[Businessmtg] Steering Committee Eligibility

[aohara77 at comcast.net]

Good Morning Biz meeting friends,

I'd like to address some of the valid concerns that have bubbled up during
discussion.

The KBDM process is a lengthy one.  We must certainly address the
requirements for serving on the Steering Committee, but given the current
state  of that committee, we (SC) have made the proposal that you are all
reviewing.

I suggest that we make this a short-term trial basis.  The current state is
absolutely unsustainable  for all the reasons brought forth with the SC's
proposal.   This group can define that short-term trial.  Remember, the SC
is the administrative arm of ASP and with the exception of the Group Rep,
it's reach is only within the ASP meeting.

I would also like to direct some feedback to the statement that somehow this
is going to give any one person authority over others, and the unanimity of
a 3 person SC seems reasonable to me when we are reviewing the credentials
of some members who may be willing to serve but fall short of the minimum
requirements.  Remember, they already DON'T meet the minimum requirements so
unanimity in these cases would be required and just because the SC
unanimously agrees to allow the resume, it is the business meeting members
that make the ultimate decision.

My thoughts are that we make this proposal time bound and that we meet again
in 6 months to discuss this again.

Hugs,

Anne O

-----Original Message-----
From: Businessmtg <businessmtg-bounces+aohara77=comcast.net at asp-afg.org> On
Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 11:45 PM
To: aohara77 at comcast.net
Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
Subject: [Businessmtg] Steering Committee Eligibility

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
-




____________________________
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