Seniority Scores

On each council, each member has a seniority score representing cumulative achievements as a member of that council.  Procedurally, seniority score determines seniority, as under the DROP, except that status as a council's leader automatically confers top seniority in that council regardless of current seniority score.  When seniority scores are tied, age is the tie breaker.   Normally (in a sedentary order) a participant will have a different seniority score on each council the participant participates in, and when a participant joins a council, the member starts with a seniority score of zero and when the member leaves the council that seniority score goes back to zero.  New participants of an order start with a seniority score of zero.  A member’s seniority score on a council increases when the member is awarded merits, and it decreases when the member is awarded demerits. 

​

What's with seniority scores?  A main goal in design of the organization is to make it resistant to precipitous change.  People who have demonstrated commitment have more power or seniority.  A simple way to do this is just to look at date of joining.  But that would be unfair to people who participate a lot.  Those who joined long ago and never show up or do anything would be equals to them.  So seniority should be based on actual cumulative attendance, not just date of first participation.  But just showing up isn't necessarily enough.  Some do more than others when they do show up.  So they should be given extra credit that should mount up to more seniority faster.  And who gives this extra credit?  Well, everybody, each other.  But what's the point of having higher status then if you give points at the same rate as others?  What's the right ratio?  The leader has exactly the same rating power as all the other members put together.  How do you do that?  The leader can rate everybody each meeting, each of the others can pick one other to rate at each meeting.  But the leader must distribute this rating power evenly, whereas the others can concentrate if motivated.  

​

Seniority is far more than parliamentary priority, it determines who is leader, but priority does need addressing.  More senior people should go first because we want them to set the pace.  And any random thing will do as a tie breaker in cases of ties.  Age is easily proven and looked up.  

​

Different seniority scores on different councils makes things more democratic.  Every merit given is a vote for who will be leader.  They add up over time, rather than elections being one event.  And existing leaders have weighted say.  But those leaders were voted in, as it were, so all power really comes from the people, except past people get a vote too.  

​

Keeping track of seniority scores of past members of councils would surely be a headache, plus it would give too much power to the past.  With zeroing out, councils just have to track current members, and their seniorities are only based on their current run on the council, not historical kudos over their lifetimes.  Stability gets rewarded.   When a council changes its leader, it reduces the status of its leader on higher councils, where its leader is a novice (possibly again).

​

Members receive merits and demerits at evaluation meetings, which are held regularly by each council.  Members have a right to be present, but all others are at the discretion of the senior member present.  Members give each other merits or demerits, and this is called rating each other.  Leaders and other members cannot rate themselves.  At each evaluation meeting the leader can award every other member a merit or a demerit (or neither).  At each evaluation meeting, members other than the leader can select one other member (including the leader) to be awarded either a merit or a demerit.  A member can be rated whether the member is present or not. 

 

Evaluations meetings are the meat and potatoes of an order, a congregation, or any sector or council.  What do people really get out of church?  They get improved and they get to be among improved people.  With someone in charge who is widely respected.  Evaluation meetings not only select who is leader, but they are an opportunity for all to speak their minds, which for leaders may be something like a sermon or a counseling session.  Sure, everybody gets a chance to talk about themselves (who doesn't love that?), but also everybody talks to each other about how the other is doing.  And everybody gets feedback, gets talked to about how they are doing.  You get to express your prides and regrets and exciting new ideas.  You get to judge each other and give advice.  You get advice and guidance.  All in one system.  Furthermore, it also forms the government system of the cooperative endeavor of mutual support and mission accomplishment--whatever the organization's source of values.  Ratings not only advise and improve, they are votes.  

​

People are going to need thick skins and kindness both because they are baring themselves to each other.  What I see happening is that the council leader will grade one way, the council members another.   Leaders will give a mix of merits and demerits to give feedback.   Each member will get leader feedback.  Other members will pick someone who really stood out.  The very worst or very best will earn the limited attention of a rank and file member.  Only those who obviously did do very poorly or do something very wrong will earn multiple peer demerits and go backwards.  And they'll know they messed up and that it's righteous.  Otherwise, hey, you didn't get the blue ribbon.  You get a merit just for showing up, so a demerit just means you are treading water. 

​

I was tempted to give a greater range, -2 to +2.  But that just adds complication and decision stress.  It needs to stay simple: leaders decide whether each individual did better than not this time period while peers decide who stood out the most and in what direction.  That's all.   

​

Why should we have to be alcoholics to get something like this?  At the lowest level you are sharing your progress in life generally (measured against common values and your own declared goals) with a consistent group of peers as well as a supervisor chosen by the group, and you are getting feedback and advice about that progress.   At higher levels you are talking about your organizational goals and achievement as well.  

​

Each member absent at the start time of an evaluation meeting automatically gets an additional demerit, and each member present at the start time of the meeting automatically gets an additional merit.  At each evaluation meeting of a council the leader automatically gets an additional seniority score adjustment which is identical to the rating the leader most recently received as a subordinate member from the leader of the next higher council. 

​

There has to be a penalty for bad attendance, and it has to lead to being removed from membership.  If that doesn't exist then the organization will become a paper tiger full of "members" who once showed an interest and have since gone away.  Participation is expected.  Further, merely showing up should earn seniority.  Automatic attendance merits help water down the sting of demerits and that in turn emboldens honest ratings.  

 

When a council is made up of leaders of subordinate councils, the ratings given by the leader of that council of leaders are counted not only in that council, but they are also echoed down into the seniority scores of the councils led by those subordinate leaders.  Normally, everyone has a different seniority score on each council the person is a member of , and most merits and demerits toward that seniority score are awarded by members of that council in evaluation meetings.  This special echoing down is the only kind of rating that transcends councils and gives higher levels meaningful authority.  Largely, a council leader is sort of selected by the council as its representative on higher councils.  But, with this, the leaders of higher councils also have some say on who is a member of their council.  This is important to do because otherwise scores on a higher-than-basic council only determine who is selected for leadership, not who is on the council at all.  That would be bad because it would probably create resentment for organizations to have absolutely no power over who their members are.  It's also important because leaders don't get a chance to receive leader ratings in evaluation meetings of the councils they lead since they can't rate themselves, and that means they get fewer opportunities to be rated and are thus potentially disadvantaged relative to other council members.  Without such a provision, leaders would likely be overtaken by subordinates and never serve more than one year terms.  It's a good sign if such a thing is a potential consequence because that demonstrates that the echo down rule really must carry moderately pivotal influence.  It doesn't dictate, but it can make the difference.   

​

​

​