[Businessmtg] Steering Committee Eligibility

[Jerry]

Biz-Pals,

I'd highly prefer that the BM set whatever new minimum is required to fulfill ASP's service needs and keep the selection process within this body.

Partly because I believe it's the appropriate means to address the problem - The SC is not a directorate, but a body to help the BM work through existing and foreseeable problems. Granting the SC the ability to apply case-by-case stabdards is an abrogation of the BM's duty to do ASP's business. Delegating this BM's deliberating responsibilities to the SC is a bridge I don't choose to cross.

While I would prefer to keep the current minimum ASP service levels we're in an extended period where these levels aren't working. Let's set new standards and see if they work well enough. If they don't more drastic changes may be necessary, but let's do this one step at a time.
- - - - -
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of requiring the unanimous agreement of the Steering Committee in order to accept trusted servants into their ranks who don't meet the minimum standards the Business Meeting has set.

Having held ASP SC positions for something in the neighborhood of 8 years it is clear to me that granting any one person the right to veto decisions the significant majority would approve would be a bad idea, and that's what requiring unanimous agreement would permit.

A "Substantial Unanimity" as detailed in Al-Anon's Service Manual has served Al-Anon very well for many decades. Should this BM decide to grant its deliberative responsibilities regarding eligibility to serve on our Steering Committee to the SC I suggest that this standard [2/3 agreement of eligible voters required for approval] be set in stone.

No one person should be given the power to override a majority position. A minority position should be considered and recorded but it should not be permitted to govern.

In service,
Jerry
-