupled by a few non-voters stymie that unity.

Steve has voiced his position that unity equals complete agreement. One voice in
opposition determines that unity does not exist. Not my view at all, though it's
a wonderful goal. The method I use for tracking BM members' position(s) and how
they change toward or away from unity is objectionable to him. I get accused of
trying to influence unduly. Of controlling. Well, I strongly disagree with
Steve's position on my motives. Seeking a group conscience and by a level of
unanimity (Substantial Unanimity) accepted by both ASP and Al-Anon principles is
not controlling. Providing transparent information/data is not an attempt to
influence, but to help members put their positions into perspective - much like
being at an Area or District business meeting were everyone is exposed to what
members say and get a feel for the "tide" and direction of the deciding body.

What keeps this ASP BM from complete agreement today is
~ One member insisting on 1 year of active ASP participation,
~ Two members who agree to 6 months of active participation (if they have non-ASP
service experience,) and
~ Two members who have not expressed any position either way.
All these are legitimate positions.

The question is: Is the BM's substantial unanimity (the 11 of us who agree to
the 6-month ASP service minimum) to be outnumbered by a small minority and a
couple of absences? My call as BM Chair is that we have the necessary unanimity
to bring this to a vote and we're doing so. [And in my mind not at all in a
hurried fashion.]

ASP's Business Meeting patterns of late have been similar. More than 2/3rds are
in full agreement on an agenda item and a single, strong oppositional voice near
the end of discussions sways enough BM members away from voting. Since not
voting counts as a "no" vote in Al-Anon structures, motions fail. We'll just
have to see if the BM wishes to continue in this manner or if we're willing to
at least try to make adjustments on some fronts to get more members into
service.

For the record, this IS a blatant attempt to sway members, but NOT to control
your choices. We'll have to see how this all works out when the poll results
roll in.

Hugs in service,
Jerry
-
    

   
> On July 26, 2019 at 5:55 PM Steve Rankin <steve at serenitysys.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi ASPers,
> 
>  
> 
> It seems to me that the problem people have understanding ASP's service
> structure arises when they don't understand the nature of ASP and how it
> really compares to the service structure in f2f Al-Anon.
> 
>  
> 
> A.     For most members of ASP, those that simply participate or even merely
> observe the recovery meeting, ASP is little different than a f2f recovery
> meeting.
> 
> B.     However, behind the scenes, ASP is much more like a World Service
> Area. 
> 
>  
> 
> Note the levels of the f2f AFG service structure:
> 
> A.     Groups. Recovery meetings with GRs. Groups have no geographic
> boundaries - anyone from anywhere can attend any group.
> 
> B.     Districts. Clusters of groups where GRs gather and discuss business
> affecting the local groups, the District, and occasionally the Area. Every
> three years, on a schedule identical to the Area, a DR is elected from the
> outgoing pool of GRs. Districts do have geographic boundaries, but they are
> subjective and determined on an ad hoc basis by the Area. If a District has
> many groups, the Area may split it into two Districts. This happened in my
> District when I was a GR.
> 
> C.     Areas (World Service Areas). Every 3 years, the GRs of the Area elect
> a Delegate and Area Officers (Chair, Alternate Delegate, Secretary,
> Treasurer, . . .) from the pool of those that have served as DRs and Area
> Officers. The Delegate attends the annual World Service Conference where AFG
> policy is made. 
> 
> D.     Regions elect a Regional Trustee from the pool of Past Delegates in
> the Region.
> 
> E.      World Service Office and Board of Directors. The BoD is made of the
> elected Regional Trustees, the appointed At-Large Trustees (2 for the US and
> 1 from Canada), and the Exec Director of WSO. Note that the Exec Director is
> a permanent member of the BoD. The staff of WSO handles the admin of AFG
> under the direction of the Executive Director. 
> 
>  
> 
> So . . . what we did was structure ASP to resemble the Area/WSO level of
> Al-Anon service. Unlike a f2f group, ASP needs people to handle admin chores
> daily. In other words, ASP needs "staff" that run the magic stuff behind the
> curtain so that people can come and go and the meeting goes on smoothly with
> seemingly little to no effort. Additionally, we had personally experienced
> the chaos that occurred at CAFG (an older online meeting started by a f2f
> friend of mine) resulting from an open subscription where anyone could join
> CAFG with a couple of mouse clicks. The growth of CAFG was astounding, but
> the result of the chaos was that it imploded in less than two years. Our
> goal for ASP was to create a healthy and stable meeting. That we are still
> here and humming along 23+ years later says something about how well our
> structure works.
> 
>  
> 
> The first instance of the difference is when someone wants to join ASP.
> Unlike a f2f group where everyone can literally see who is in the meeting,
> the members of ASP are unaware of who is in the meeting. Hence, our
> structured process for joining ASP. It's not perfect, but it does serve
> reasonably well as a safeguard for the members.
> 
>  
> 
> This inability to literally "see" what is happening is huge and affects more
> than many think. First, it prevents members from actually seeing the service
> performed by the trusted servants. No one sees the greeters doing their job.
> No one sees the coffee being made, or the tables and chairs being set up,
> the literature being set out. No one sees who is here at tonight's meeting
> and who isn't, just like no one sees if so-n-so isn't doing their job, or no
> one sees that they are doing something other than what we asked them to do. 
> 
>  
> 
> No one sees that Ms. A's eyes are bloodshot from crying, or hears the
> cracking in her voice as she shares or tries to share. She's a regular with
> several years in Al-Anon, but something happened and she's in incredible
> pain and probably doesn't even share that night; but we saw her and shared
> with her after the meeting. Likewise, no one sees Ms. B (whose personal life
> is a perpetual disaster) cornering every newcomer and collecting sponsees
> like Girl Scout merit badges.  Or Mr. Q that has a penchant for sweet
> talking the newbies that are young and pretty, while being sure to get their
> phone numbers. Likewise, no one sees the young woman walking from the
> meeting instead of getting into her car like everyone else. The bus stop is
> a mile away and she's afraid to ask for a ride to the bus stop. Hell, I'm
> sure one of us would be glad to give her ride home, and even gladder to pick
> her up next week.
> 
>  
> 
> Note how a new member to Al-Anon interested in service must first become a
> GR for their group, then after serving for 3 years get elected as a DR, then
> after serving for 3 years as a DR, get elected as an Area Officer. So, by
> the time a member get elected as an Area Officer, they have 6+ years in
> Al-Anon and most likely 6+ years in the service structure. Yes, there are
> some that short-circuit this for one reason or another, and there are others
> like myself that served in many other positions along the way and had 15-20
> years in the program and all kind of service before becoming an Area
> Officer. I'll note that both my wife and I have observed that the results of
> a member getting involved in service too much, too fast tends to be ugly.
> Why is that?
> 
>  
> 
> Getting involved in service too much, too fast tends to change the
> individual's focus from their recovery to the service. Then, after having
> done that service, they move to the next level of service, again focusing on
> the service instead of their recovery. Along the way, they often get
> involved in snafus because they don't have the recovery to recognize the
> principles of AFG in a situation and their actions tend to reflect their
> lack of recovery and understanding of the principles. For those that get
> fast-tracked and wind up getting elected Delegate after just a few years
> (9-10), they have a high incidence of crashing and burning badly after
> rotating out because they don't have sufficient personal recovery to deal
> with just being a member.
> 
>  
> 
> Now, recall that ASP is structured like an Area and that our trusted
> servants have duties and responsibilities that often far exceed what they
> might have in a f2f meeting, and now it is being suggested that we shorten
> the tenure requirements to serve. One of the long-timers even suggested that
> a month in ASP would be enough. How could that possibly be good for either
> ASP or the member involved?  What is being set up is a scheme where someone
> - with perfectly good intentions - could join ASP, become a greeter after
> just 6 months, serve a year and be eligible to serve as the List
> Administrator when Jerry rotates out. 
> 
>  
> 
> Frankly, that wouldn't have scared me nearly so much before when the
> greeters actually exchanged emails with new members and spent some personal
> quality time with some of them in the process. Now that the system is highly
> automated, the greeters work is much simpler but the opportunities for them
> to practice their program is equally diminished, as is the Greeter Chair's
> opportunity to observe their personal work. 
> 
>  
> 
> Some folks seem to subscribe to the idea that having done service in f2f
> Al-Anon should count towards serving at ASP.  Would your f3f home group
> elect some from another group on the night you were electing a new GR? Would
> the Washington State Area accept my Al-Anon service resume from California
> and allow me to stand for Delegate in Washington?  No way. There is a reason
> why the Service Manual describes a process where the groups elect GR from
> their group members - often limiting the voting to just those that are "Home
> Group" members, then the District elects the new DR from the existing GRs,
> and so on. Regardless of your previous experience elsewhere, you are a
> newcomer in the new group/District/Area in terms of eligibility to serve.
> Besides, as I've pointed out above, while we try to make ASP as much like a
> f2f meeting as possible, the structure of ASP is vastly different from what
> most members of Al-Anon have experienced before. Unfortunately, we've
> experienced the consequences of electing someone with an impressive f2f
> Al-Anon resume, but the new "trusted servant" then worked diligently behind
> the scenes to change ASP into something else, which resulted in major
> problems for ASP that still affect ASP. 
> 
>  
> 
> A related issue is the rather sudden increase in new members that occurred a
> few years ago. The flow of new members into ASP was consistently 2-3/day for
> almost 20 years. Then, it suddenly increased to about 5-6 per day and has
> remained at that level since. What happened? Along with that increase, the
> number of members that leave ASP immediately has also increased. As a
> result, the NET increase in members of ASP is minimal. In fact, I seriously
> doubt that ASP has actually increased the number of participating members in
> the last few years, which tells me that the Greeters are spending their time
> whizzing new members through the revolving door, which doesn't really
> accomplish anything if they turn around and leave just a day or two later.
> We need to accept that WE have a problem that we are not dealing with. Yes,
> I know that most new folks leave f2f Al-Anon rather quickly, too. Sigh. It's
> frustrating. But, frankly I believe that we are too focused on getting new
> members and getting them in the door quickly, instead of putting in the
> effort to better inform them about what ASP is and isn't. 
> 
>  
> 
> I'll note that in the first 10 years, the greeters were by far our best
> source of new officers. Unlike the Daily Chairs that simply post a share
> once a week, the greeters used to be thoroughly involved in the behind the
> scenes processes. The Greeter Chair often ran the entire show when I was
> offline, which sometimes was for days and even weeks at a time. There was a
> frequent dialogue between myself and the greeters themselves, not just the
> Greeter Chair. It worked quite well most of the time. OTOH, since giving the
> operation to the membership of ASP, the individuals serving have become less
> well connected with each other as they focused on their own duties and not
> the bigger picture. This was probably especially true for the greeters as
> the greeter process became more bureaucratic and less personal. Obviously,
> the ability and willingness of the officers involved, especially the List
> Administrator, to keep the others fully informed and make them a part of the
> big picture behind the scenes has an impact on the greeters willingness to
> serve as an officer.
> 
>  
> 
> What about the Daily Chairs?  Clearly, ASP relies on our Daily Chairs for
> our recovery meeting, however the Daily Chairs get little if any experience
> with the background of ASP through that type of service. 
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, I understand that both Jerry and Anne are having problems getting
> volunteers to serve as Greeters and Daily Chairs. After 36+ years of
> watching f2f meetings have the same problems, I've yet to see a group
> successfully solve the problem by lowering the standard for serving or
> diluting the service position. Instead, the catch-22 of unintended
> consequences raises its ugly head sooner rather than later and the end
> result is worse than before. 
> 
>  
> 
> IMHO, a better solution might be to (a) revert back to the previous
> personalized greeter procedures. While that might not process new members as
> rapidly or easily as the current web-based process, it would provide a
> better Al-Anon experience for our greeters. As for the Daily Chair question?
> If we don't have a Daily Chair for Tuesday, for example, then let the
> meeting go dark on Tuesday. The reality of life is that when a f2f meeting
> has these kinds of problems it affects the recovery meeting and members get
> the opportunity to see the consequences of no one serving. We've let ASP
> avoid that reality. 
> 
>  
> 
> The bottom line?
> 
>  
> 
> I believe that lowering the requirements for serving ASP is a mistake that
> will haunt ASP in the future. 
> 
>  
> 
> Love and SERENITY,
> 
> Steve
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The ASP Instruction page is http://asp-afg.org/members/asp-instructions/
> 
> The ASP web site for ASP members is http://www.asp-afg.org/Members/
> 
> For assistance with other ASP issues, contact Jerry the List Administrator, at
>  la at asp-afg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Businessmtg mailing list
> Businessmtg at asp-afg.org
> http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/businessmtg