[Businessmtg] Business Meeting - Thoughts

[List Administrator]

All, 

ASP is, as some have inferred, boxed in when it comes to filling officer
service slots. 

A. On one side we have the requirement for one year of prior ASP
service. 

   > This severely limits the pool of folks who qualify. On top of this
we limit who can and who can't serve in other ASP service positions (ie.
greeter and topic chairs) - positions which would result in more members
accruing the year of prior service necessary for officer positions. 

B. On another we have the requirement for active participation in ASP. 

   > This also limits how many folks qualify. Of course letting members
who have little or no experience with Al-Anon, ASP, or knowledge of how
and why ASP works doesn't make sense. Likewise, members who do not
participate are unknown personalities and including them in leadership
positions would be unwise and possibly dangerous for the group. 

C. On yet another we've had a recent history of rancor at the officer
service level. 

   > Past rancor in the service ranks has contributed to an
unwillingness to serve. Very Al-Anon of us. Somebody argues their point
strenuously, somebody disagrees, and everybody heads for the hills.
Personality conflicts are a part of life. Disagreements  are inevitable.
Expecting service to always be free of conflict is unrealistic.  

D. As a result of officer vacancies, we've had the remaining officers
performing way more work than they signed up for - leading to the
appearance that service at the officer level is just more than anybody
wants to step into. 

   > Fewer yet are willing to serve knowing that service may lead to
overload. I believe this is a common problem in Al-Anon, not specific to
ASP. I suspect it's more prevalent in online meetings because fewer
people have sponsors who, in the old F2F days, "dragged" their sponsees
into service ["Get in the Car!"] Willingness didn't always precede that
first entry into service.  

E. ASP officer positions are filled from the Business Meeting ranks. 

   > I have to agree that we need to find a way to get more members into
the Business Meeting. In the short term this may have the result of a
continuing inability to pass motions [inexperienced BM members tend to
more often vote "abstain" or not vote at all which, as ASP currently
counts votes, count as "NO" votes.] Making announcements in the recovery
meeting - more (and more informative) announcements - seems to be the
only way to go about this without including them in the daily topic
formats (these formats not being read through by most anyway.)  

F. Shorter term Steering Committee positions aren't being announced or
filled. 

   > According to ASP's Founding Statement and Policies, "The Steering
Committee is composed of all elected officers, Chair persons of
committees (but not sub-committees), two 'founders' (the original
founders of A Serenity Place or those most nearly so), and two general
members of A Serenity Place." The General Member positions have a
6-month commitment, more acceptable for some members wanting to get into
service without dedicating three years. More active committees would
bring new talent into SC service. Filling the second "founder" position
would add stability. Note that the Founding Statement and Policies can
be changed only through a discussion and affirmative vote by the entire
membership of ASP; neither the SC or the BM has the power to make
changes to this. We ought to be filling these empty slots.        

- - - - - 

ASP has been around a very long time. We've been very well run for over
two decades (since 2006) with few problems. Only in recent years has
service become a serious problem. There is no reason to believe that
ASP's Policies and its normal practices are at the core of our current
difficulty in filling officer service slots. 

So what has changed which has introduced these service difficulties? 

As far as I can tell things only began to slide seriously sideways when
deep differences were hashed out after an attempted rewrite of ASP's
website by a few was, after a year plus of haggling, rejected. In the
wake of this schism two officers left suddenly in a huff. Later another
officer was let go for an unrelated cause. The consequences of all this
have yet to be overcome. 

I have to ask: 

Is ASP to react to this past problem by changing the policies and
practices which have kept it one of the most successful Al-Anon online
meetings in Al-Anon history, or are we going to risk making willy-nilly
changes to our proven structure because the results of past infighting
between a few members have created a wake of fear on the part of those
who would otherwise join in leading ASP beyond this hubbub? 

The answer to that may well determine the outcome of the ASP story. 

Are we or are we not responsible for providing a sound Al-Anon recovery
meeting for our many hundreds of active members? We ARE still doing
this! Should we, though, be relying on just the four current SC members
to do the chores? Would changing ASP's practices because of personality
problems be wise? Would it assure healing, or would it introduce new,
unpredicted problems? We have a system which has worked much, much
longer than these past few problematic years. I say we stay the course
and find a way to get members comfortable enough that they will
eventually turn to service as part of their recoveries. 

In the meantime, though, I need help. Filling two SC positions is too
much to expect of me and with ASP's continuing growth it's only going to
get worse. Someone recently used the word "complaining" (or something
similar) in reference to these continuing calls to ASP service. Asking
for help, for participation, is not complaining. It's better read as an
acknowledgement that ASP is not being self-supporting, that those in
service are overburdened, and that action is required to put ASP back on
an even keel. 

In service, 

Jerry H., ASP List Administrator and acting Secretary 

-