Background History:
The current requirement for attendance at the General Assembly is at least once every three years. At GA 2014, there was extensive discussion about setting a minimum attendance requirement, as some Companions attended infrequently or not at all. The Servant Leader at the time, Mark Newman, viewed GA as part of the Companions’ vacation and believed it was unreasonable to expect them to spend it at GA every year, or even every two. At one point, he abruptly ended the discussion and instructed the secretary to record the requirement as at least once every three years, which became the official standard in the Founding Document. At the time, most Companions felt the requirement should be more frequent.
The current text of Precepts XIII, Regarding General Assembly, p. 27, reads as follows:
Annual attendance at General Assembly is strongly encouraged. However, attendance at General Assembly at least every three years is mandatory for Companions, unless expressly excused by the Servant Leader.
Questions:
Do we want to reconsider the minimum requirement to attend General Assembly at least every three years? If so, what frequency would you suggest?
Please provide a rationale for your opinion.
I am writing this post as Brother Aidan Daniel, Companion – not as Brother Aidan Daniel, Servant Guardian. In writing this, I am in no way indicating, directly or indirectly, what our position should be. I am writing this as a Companion, based on years of experience in the community, hearing and observing much in my various roles over the years.
When we instituted the requirement of attending GA at least once every three years, I thought it was a joke. I still think it’s a joke. It’s like publishing the “cut allowance” at the beginning of a college course, i.e., the number of times you can miss attending before getting in trouble. It opens the door to limited optional attendance – which most people use. Have people taken advantage of this regarding GA? In my opinion, yes – on occasion.
In the FD, the paragraph before the one noting the requirement of attending once every three years discusses the importance of GA in the life of the community, followed by a statement that says in effect, “Yeah, but you only have to participate in all this importance once every three years”, which cheapens the preceding paragraph, in my opinion – and is a bit illogical.
GA is either essential to the community’s life or it’s not. The in-person experience of connecting with one another is a core value, or it’s not. Our beautiful aspirational language is lived out in community life, or it’s not.
I find myself in alignment with Brother Robert Julian’s position: the expectation is that we attend every year. So, if you want a number, my number would be 1: once annually. I am absolutely NOT in favor of substituting virtual attendance for in-person attendance on a regular basis. The expectation is that one would attend virtually as much as possible ONLY in those instances where one could absolutely not attend because of reasons of health, demands of employment, being out of the country, or family crisis. There is absolutely no equivalence of attending virtual GA sessions with the week-long in-person experience, so I don’t want to see us open that door as a regular practice.
I would also ask that you not turn the role of the Servant Guardian into something between a den mother and a cop when it comes to keeping track of attendance at GA and then applying sanctions as necessary. We should be there every year, unless there are valid, extenuating circumstances which preclude being there. Done. Full stop. Simple and straightforward. Discuss non-attendance with the Servant Guardian instead of simply informing him/her you won’t be there.
Whatever the requirement is, we ALWAYS allow for valid reasons for not being at GA. The annual requirement would be absolutely no different than it is now for attending once every three years, as far as allowing for valid reasons for not being there. Even with an annual attendance requirement, that might happen two years in a row…
Bro. Aidan Daniel — Companion
I feel there is a way betwixt all of this in light of the flexibility technology gives us. Perhaps a wording of:
“Annual attendance at General Assembly is required and in-person attendance is strongly encouraged. However, attendance of General Assembly sessions via an online meeting platform may be permitted by the Servant Guardian on a case-by-case basis. Absence from General Assembly may be excused by the Servant Guardian up to two times consecutively within a three year period. A companion’s profession may be considered renounced upon a third consecutive absence, which will initiate an advisory council of three as outlined under Precept IV. Exceptions may be made for companions who qualify under Precept IV “Limited Ability to Participate in the Life of the Community”.”
This would give the Servant Guardian clear guidelines, clear expectations for companions, and resulting action should the infringement occur.
I agree with having a numerical requirement. GA is our time to be together in person.
I believe the current wording is sufficient. We don’t need to create a stumbling block. We are a dispersed community from diverse walks of life and in different circumstances. Sometimes attending virtually is the best a Companion can do.
Upon reflection, I should have phrased what I said differently in response to Brother Christopher’s comment… I did not want to remove the numerical requirement and replace it with language that simply aligned participation expectations with the community’s values, leaving it vague and open to interpretation.
I was really calling for clear, unambiguous language in whatever the expectation is. That might be language similar to current language, or language similar to what Brother Robert Julian suggests. There is a well-known concept in psychology that precise language leads to stronger and more effective response than ambiguous language. And I think this is an issue that calls for clear expectations, whatever they might be, to avoid misunderstanding and “dueling interpretations”.
Again, I truly wish it didn’t have to be this way, but experience has proven that a defined expectation is necessary to maintain accountability.
Hello my dear brothers and sisters.
Regarding participation in the GA, I think that all brothers should have a plan to participate annually, as this is a very important moment for strengthening the community.
Not participating should only be an option in truly justifiable and unexpected cases.
I have encouraged brothers here in Brazil to participate in the GA because, from my own experience, I know how important it is, so much so that if I could, I would be present every year, but I only do not participate precisely because of the high costs.
Therefore, for me, it would not even be necessary to include the obligation, as I understand that this is a prerequisite.
However, considering Brother Aidan’s contribution, I think that we should maintain the three-year frequency, exactly as it is in the Founding Document.
Clear expectations are important. But perhaps in this instance, we do ourselves a disservice by not expecting everyone to attend every GA unless explicitly excused by the Servant Guardian. That means Companions must allow enough time to plan and to contact the Servant Guardian if some unavoidable circumstance arises. Every three years seems like a convenient excuse. Frankly, two years does also. I think it is important that we all expect of each other to make every effort to be at GA. The only “out” should be with permission of the Servant Guardian. Every Year.
In view of what we just discussed about participation in local chapters, this seems out of step with the community’s desired expectation. Perhaps, it would be wise to remove the numeric expectation but leave specific permission from the Servant Guardian in any case of absence and in respectful advance time.
I understand the desire to align participation expectations with the community’s values, but I am not in favor of removing the numerical requirement. In my experience as Servant Guardian, without a clear expectation in place, we will inevitably revert to the very situation that led us to establish this requirement in the first place. Unfortunately, history has shown that when there is no set guideline, attendance can become inconsistent, Further, Companions simply inform me of their absence rather than seeking permission to be excused. Companions could then do that year after year, and in the past they did, and then just stopped attending.
I truly wish it didn’t have to be this way, but experience has proven that a defined expectation is necessary to maintain accountability within the community.