[Businessmtg] (no subject)

[Marilyn Booms]

Thank you Lynne for clarifying and summarizing the discussion so far!  I've
enclosed some thoughts provoked by your summary.

1.There is support for reducing the previous ASP service for elected
trusted servants from 1 year to 6 months, although some would prefer the
List Admin, Secretary or Treasurer to still have 1 year prior ASP service.

***Question for further discussion: Why would people be in favor of 1 year
Vs 6 months for specific positions?

-Because the Secretary (and as back-up the LA) set the tone for our
business meetings, I think those positions should be steeped in more ASP-
specific experience.  I've dabbled in other Al-Anon groups,  and imo ASP
has a unique flavor that I wouldn't want diluted by someone who isn't
familiar with why it works the way it does.


2. There is support for including other Al anon service as part of the
service requirement in addition to or in lieu of time at ASP (multiple
combinations have been suggested).

***Question for further discussion: Why was prior Al anon service not
originally part of the requirements for ASP elected trusted servants? What
are the pros and cons of this?

-I'm not familiar with the history of this decision. I do think that prior
service in other Al-Anon groups should be considered,  but also that some
ASP service should remain in our requirements, so that our group isn't
unduly influenced by outside ideas and concepts.


3. There is a suggestion to count participation in the business meeting
toward the ASP service requirement for elected trusted servants.

***Question for discussion: Has this been considered previously? What are
the pros and cons of this?

- Just as appointed positions require active participation in the ASP
recovery meetings (not merely receiving the emails), if this were
considered I strongly feel business meeting participation would need to be
active,  evidenced by participation in discussion and voting on issues.
This opens up a whole cascade of questions; how many business meetings
would qualify? What level of participation?


4. There is concern that the 3 year commitment for elected trusted servants
is too long and could put off prospective people who might otherwise apply.

***Question for further discussion: What is the reason for the 3 year
commitment and what are the pros and cons of lowering this?

-Pros- Facilitating participation and filling our elected service
vacancies. Rotation of service is important for the health of the group.
Cons- every new task learned takes time and practice to master. Rotating
positions too frequently could cause valuable knowledge to be lost in the
hand off process. A one year commitment seems too short,  a person would
barely be settled in before it was time to hand off the baton. Our current
3 years term seems to intimidate people,  and many resign early. Two years
seems a good compromise.

5. There is a suggestion to lower the ASP participation requirements for
the appointed positions to allow a possible faster path to service as an
elected trusted servant.

***Question for further discussion: I think there might be conflicting
guidelines for this between 1 year and 6 months. Could someone who has been
here for a long time offer some clarity?

-Reading through the website this morning,  I see that appointed positions
(daily chair, greeter) have a suggestion of 6 months membership in ASP
before serving. Is anyone seeing something different?

Blessings,
Marilyn