[Businessmtg] SC Recommendation

[Steve Rankin]

Hi ASPers,

 

What is our goal here?  Well, at first glance it may seem simple - we want
to fill vacancies on the Steering Committee.  Duh.  However, there's more to
it than that.  We need those vacancies filled with. . .

   1. Al-Anon members 

   2. Willing and committed to 

   3. Serving ASP. . . as 

   4. ASP wishes to be served

   5. With sufficient recovery to

   6. Accept that their service position is defined by ASP and not by their
personal ideas

 

PARTICIPATION.  Back in Fall 2020, we did one of our periodic purges of
inactive/unresponsive members.  I sent out 5 notices over a period of 6
weeks to the membership asking them to respond if they were still here.  The
server said we had 3,459 members, but less than 14% responded.  2,980 never
responded because they were not participating in ASP in any way - not even
reading shares.  In other words, of the 926 email addresses listed on the
server today, the reality is that we probably have less than 200 active
members - people that actually participate by reading and/or sharing on a
regular basis, which corresponds well to the ~125 unique members that shared
in February. 

My point is that when we consider how many people are in the Business
Meeting compared to how many are in ASP, we should consider how many ACTIVE
members we have in ASP, not the inflated number on the server.

Substantial Unanimity.  The numerical standards for substantial unanimity in
Al-Anon vary according with the significance of the scenario.  In this
scenario, we are suggesting that the SC be able to recommend that ASP
policies be violated on a case-by-case basis.  Knowing that our primary
responsibility on the SC is to implement ASP policy, agreeing to make
exceptions to that must be taken very seriously and that is exemplified by
requiring total unanimity within the SC to move forward.  We recognize that
it is not rare for one member of the Steering Committee to against something
that the others are for.  In recent years, we have used Zoom to meet and
discuss our issues in real time.  Occasionally, we have had situations
involving continued misunderstandings after a Zoom meeting, but generally it
has worked extremely well and we have managed to reach a common ground where
every member of the SC was able to agree to the group decision.  

Jerry is concerned about the SC's recommendation that any recommendation by
the SC that the Business Meeting elect an individual that does not meet the
basic standards of ASP policy for holding office on the SC be unanimous.
Why is it necessary that such a recommendation be unanimous?  There are four
basic reasons:

First, please understand that what the SC would be recommending is a
violation of ASP policy.  ASP policy requires certain minimum standards
before a member is eligible for serving on ASP's Steering Committee.  There
are very good reasons for that.  While many like to believe that any member
should be able to serve, history in Al-Anon and in ASP that groups that do
not set boundaries on their service positions generally experience chaos and
trauma as a result.  

Second, Al-Anons are people pleasers and loathe to say "No".  All too often,
we are too quick to let someone do something, even though deep down inside
we know that this isn't going to end well.  We see this again, and again in
our ASP.  We require that members submit a resume to the Business Meeting
before we elect them to the SC, yet do we really vet them with tough
questions?  No.  Instead, most in the Business Meeting get excited that
someone stepped up to serve and few, if any, question their qualifications.
The SC is not immune to this.  Like others in Al-Anon, we tend to be quick
to like ideas that sound good on the surface and slow to look at those ideas
critically.

Third, some of us on the Steering Committee have had an opportunity to know
a bit more about some of those that volunteered to serve ASP.  As a result,
we wondered about how this was going to work out, however, since our insight
into the individual was not public knowledge, we weren't free to discuss it
in the Business Meeting.  As a result, we have seen several individuals get
elected and then leaving in short order.  A few continued to hold the
position, however they failed or even refused to do critical duties of the
position.  Naturally, the member(s) of the SC that had firsthand
opportunities to experience a candidate may have compelling opinions about
the candidate's suitability for the SC, while those without that experience
have less insight.  

FOURTH, Al-Anon experience is important.  While each of us in Al-Anon has
the same value as a person, the member with many years of service experience
brings insight and wisdom to the discussion that often temper decisions.
Al-Anon groups rarely experience issues that haven't been experienced by
other groups, and rarely make decisions that other groups haven't made.
Just because an Al-Anon group made a group conscience to make a decision
doesn't mean that it was a good decision.  Groups have the right to be
wrong, just like we do as individual members.  Old-timers in Al-Anon that
have been around for decades have seen groups make decisions that didn't
work out; and when we see several groups make the same kind of decision that
doesn't work out every time, that's a clue that it wasn't a good decision -
regardless of how popular the decision was.

I'll note that we have a working policy within the Steering Committee that
ANY recommendation by the Steering Committee MUST represent every member of
the Steering Committee before the List Administrator (Chair of the SC) may
represent anything as representing the Steering Committee.  If one member of
the SC is against a recommendation, then it needs to be worked out within
the SC before anything purporting to represent the SC is presented to the
Business Meeting.  If the members of the SC are not able to reach a
unanimous agreement on a recommendation, then there is nothing preventing
individual members of the SC from requesting an issue be discussed in the
Business Meeting.  

TEMPORARY DECISIONS.  In Al-Anon, I have learned that I don't. . .

a.	Make a decision to do Q if she does Y at some time in the future.
If she does Y, then I get to make a decision about what to do THEN, not
today.  Al-Anon is a One Day at a Time program.  Besides, if I say to her
"If you do Y, then I'll do X" the result is that she is free to do A, B, C,
D . . . X, Y, Z while I have made the mistake of committing to doing Q if
she does Y.  What if she does Y a month from now and then I realize that
doing Q would be a big mistake?  But, I've said that I'd do Q, so I've set
myself up for failure.  Again.
b.	Make temporary decisions any more than I make forever decisions.
Again, I try to live my life One Day at a Time.  I try to make good,
rational decisions today.  If I discover next week that it was a lousy
decision, then I will have the opportunity to revisit that decision next
week, or whenever it is that I discover that it was a lousy decision.  But,
until I discover that it was a lousy decision, I'll abide by the decision I
made.

Self-esteem is making a decision and following it through.  

If I have so little confidence in a decision that I'm unwilling to make it
pseudo-permanent, then the message is that I don't believe that it is a good
decision, so why make it in the first place?  In other words, if we believe
that accepting the SC's recommendation of allowing the SC to recommend a
candidate for election to the SC [that does not meet existing technical
requirements] is a good idea, then we need to reach a group conscience
accordingly and NOT place any arbitrary time limits on that decision.  If we
discover that it wasn't a good idea after all, then there is no doubt that
we'll have an opportunity to revisit the decision later.  

I'd like to remind everyone of these things about the SC's recommendation:

a.	That the SC's recommendation to elect a candidate to the SC is just
a recommendation.
b.	That the SC has taken responsibility for vetting the candidate, and
has the opportunity to use methods (such as Zoom) as well as any
institutional knowledge that they may have, and the opportunity to discuss
their thoughts within the SC - all of which are not available or appropriate
in the Business Meeting- before reaching a decision to recommend a candidate
to the Business Meeting.
c.	That it is generally the members of the SC that get to experience
firsthand the fallout of problematic members, not the members of ASP.
d.	That the ASP membership has the final word on accepting the SC's
recommendation, or not, when they vote for or against, the candidate.  

Love and SERENITY,

Steve

 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com