[Businessmtg] Founders

[Jerry]

Evening, Biz-Pals,

Steve's input on "A" ignores our Founding Policy which includes our "elected officers" + specifies the 2 founder AND 2 general member seats on the Steering Committee (SC). Our Group Conscience affirmed those Policies, and by definition Founding Policy can only be changed by a 75% vote margin of the entire ASP membership. The language is clear. Please read it.

Saying that fewer voices make easier decisions may or may not be correct, but ignoring the Group Conscience is certainly wrong. Following Steve's reasoning on this, one might think one person making all the decisions would be the best solution.

True, the Business Meeting (BM) makes the final decisions around here (where our Policies and Group Consciences permit it), but the SC determines what the BM agendas contain. More voices, not fewer, provide broader input into our direction.

On Steve's "B":
I generally agree. I do take exception to the view that our elected trusted servants can only follow one way of completing their assigned tasks. If there were only one way then there'd be no need for "the right of decision." It seems Steve's thinking takes away this right: to get the job done as required, but with the flexibility to allow the person doing the work the latitude to bring to it their personality and work methods.

On "C":
We do need a protocol for getting the work done when vacancies exist. Obvious I should think. But limiting ourselves to just the two Founders acts to concentrate the load on fewer people. More thinking is needed on this.

As far as his comments on trusted servants being willing to extend their commitments when awaiting replacements, I'd think gratitude would be more appropriate. Would it be better if replacements stepped forward every 3 years? Of course! But that's not our reality. One would think our only choice is between extension (which has its downsides) and a concentration of work and influence under the Founder positions (also with downsides.)

And that bit about trusted servants deciding to extend and "who gave them that authority?" I call BS. I recall no trusted servant who was not only willing to step down after 3 years, but any number who repeatedly asked for a replacement with no timely response from the BM. It's true we all owed it to ourselves to do what was best for ourselves, but the fault, if any, belongs within the BM, or at least ASP's method for filling positions only from those few members who choose to attend BMs. Which leads me to:

"D"
Very true that there are pitfalls and potential downsides to expanding our choices as Steve outlines. On the other hand downsides also exist, as we are experiencing, when our choices contract. In my experience in Al-Anon service, as in life, it is not the willing folks who may or may not be doing a mediocre job who are the greatest danger to groups, but those singular individuals who in one way or another manage to control outcomes. For me the risk of exploring other sources within the group to temporarily help fill vacant service positions or do odd jobs is smaller than limiting ourselves to whoever is filling our two Founder positions. I suggest more discussion of our options.

I'm in disagreement with Steve's last point. I believe those who step into Al-Anon service and leadership do take on the responsibility of attending to today's needs, but also to include the consideration of the possible effects today's decisions have on down the road. It's not a perfect science, but it is part of planning ahead.

In service,
Jerry
-




On July 30, 2021, at 3:06 PM, Steve Rankin <steve at serenitysys.com> wrote:

Hi ASPers,
Some interesting ideas are popping up.  I'd like to respond to some of them.

A.  The number of people on the Steering Committee.  I believe the goal here
should be to have the number of people on the SC that it takes to run ASP;
no more and no less.  While some may think that more members on the SC is a
good thing, I disagree.  Adding members for the sake of adding members, or
to have more voices in some of the decisions, tends to result in several
problems.  If you've ever worked on committees, you should know that the
larger the committee, the more difficult it tends to be to get the committee
informed on an issue, and the more difficult it tends to be to develop a
group conscience of the committee.  Remember that the Steering Committee
does NOT make policy decisions at ASP; those decisions belong to the members
of ASP via the Business Meeting.  The job of the SC is to administer the
day-to-day affairs of ASP behind the scenes.  
The administration of ASP is divided into sections with an individual
officer responsible for each portion of the administration: List
Administrator to run the server and overall big picture, Greeter Chair to
process new members, Secretary to run the daily meetings and business
meetings, Treasurer to handle the finances.  And we're looking at the issue
of adding a Group Representative to represent ASP to the Al-Anon Fellowship
and greater service structure.  We don't need any other jobs done, therefore
we don't need any other people on the Steering Committee.

B.  Yes, it is true that Concept 3 says "The right of decision makes for
effective leadership."  However, the right of decision only applies to the
responsibilities that are assigned to the position.  For example, as the
List Administrator, I am the primary leader of the Steering Committee.
However, that does not give me the authority to decide how many Greeters are
needed, because I don't have the responsibility to run the greeter
operation.  Kelley does, so she gets to decide how many Greeters she needs
to get that job done.  OTOH, that does not mean that Kelley gets to make any
decision she wishes with the Greeter operation.  We have established
protocols and practices that Kelley has to work with.  Ditto for the
Treasurer, Secretary, etc.  One of the problems that occurs in Al-Anon is
that newly elected trusted servants often think that being elected to serve
gives them the OK to do what they wish with their new position.  Wrong.
They were elected to do the job that the group elected them to do.

C.  ASP does not have a clean mechanism that allows for dealing with getting
the job done when a service position is vacant.  Sometimes, when a trusted
servant gets to the end of their 3-year term, they continue in the position
until they are replaced in an election.  That sounds like a plan, however
that also enables the group to avoid the consequences of not filling the
position.  When did it become the outgoing trusted servant's decision to
extend their term beyond the term they were elected for?  Who gave them that
authority?

Without a simple mechanism to address the duties of vacant positions, it's a
crap shoot what happens.  What we are recommending is a mechanism that
allows the members of the SC to ask the Founder(s) to perform some task or
duty.

D.  Someone suggested that the SC be allowed to ask an "experienced member"
of ASP to serve.  I see several problems with that scenario.  
First off, it raises the question of what an "experienced member" of ASP is.

Secondly, it opens the door to patronage.  Let's say we have a vacancy, and
I have a sponsee that I want to get involved, so I sweet talk the SC into
putting this sponsee into that service position.  Temporarily, of course,
but in the process I also padded the SC with a vote on my side.  Believe me
when I say I've seen this done more than once. 
Third, it sets up a scenario where members can and will defeat the term of
office, or make test runs of service positions without making the commitment
needed to be elected to the position, or simply wants to be on the SC for a
short time so they can vote on the SC on some issue.  If those sound
far-fetched. . ., they are not.
What about ASP twenty or thirty years from now?  Frankly, I'm not worried
about ASP then.  If I'm still around annoying people then, I'd be 105, but
the principle that I see involved is one day at a time.  I did my best to do
the right thing 25 years when I set up ASP and it's structure.  It's not
perfect, but it's worked well for 25 years.  If we do the right thing today,
it will probably continue to work.  And if it turns out to need improvement
in the future, then that decision belongs to whoever is here then.
Hugs,
Steve



____________________________
To Unsubscribe, go to: http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/asp
The ASP web site with all kinds of info for ASP members is http://asp-afg.org/members/
For assistance with other ASP issues, contact Steve the Founder of ASP, at steve at serenitysys.com