[Businessmtg] Fwd: Service Positions

Sun Nov 27 18:51:54 PST 2022

Answers to/Comments on Lynne's email

The easiest answer is to the question about where to find the at-large positions in ASP's structure: they are included in ASP's Founding Policies. Why they are missing from GC 22 is a good question since neither the SC or the Business Meeting has the authority to amend, delete, (or presumably add to) our Founding Policies. Within those Policies you will find the description of the makeup of the SC body where the two at-large positions are noted. Also therein is described the requirement for changing any of our Founding Policies: a 2/3 vote of the entire ASP membership - not just of the Business Meeting - and any description of ASP's SC seats which do not include these two seats is inaccurate. Unless and until our KBDM process is followed and a resulting Motion were to be moved, seconded, and approved by the full ASP membership those two positions exist and remain vacant.

More difficult to answer is why folks can't apply to these two positions: they are, by choice, not advertised to the membership or within the Business Meeting. If the BM or our recovery meetings' members knew that there were two voting 6-month-term SC positions open they could volunteer for they just might get filled. Steve, as acting Secretary and a Founder, has said here he does not intend to call for volunteers for these positions, so it's not likely to happen. Keep in mind the 1-year of prior ASP service requirement applies here, too, so the at-large positions would have to come from the small base of those so qualified and who attend the Business Meeting. Our requirements when combined have the side-effect of making it difficult to find enough people who are eligible to keep all our service positions filled, let alone enough who are willing and in a position to choose service which carries a 3-year term commitment.

What makes one position vital and others not? Yes, some positions have specific duties which are vital to smooth functioning, but who's to say that the solutions to the service problems we're looking for might not come from the input from the fresh minds of new or future at-large SC members? That these problems have existed for quite some time which to me is a hint that our best collective thinking could use some fresh ideas. Also, having fewer members active on the Steering Committee gives inflated power and control to its remaining members, always something to keep an eye on in Al-Anon based on my service experiences.

To me it is clear that on a number of fronts ASP is not following some fairly standard Al-Anon service practices. The purpose of Al-Anon's suggestions regarding service is to act as cautionary guides to groups based on the past problems experienced by groups over Al-Anon's history. Electronic meetings are relatively new to Al-Anon so problems specific to them haven't had much or any attention given to them.

The best ASP can do is to follow the Traditions, Concepts, and Warranties as best as we're able and trust that the consequences of doing so will bring us to decisions which will continue to let us fulfill our group purpose: helping friends and families of alcoholics. To date our recovery meetings have not been affected by our service problems. Let's hope this remains so.

In service,
Jerry
-

On November 27, 2022, at 5:26 PM, Lynne <lynne at asp-afg.org> wrote:

Hello everyone,

Jerry I appreciate you reviving this discussion! 

I have a question for you or Steve or someone else who has been at ASP for a long time. Where are the at-large SC positions mentioned and described? The website needs to be updated, but motion 22, the latest service structure is here: http://www.serenitysys.com/A_Serenity_Place/Business/nbm/asp_service_structure_revised_OCT_2021.html

And the at-large positions are not mentioned. I went through all the group consciences and can’t find references to them (although I might have missed them). 

Personally I don’t see why if people are interested in those positions, they can’t apply like anyone else who wants to serve on the SC?  However, while I take your point that more voices on the steering committee is better, I have a hard time prioritizing those positions or putting any effort into recruitment for them when so many vital positions are vacant that really, really need to be and should be filled because ASP can’t function without them. As the current list administrator, if Steve and Anne as founders were not willing to take on roles that should be filled by ASP members - which is supposed to be a temporary stop gap measure - then the running of ASP would pretty much fall to me, which is scary as hell.  I really, really, really want those open service positions to be filled and for ASP to figure out how to solve our group service problem. I think the lack of filling these service positions is rising to the level of an emergency. 

Which gets us back to how to encourage people to serve in the elected steering committee positions. All of the options mentioned below - and any other suggestions - are worth discussion. 

I would like to point out that since I’ve started attending business meetings about 2 1/2 years ago, the BM has revised the service structure through motion 22 and decided on a prudent reserve and how to donate excess funds to WSO/the GEA and a future district through motion 23. Both pretty big accomplishments. And both of those processes were learning experiences to me because it seemed like there was no way there was going to be a consensus and then all of a sudden there WAS a consensus and the motions passed.  I hope the BM can come through again on this topic! 

Hugs,
Lynne 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 24, 2022, at 6:47 AM, Jerry <logmark at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Biz-Pals,
> 
> Picking up on a bit on a couple of points:
> 
> ~ As mentioned, any one person's opinion does not get to determine whether our service positions need to be filled or not. Whether created by founding policy or group conscience our service positions are set for what were determined by the group to be good reasons. 
>     Would it be ideal that our secretary, GR, and treasurer positions get filled before [lesser?] vacant positions are addressed? Of course, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Meanwhile there are Steering Committee (SC) seats left unfilled which some members may well be willing to fill, positions which are intended to introduce broader input into SC discussions, and which would introduce fresh volunteers to SC service without a 3-year commitment attached.
>     I have been told directly that just because we have defined service positions doesn't mean they need to be filled. Likewise that some are of little or no benefit, so why fill them. Now, that there is no intention of filling them. Seems to me the Group Conscience should take precedence here.
>     We are now down to very few people on our Steering Committee making determinations on what shows up on this Business Meeting's agenda. They carry significant influence on how we move forward. For me this raises a question of what constitutes a consensus within the SC. When two SC positions are being purposefully left unfilled (added to the three vacant positions mentioned above) at what point does arriving at a full SC consensus become impossible?
> 
> ~ ASP's requirements to serve in a SC position have prevented members with considerable Al-Anon service experience from serving the group. When we are flush with ASP-qualified volunteers stepping up to fill our SC positions that's one thing, but we haven't had that in a very, very long time. And it doesn't seem that we have a Plan B for times like these; instead we load our SC members with the duties which should be being performed by others.
>     When the ASP membership took on the ownership of the group rather having it solely owned by Steve the first set of officers didn't need to have the 1-year of prior ASP service requirement and things worked out. There is no evidence that lowered requirements, or temporary exceptions to our current requirements when positions go unfilled for long periods, would be any different.
> 
> ~ Let us not forget that personality conflicts have been a significant part of problems which led to some members being unwilling to serve at SC levels, lowered retention of others who have served, and some who have left the group all together. It got quite acrimonious a few years back and I believe we are still recovering.
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> We have a group service problem. Perhaps our newer volunteers and trusted servants will find that further service is attractive to them; I hope so. Meanwhile, though, five SC seats go unfilled. That's five votes that can't be cast, and five sets of Experience, Strength & Hope which are absent from forming consensus' there.
> 
> I am in favor of making some temporary adjustments to our policies and practices to get all our service positions filled.
> • One could be being less stern on current volunteers, allowing them to resign from their current positions early to stand for vacant SC positions.
> • Temporarily lower our 1-year of prior ASP service requirement for standing for SC offices.
> • Begin recognizing significant face-to-face Al-Anon service as qualification for ASP officer positions.
> • Calling for volunteers to stand for our two At-Large SC positions along with the other vacant slots.
> • If some sort of resolution to our service position problem isn't found, I believe we should set a quorum requirement for forming concensus' in the Steering Committee based on a percentage of the full complement of SC seats, not just on those present.
> 
> Our current SC members are managing under current circumstances; many thanks are due them. But this isn't something which should continue. Shared service between many hands is part of Al-Anon recovery. This Business Committee has the responsibility to search out solutions to problems which come up. I'd like to hear and discuss the ideas and thoughts of others as we deal with this service problem.
> 
> In service,
> Jerry
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Businessmtg] Appointed positions
> From: aohara77 at comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022, 8:41 AM
> To: logmark at comcast.net
> CC: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
> 
> All,
> 
> My take on this is entirely different.
> 
> It is not up to me to decide a decision in our Motions is not of value.  There was a group conscience and a vote taken that the Secretary would have the webmaster position rolled into a recording secretary position - volunteering and recruiting would look something like what we already do to get our daily chairs and our greeters.  In my mind, keeping our website current is critical, whether some or all o f our members read it isn't relevant.  It is how we all stay on the same  page.  Tricky, because of course because we don't have a Secretary.  
> 
> With that said, this month we are discussing and hopefully recruiting for the open Steering Committee (SC) positions.
> 
> Steve is right, we do need to fill the Secretary, Treasurer and GR positions.  The purpose of having the founders step in to bridge the vacancy gap was meant to help the existing SC members manage the work.  These are NOT permanent roles that Steve and I have stepped into.  I want to remind everyone that although Steve is the original founder and after Jerry, I am the longest member of ASP, we do NOT own decisions or positions.
> 
> I encourage all of you to consider serving on the SC, it can be rewarding and it is a good exercise in managing  personalities and tone in email.  Always placing principles above personalities.
> 
> Hugs,
> 
> Anne O
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Businessmtg <businessmtg-bounces+aohara77=comcast.net at asp-afg.org> On Behalf Of Steve Rankin
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:04 AM
> To: aohara77 at comcast.net
> Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Businessmtg] Appointed positions
> 
> Hi Missy,
> Yes, the Recording Secretary position is open.  
> As for how any of the appointed positions are recruited, it is up to the appointing authority for the position in question to handle it.  Again, we rarely have specific protocols for how our trusted servants do their jobs, and those exceptions tend to be uniquely necessary for the position.  The Treasurer position is an excellent example of the group having a need for specific information in the treasurer reports, and reasonably well-defined processes for handling group funds.  That's typical of treasurer positions.
> Unfortunately, we haven't had an elected Secretary since April 2020 when Jerry resigned early, which resulted in Beverly, the Secretary, automatically became the List Administrator.  However she quickly resigned as LA, so both positions were vacant.  When the dust settled, I was both acting List Administrator and acting Secretary.  Lynne was elected in late March this year, so I was relieved of that job - thank you Lynne.  
> Back to the Recording Secretary.  Perhaps, it would help to understand where I'm at personally on a few things.  First, the idea of a Recording Secretary was not my idea, nor was I in favor of it.  I have serious doubts about the value of creating a new service position in ASP when we're not filling the ones we already have.  Plus, I see that position as increasing the complexity and workload of the Secretary, not lightening it.  Sure, once a Recording Secretary gets a handle on the job, it should work out well, but we have learned that it's something that requires some diligence on the part of the Secretary to ensure that the Recording Secretary draws between the lines.  
> However, a majority of the Steering Committee wanted the position to lighten the load on the Secretary, so I went with majority of the Steering Committee and recommended the Recording Secretary position to the Business Meeting during the discussion leading to Motion 22.  Since Motion 22 passed, we now have a Recording Secretary position.  
> The day after Motion 22 passed, a member approached me about volunteering for the position.  Except that she was already serving in another appointed position.  Since we don't allow members to hold multiple positions, she'd have to wait a couple of months to rotate.  I replied the following day, describing that as well as more about the position, but she didn't respond.  I wrote her a couple more times, but never heard from her again, although she's still active in ASP.  
> Hence, one of the reasons why I don't see this as a benefit for the Secretary - the challenges of working with someone to maintain the website is simply more work, not less for the Secretary.
> My bottom line?  Please don't expect me to devote my time and energy to recruiting someone to a position that I don't feel is necessary to the functioning of ASP, especially while much more important positions are vacant.  
> The same is true for the At-Large positions on the Steering Committee.  Under ideal circumstances, the At-Large positions would serve as a voice for the members in addition to the full slate of officers with actual jobs to do on the Steering Committee.  However, with important positions and actual jobs to do, such as the Secretary, Treasurer and Group Rep, I not only have no intention of recruiting anyone to an At-Large position, I am quite simply not in favor of filling them.  Back in 2016 & 2017, during a brief period where great efforts were made to fill all the service positions to the max, and two members were elected to At-Large positions on the Steering Committee.  One got involved and participated while the other did not.  
> As for trying to recruit elected officers from the general membership in the recovery meeting?  My experience is that members who wish to serve Al-Anon as a part of their recovery, will get involved in the meeting.  We announce every Business Meeting in the recovery meeting, with the agenda of the meeting.  Sometimes that includes something about trusted servants, elections, etc.  If someone is really interested in service and serving, they'll come to our Business Meetings.  
> We have a total of 19 members in this month's Business Meeting; 15 regular members and 4 from the Steering Committee.  Of the 15, two are Daily Chair - THANK YOU! - and none are Greeters.  One of the "regular" members has spoken with me in recent history about serving and I really hope she does, just like I hope that some of the Daily Chairs and Greeters chose to volunteer to serve.  
> My objective is to make service in ASP worthwhile to your recovery, and in the process make ASP the best online meeting extant.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's always easy, or fun.  If fact, you might even get thoroughly PO'd at me sometimes.  That's OK.  I can be a crusty old fart that is stuck on the idea keeping ASP's nose stuck to the grindstone of Al-Anon principles.
> If you got this far, you survived my rambling.  😊
> Love and SERENITY,
> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 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