[Businessmtg] Motion #4 Discussions - ProposedSecretary/Webmaster Changes

Fri Sep 17 08:20:04 PDT 2021

All,

This is a recommendation being made by the Steering Committee NOT a mandate.  Not sure why folks are so uneasy. This is all open to discussion by the larger group. In my experience a recommendation always sparks some good discussion and allows us to stay focused. We seem to always stall and can’t move forward when topics are too broad. 

Again, for anyone that has been a regular in these meetings knows that volunteers for SC positions have been few and far between- this model allows for more service opportunities not less. It also provides more depth and support to our SC positions.  

Just my two cents.

Hugs

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 16, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Anne <aohara77 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jerry…..  I am going to respond to your email although you really asked Steve 😊 Maybe it all really isn’t clear.  I think we (SC) are trying to reach some sort of consensus on the 3 parts that were put forward, then make modifications again and again to a motion before putting forward for a vote.  I am not sure I see anywhere that the founders will be responsible for interpreting anything or that we are intentionally trying to shrink the steering committee or take on some sort of power for decision making.  In fact, what I see is more of a way to share the work, become a team that strengthens us and removes any dominance perceived or not – and it hopefully prevents any one person from taking on multiple roles.  If you recall we have had previous discussions in the business meeting about the unbalanced workloads across SC positions.  This new proposed structure will provide more balance in the SC and another service opportunity for members who may not want to serve on the SC.  Please be aware, that the entire steering committee came up with this proposal, not just one person.
> 
> As you well know, getting anything big through the steering committee or business meeting is no small feat, by breaking this Motion 4 topic into 3 parts it becomes more manageable for our discussions.  So if we say, that for this sub-topic, there is a conditional statement and the changes to the Secretary, Webmaster roles and addition of the GR needs to be a package.  Meaning the change doesn’t move forward if it turns out we can’t or won’t be adding the GR position.
> 
> Again some notes
> 
> • SC head count is not changing – we are adding a GR and removing the Webmaster – this is a package deal.
> • And, I think we may want to choose our wording more carefully when it comes to the newly added Recording Secretary that WON’T be a SC position but WILL be a service position.
> o The Secretary will recruit the recording secretary in the same way we recruit daily meeting chairs and greeters.  The position will be held for 1 year.  
> Hugs,
> 
> Anne O.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Mail for Windows
> 
> From: Jerry
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 8:03 PM
> To: aohara77 at comcast.net
> Cc: ASP Business
> Subject: Re: [Businessmtg] Motion #4 Discussions - ProposedSecretary/Webmaster Changes
> 
> Question for Steve re: his response - and additional thoughts
> 
> If there's been an accepted consensus that we certainly will have a GR, AND that our GR will have a seat on the SC - which I don't yet understand is an absolute - how are we to assume the SC will still have the same number of seats? And what of the two other general member seats?
> 
> Discussing a potential webmaster deletion paired with permitting the appointment of a secretary's assistant without an absolute consensus that our GR will be on the SC leaves the door open for a vote which could delete a SC seat. I've stated my opposition on deleting any SC seats. I think that single loss would do greater harm to the health of the group than any small gain from just moving the webmaster job under the Secretary's roof in whatever form.
> 
> BTW, what, again, is the gain to the group of this combination? To me it's a wash at best and the loss of one more input on the SC at worse. Who's to say that ADDING a seat to the SC (the GR) wouldn't serve the group better?
> 
> Obvious answer would be something like, "We already don't have enough qualified members to stand for and fill the seats we already have, and you want to add another SC seat?"
> 
> To which I answer: Yes. Change the darn qualifications and get rid of the dominance which insists on maintaining the old ways of thinking. Like it or not we're now an Al-Anon Group made up of equals, not a few experienced decision makers and then everybody, the unqualified, else. Time we started acting like one to my mind. Open up the gates.
> 
> Then there's the coming discussion of putting the Founders in charge of interpreting what our published words actually say/mean which, if accepted, would give ultimate power to two people which adds to my concerns about the potential loss of SC seats (never gained) and opportunities for service. Our words are pretty darn clear on their own and in most cases ammendable by a Group Conscience (where, by program definition, our Higher Power expresses Him/Herself.) "For our Group purpose there is but one authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience..."  More members' participation in ASP leadership roles and decisions (remember: participation is the key to harmony) would mean we'd have a better understanding of His/Her will, yes? 
> 
> KBDM says that only where consensus exists do we formulate a motion. These three suggestions are not tied together as all or nothing. They all would have effects on how our group moves forward in this new electronic era. But none address the more serious problem of being structured in a way which purposefully hinders service and thus minimizes the spiritual contributions member equality offers.
> 
> I believe we need to trust the process Al-Anon has gifted us. For as long as I've been a member of ASP, well before the 2006 change, I've heard over and over again complaint after complaint from some quarters about how on-line meetings were being treated as "less than" the regular Al-Anon Groups by the WSO. It seems now, though, we're thinking about voting on two items which could make us less like a regular Al-Anon Group than more like one.
> 
> In service,
> Jerry H.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On September 16, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Steve Rankin <steve at serenitysys.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> As we discussed in the last Business Meeting, our recommendation deletes one
> position and adds another - there is no net change in the number of
> positions on the Steering Committee.  
> 
> I repeat, we are not recommending any change in the number of seats on the
> Steering Committee.
> 
> Hugs,
> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Businessmtg On Behalf Of Jerry
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:42 AM
> To: steve at serenitysys.com
> Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
> Subject: [Businessmtg] Motion #4 Discussions - Proposed Secretary/Webmaster
> Changes
> 
> Biz-Pals,
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> The three sections of Motion #4 that we'll discuss this month are:
> 1.    Group Representative
> 2.    Web Master rolled into Secretary
> 3.    Founders
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> Currently on the Floor:
> 2. Web Master rolled into Secretary
> 
> As I stated in previous Business Meetings I strongly oppose combining the
> Webmaster and Secretary positions.
> 
> Any act which decreases the number of seats on ASP's Steering Committee not
> only diminishes the opportunities for members to take leadership roles at
> ASP, but also minimizes the variety of inputs to Steering Committee
> discussions that having more SC members enables.
> 
> It goes without saying that having fewer seats filled on the Steering
> Committee increases the power and influence of those positions which would
> remain. In the past there have been occasions when one or two Steering
> Committee members have exerted influence above their stations only to be
> countered by the balance of other SC members.
> 
> This ability to maintain a counterbalance to strongly-willed and charismatic
> personalities is diminished by reducing the number of seats on the Steering
> Committee. This I am opposed to doing.
> 
> In service,
> Jerry H.
> -
> ____________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 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
> ____________________________
> 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
> 
> ____________________________
> 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