Proposal 6: Trusted Servants
GROW adopts the following policy for addressing non-performance in a Trusted Servant position.
Proposed Language (new #9 under Business Meeting Guidelines):
When a Trusted Servant (TS-A) feels that another Trusted Servant (TS-B) is not meeting the requirements of her position description, TS-A will take her issues to the small Steering Committee (made up of the Business Chair, Secretary, and Listkeepers) for consideration. She should not engage with or confront TS-B. The small Steering Committee can choose to bring the issue to the full Steering Committee.
The review of TS-B’s performance should be based only on the duties outlined in the position description. If it is found that the complaint is based on different personal working styles, preferences, or infrequent mistakes – and TS-B is otherwise meeting the requirements of her job description, the complaint will be dismissed without informing or involving TS-B. If it is established that one or more of the duties assigned to TS-B is not being met, the small Steering Committee will:
- Assure that TS-B is aware of and allowed to respond to the complaints and, if appropriate, to propose remedial actions to correct problems.
- If TS-B does not propose remedial actions, the small Steering Committee will establish appropriate remedial actions that TS-B can take to correct the problems;
- Establish a timeframe and deadline for remedial actions to be taken and documented;
- If the small Steering Committee has not already elevated the issue to the full Steering Committee, they will inform the larger Steering Committee of the findings, remedial actions, and timeframe;
- The full Steering Committee will decide whether TS-B can remain in the position or should be removed;
- If the Steering Committee decides that TS-B should be removed from the position, they will inform her in writing of their decision. The Secretary will deliver the documented decision to TS-B and call for volunteers to fill the position to the end of the current term.
Rationale
There have been several instances in the past where a Trusted Servant did not fulfill all the duties outlined in her position description.
While this may have created problems, Trusted Servants who were aware of the problem did not have a formal process for bringing the problem to the attention of the Steering Committee, and their complaint was never raised. Therefore, no action was taken to correct the problem. In one instance, the issue was raised with some Trusted Servants, but there was no process for allowing the Trusted Servant to improve her performance or for making a decision on whether the Trusted Servant should be removed. This proposal provides a formal process that will make it easier to raise such problems to the Steering Committee, to allow the Trusted Servant to correct performance, and to remove the Trusted Servant if performance does not improve.
Summary of Comments on Proposal 6
I think TS-B should be informed of any complaints, whether valid or dismissed as invalid. I know I would want to know. Otherwise, the proposal looks good.
********
As secretary I have witnessed a few events where TS-A went directly to TS-B. And there were hurt feeling and personality issues that came up instead of principals. The intent is to follow the tradition of principles before personalities. If the complaint is valid the steering committee will certainly gently handle the situation.
If the complaint isn’t valid – which I have seen – it was very disruptive to the group and to myself and it wasn’t necessary or kind.
I would hope this group would trust the officers that have volunteered to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. By TS-A going directly
To TS-B she is short circuiting the role of secretary and as a result I have been left to put out fires .
Thank you for letting me share
********
I agree, this procedure is needed.
I have filled a few TS jobs in the years I have been part of Grow and I have made mistakes in EVERY position. It has always been pointed out in a discreet way and I’ve appreciated the help.
I don’t think we need a procedure for the learning curve we all go through in taking these positions and I never want anyone discouraged from taking a position.
Thanks
********
I’d be interested to hear more from other members of the Steering Committee regarding this proposal.
Thank you for the experiences shared so far.
********
I have also made a mistake and was pointed out to me in a discreet manner (harsh but kind).
I will not make same mistake again.
My thinking is above approach works well.
********
Having been with Grow quite a while now, I have seen several instances where a Trusted Servant was not doing her job, but because there was no process to address it, nothing was done. Therefore, the job was not executed as per our group conscience decisions for the entire term. I strongly believe that we need a process to allow these issues to be addressed.
The proposal does not address “mistakes.” We all make them, and the proposal does not intend for simple mistakes, especially during a TS’s initial training period, to be sufficient for a performance review. But what if we continue to make the same mistake over and over again? Then it becomes a performance problem, and our group needs a way to raise the issue to the Steering Committee for review and decision-making.
When failure to perform a duty in the job description does happen (which is not often, but it does happen), one Trusted Servant should not be put in a position of pointing out the problem to the person she believes is making it. If she (TS-A) perceives the problem to be serious enough to bring a complaint, more than a handful of TSs should be involved, and TS-A should not contact TS-B directly.
The goal is to handle performance issues in a way that places principles above personalities when performance issues are repeated, not to play “gotcha” because a TS made a simple and honest mistake.
I have been in the posiition where another Trusted Servant was not doing the job as outlined in her job description. I was not comfortable with confronting her personally, and there was no process for me to raise the issue to other TSs. I remained silent, and the problem continued. While I raised it with a couple of Trusted Servants at the time, no one knew what to do about it. This process would give us a way to assure that performance issues are addressed. Because the whole Steering Committee would discuss the issues and then be the decision-maker, it also avoids over-reactions to what might be a simple issue of style or personality.
********
I’d like to hear more as well. In principle having a procedure in place sounds like a good idea. But there seem to be a number of folks who think this is unnecessary.
********
On reading the more recent shares on 6.2 I can hear there is a need to put a process in place.
I have always been of the view that principles before personalities works best and that the Trusted Servants Steering Committee will benefit from a framework to go through in the event there are issues with duties or responsibilities being missed or done incorrectly.
I have made plenty of mistakes in GROW doing service, and I welcome a process to take the personalities out of the way we support TS to rectify errors. A one to one message from another member is just that, and this way it would a Steering Committee conscience.
In my mind there are similarities here with the process we in GROW have if a member is disruptive or inappropriate.
Having a process is important, and so is having a Steering Committee well informed and able to carry out the process.
The proposal in 6.2 seems necessary to me.
In love and fellowship
********
I like that this process goes first to the small steering committee, the same as the process outlined in our Common Welfare Guidelines when there is disruptive behavior in the group. In the occasional situations I’ve been involved in, both as a member of the Steering Committee and the small Steering Committee the hardest thing for me has been the different chains of information. I can think of one situation where there were at least three different email threads going on with different people participating in each. By the time it got to the small Steering Committee it was really difficult to know if we had all the information and there was some confusion as to who said what, when. I think this proposal could help by giving guidance as to when something goes to the small Steering Committee and then the Steering Committee as a whole.
I do think Danna’s differentiating between mistakes and failure to perform a job description duty is important. I’ve made several mistakes as a TS, mostly because I just didn’t know something or didn’t realize I had done something. I’ve had a few pointed out to me. Although I felt criticized at first (that’s just me being thin-skinned), I chose to take it as a learning opportunity just as it was intended. Important things for me to know so the group could function smoothly. Principles before personalities. None of these mistakes would have warranted review by the small Steering Committee. I would think we all get the difference and wouldn’t want to put a process in place that’s so rigid we can’t help each other out as we learn how to do our service positions.
Thank you,
Results of Voting on Proposal 6
Voting: 16 participants voted: 14 in favor, and 2 against. There were no minority opinions submitted, therefore the proposal passes with a 2/3 majority.
Group Conscience Decision:
The statement will be added as #9 to the Business Meeting Guidelines.
When a Trusted Servant (TS-A) feels that another Trusted Servant (TS-B) is not meeting the requirements of her position description, TS-A will take her issues to the small Steering Committee (made up of the Business Chair, Secretary, and Listkeepers) for consideration. She should not engage with or confront TS-B. The small Steering Committee can choose to bring the issue to the full Steering Committee.
The review of TS-B’s performance should be based only on the duties outlined in the position description. If it is found that the complaint is based on different personal working styles, preferences, or infrequent mistakes – and TS-B is otherwise meeting the requirements of her job description, the complaint will be dismissed without informing or involving TS-B. If it is established that one or more of the duties assigned to TS-B is not being met, the small Steering Committee will:
- Assure that TS-B is aware of and allowed to respond to the complaints and, if appropriate, to propose remedial actions to correct problems.
- If TS-B does not propose remedial actions, the small Steering Committee will establish appropriate remedial actions that TS-B can take to correct the problems;
- Establish a timeframe and deadline for remedial actions to be taken and documented;
- If the small Steering Committee has not already elevated the issue to the full Steering Committee, they will inform the larger Steering Committee of the findings, remedial actions, and timeframe;
- The full Steering Committee will decide whether TS-B can remain in the position or should be removed;
- If the Steering Committee decides that TS-B should be removed from the position, they will inform her in writing of their decision. The Secretary will deliver the documented decision to TS-B and call for volunteers to fill the position to the end of the current term.