My local area approved a motion to restrict service positions (Area Chair, Co-Chair, treasurer, etc..) to only memebrs of homegroups in their area. This was put into place after several groups split off and formed a new area and some members of those home groups were still in service. Several members had to switch home groups in order to keep their service committments. I know this must be a violation of traditions/concepts somehow. Any experience with this would be appreciated.
Area service committees (ASC), as I understand them, are formed to serve the home groups that compose them. Group service representatives from different home groups attend the meetings, vote on motions, etc. People from the home groups also serve as officers, subcommittee chairs, etc. It makes perfect sense that the people who serve on an ASC are from the home groups in the area. That is what the ASC is for. I think an ASC would have the authority to pass a motion to this effect. I think if home groups split off and formed a new area, it would make sense for home group members to serve in that new area.
I have some related experience with this. We are in the process of splitting off from an existing ASC and forming a new one. Several of us held service position in the old ASC, but we did not run for election again, knowing that the split was about to happen. We did not want there to be any conflict between our commitments. So we finished up our commitments at the old ASC. Many of us will servce on the new ASC.
It seems to me that the people who were splitting off and forming a new ASC should have thought about these issues when they were planning the split. We decided to think carefully about the timing of the split so that we would not inconvenience the old ASC. For example, we decided to have the split occur after the elections at the old ASC and its annual convention. That way we minimized disruption.
I guess it would make sense to do that... but I guess that's one of those unwritten policies in my book. Evidently there was a problem and the problem was solved through policy-making.
When you stop and look at the flow from the group to the area to the region, it would make sense that trusted servants for the area are from the groups represented, as well as trusted servants from the region being part of one of the areas the region represents. I would think it would be against policies not to ask this of the trusted servants.
How can a GSR be effective if they never attend the meetings they represent? The same can be said of other trusted servants. How do they know the needs of the groups if they don't attend those groups?
Also, the term "homegroup" is something that's more internalized. You don't have a tattoo saying that "XYZ is my homegroup," so what does it matter? Do the trusted servants attend meetings within the area? If so, big whoop. If they don't, there's a problem.
I attend 3-5 meetings a week, and have a homegroup. I know what's going on with the other groups, and I attend the business meetings because I feel it's important (and because I like hearing my own voice). I have a more vested interest in my homegroup.
funnily nuff, my area is dealing with these same issues now. Nearly 19 years as an area an no policies in place yet.
So now we're trying to sort these out; attendance requirements by groups in order to vote attendance requirements by trusted servants to stay in office written reports and consciences, duly signed by group secretary group conscience valid only if taken by more than two members
Looks like a lot of initial resistance, but of 12 groups in my area. at least four want to see these thru. Hoping this will build up to unanimous consent !
__________________
Raman an addict clean and serene just for today in NA Worldwide ; live to love and love to live the NA Way !!!