[Businessmtg] Comments/Input on Anna's Email

[List Administrator]

Hi all, I mistakenly addressed the following to Anna only. Copied it and
pasted...: 

Hi, all,

 There are some misunderstandings built into Anna's questions/comments
which I'll try to address [Look for the >>>>'s within her email for my
input]:

 On 2019-11-11 02:03, Anna wrote:

> Hi all, Anna here again. I know before it was mentioned that the
> reasons ASP has the requirements for service is because it was voted
> on.

  >>>> The reasons for having requirements for service have to do with
having ASP leadership in the hands of experienced and knowledgeable
Al-Anons. Perhaps we could have a discussion sometime in the future why
the founders and more recent Business Meetings, after discussion,
decided by a Group Conscience process and vote to have minimum
requirements.

 Could we do another vote?
   >>>> New business items are submitted to the Steering Committee for
consideration for Business Meeting topics - if changes in requirements
for service are top priority among the possible topic items the BM
agenda will reflect that leading to a discussion in the Business
Meeting. If, after sufficient discussion, a Substantial Unanimity exists
on all or part of the discussion a motion can be entertained and, if
seconded, a vote would be taken. Since changes in trusted servant
requirements could well affect the entire ASP membership, a 2/3rds vote
by the Business Meeting in favor of a motion would be required to pass.
As a side note, The ASP Business Meeting had such a discussion and vote
on a requirement for a service position very recently which, according
to the way ASP counts votes, did not pass. The Group Conscience was to
maintain the existing requirement for service.

 Are these types of things voted on often?
    >>>> Votes are only taken as often as the above-mentioned process
results in a Substantial Unanimity [minimum of 2/3rds of the Business
Meeting agreeing] on the specific topic, and a motion is seconded. Then
we vote.

> Thankfully Beverly has volunteered, but we still have positions toShow

   >>>> Positions ARE rotated - at least the opportunity for rotation is
offered to the Business Meeting. With very rare exceptions ASP has
followed standard Al-Anon rotation suggestions for its officers.
Throughout Al-Anon the accepted period of service for positions from
Group Representatives and Alternate GR's on the group level up through
other elected service positions is three years. ASP officers hold office
for three years then rotate out. Where no member of the Business Meeting
stands for office when a sitting officer's term runs out, or no member
of the Business Meeting has previously served ASP in other service
positions to the degree that they fulfill ASP's requirements to stand
for these offices, the work still needs done or ASP's recovery meetings
would wither on the vine. Sometimes we just have to do with what's
handed us so officers sometimes have to move into other officer
positions or even occasionally volunteer to stay on beyond their
three-year hitch. Is this the fault of the trusted servant who is
willing to continue to serve or the fault of the ASP membership which is
not generating Business Meeting volunteers who serve the group and
qualify for the various positions? I know of no elected ASP officer who
has extended their three-year service commitment when there has been a
qualified candidate for their position who has stood for the office. Not
one.

> Why aren't the vacant positions not announced on
> the main list monthly, at least?  If people don't know there's an
> urgency to fill positions they can't do anything about it. But when we
> continue to make it so hard for them to be filled they seem more like
> restrictions then requirements.

   >>>> Again, the Steering Committee selects topics of the greatest
urgency at the time. Business Meetings can only get so much done in on
meeting in the email format which slows discussions and decision making
way down compared to face-to-face Al-Anon meetings' business processes.
Personally I think listing vacant officer positions in the Business
Meeting would be a good idea moving forward.

> Also, back to the conversation about the Listkeeper putting in 30-40
> hours. This doesn't make sense to me because people post weekly about
> needing to be removed and not being able to get in touch with the
> Listkeeper.

   >>>> As ASP's List Administrator I attend to member requests at least
twice daily with once-a-day on rare occasions. The member pleas you
allude to are invariably either new members who unreasonably expect
immediate responses (when ASP only assures a response within 24 hours),
or those members who choose to ask me to unsubscribe them rather than do
it on their own. The latter can get a bit testy in their repeat emails
to be unsubscribed - sometimes sending their requests to the recovery
meeting rather than to the L.A./me. Anybody who says they are not able
to get in touch with me in a reasonable amount of time is simply
incorrect.

> Is there a way someone could put together an ad hoc committee and
> maybe survey throughout the group what members feel the biggest issues
> are?

   >>>> ASP has chosen to have a Steering Committee to fill this
process. The Steering Committee is always open to suggestions from the
ASP membership. I might add that the Steering Committee RARELY gets
emails from members suggesting issues for business discussions.

> I've heard greeters not being able to provide answers to
> questions for newcomers (this also happened to me),...

   >>>> I suggest this be taken up with ASP's Greeter Chair.

> ...not understanding how things work, sponsor issues, and then of course, the service
> aspect.

   >>>> ASP's member page and website in addition to the materials given
to new ASP members are full of much of the information on these and
other topics. ASP gets many new members each day; treating them all
individually would be a daunting task. I once suggested that a Newcomer
Committee / Newcomer Meeting could work on some of these things, a
temporary committee was formed, but withered for lack of interest. Some
things we're just powerless over.

> Maybe if we encourage members to share they'll get more
> involved in business meetings. It also might be a good idea to send
> out a bi monthly reminder of the business meetings. That way people
> are notified several times. You can't ignore what's in your face
> constantly.

   >>>> ASP is required to send out the Business Meeting announcement 7
days before the meeting begins. The announcement is to contain the
agenda. The Steering Committee has to have time to discuss and agree on
the agenda before the BM can be announced. I wouldn't have a problem
sending out an earlier Business Meeting announcement which does not have
the agenda in it. However, I repeat: members who do not educate
themselves using the materials ASP makes available to them have a
responsibility to do so. Newcomers I understand - they're usually wound
up tight with home matters, but members who have been around for a year
or more who haven't absorbed the materials we give them, or who have not
asked questions of the L.A. as suggested at the bottom of every ASP
email, or who do not have sponsors to turn to should be aware of ASP's
business processes. If they choose not to join the Business Meetings or
participate in service there's little, IMHO, we can or should do about
it. Everybody has choices.

> What if we also put together an "ASP Guide" or something to that
> effect, that gets sent out weekly highlighting how to share, how
> topics work, literature, sponsorship and how it works, and business
> meetings. This would definitely take away a lot of the chaos.

   >>>> ASP's website and the materials provided to newcomers fill this
suggestion to a "T." The information is there if folks want it. Is it
our responsibility to take each member by the hand, and if so, who's
going to be responsible for doing it?

 Anyway, this is how I'm feeling at the moment. Ask me again in a month
and I may feel differently :-)

 Hugs,
 Jerry
 -