Response to Questions for the Candidates - Qualifications - Part Seven

Welcome back! I am continuing to respond to the questions from ADF members directed to the candidates running for office. 

Today's responses relate to the subject of my own Qualifications.

Image by Gerd Altmann (Creative Commons CC0)

JA:  What special skills would you bring to the position?

I listen actively to get to the heart of a matter and find ways to explain issues to others, which make me a good mediator and advocate. I spent years honing those skills in customer service and working as a legal assistant on family law matters. 

I am aware of my own limitations. I know when I am emotionally too close to an issue and actively work to not project my own emotions into matters where they do not belong.

I have the ability to agree to disagree, as well as to recognize that my way is not the only way. There may be times when the folk want something addressed in a certain way and I might personally disagree, but I believe I have the ability to still construct logical arguments in favor of their requests, as well as to cast votes for the greater good rather than my own personal beliefs. 

SB:  how do you take feedback and criticism from peers and those you serve?
SB:  and to tag onto the last....how do you react to people who disagree with you?

I think it will vary depending upon the type and subject of the feedback and criticism.

I welcome feedback and criticism of ideas, as constructive criticism is the most helpful form of finding and fixing flaws or holes. I often remind myself that critical thinking is a necessary part of process and commentary is not directed at me personally.

I am not afraid to admit that I missed seeing something from a different perspective and returning to the brainstorming phase of solving a problem if an idea I previously thought to be brilliant later proves to be full of unpluggable holes. I would rather admit I was wrong and start over with a new premise than waste the valuable time of others on something that is simply not viable.

As for disagreements, I know how to agree to disagree, as well as to recognize that my way is not the only way. I am generally up for a debate and enjoy the mental exercise of playing devil’s advocate, but dislike engaging in argument simply for the sake of argument.


BE:  How are you going to improve the communication between MG members?Not with the membership, but between individual members of the Mother Grove.

I believe that most communication problems arise when persons assume opposing viewpoints and respond to what they think they are hearing, rather than what is actually being said. The easiest way to resolve that, in my varied experience, is to actively listen to what a person is saying, rather than simply waiting for the chance to break-in and make your own point. The most amazing thing that this can accomplish is to realize that two people are not necessarily on opposite sides of an issue, but instead, are merely approaching the same thing from a different angle.

Taking the time to paraphrase what you believe another person is saying at the start of your response gives that person the chance to correct any misconceptions you may have about their position. In reading the logs of the MG discussions, I see many instances which are variations of this. There are far too many moments when some person responds with “that is not what I meant.” Paraphrasing what I *think* the other person said is a great way to avoid that happening.

Additionally, I think it is important to always assume “best intent.” All the members of the MG are there to serve the folk, not themselves, and it is my hope that all are able to separate their personal views on any subject from what they believe is best for the organization as a whole. To provide an overly simplistic example, if I say “the sky is blue” and you respond “but the grass is green,” that does not mean that we are are disagreeing on the color of the sky. The next action I take is therefore very important. I need to make a choice before responding - do I act as if we are disagreeing and dig in my heels and refuse to discuss anything but the color of the sky, or do I assume there is a reason that you think the color of the grass is also relevant and ask you to explain your reasons for bringing it up?

My goal is to always separate my own “knee-jerk” reactions or emotional responses from the choice and go with the latter. My hope is that by setting such an example, and gently reminding others of the same, we can eventually get everyone into the habit of responding from a similar place, thereby navigating discussions more efficiently without the harsh feelings that the other option creates.

BE:  How familiar are you with Roberts Rules of Order?

I have worked with several groups that use at the least the basics of Robert’s Rules over the years, so I have more than a passing familiarity with them. I will not stretch the truth and call myself an expert, by any means, but I am fairly well acquainted.

MR:  In real actions, how would you, if elected, improve on the great job the MG has been doing?

I think I have laid out several responses above and in previous posts, in which I address this question in general. If you have specific follow-up questions, please let me know and I would be happy to engage in a specific discussion.

Also, an update to a previous response, which asked what I was doing to promote a Consent Culture within ADF. 

I am now signed up to take the Cherry Hill Seminary Consent Culture Course myself, which starts on April 2, and if elected, I will have completed the course before I would begin serving my term on the Mother Grove. Please note that I have paid for this course myself, because I feel that this is important for myself and for my grove, as well as being important for ADF.