May 28th, 2023 Steering Committee Notes
SC Chair: Lauren
Secretaries: Elle and Lauren
SC Members Present: Kristen, Elle, Lisa, Dennis, Barbara, Donna, and Lauren
Old Business:
I. Intergroup Updates
II. ZPolls
III. Adding “Additional Resources” (Cohost Blurb)
IV. SC Thread (4/28/2023)
V. Lifting Zoom Account Requirements
VI. Anniversary Committee (April SC Feedback)
A. Motion to bring these Topics to the next BM.
B. Seconded and Passed (6 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VII. Revisiting LNG Ending Time (May BM)
A. There has been some pushback regarding this GC, and a discussion on this topic is being given to help unify the group. Members who disagree with the cutoff time are encouraged to attend the BM to offer their own perspectives. If there is a majority vote that approves 1:30 cutoff time a second time, this topic cannot be revisited for 6 months.
B. Mark P: Here’s my 2 cents on the new LNG guidelines: I think the :30 Cut-Off is working well, a healthy boundary. I think the 5-minute limit after 2am could be discontinued, though. Once in, you’re in. Just an observation. (May SC Feedback)
C. SC Response
1. SC members seemed to agree that removing the 5-minute limit would work out with the new GC. Most LNG hosts are content with the new cutoff time. The 5-minute limit is not necessary because the meeting is ending in a timely way.
2. Lauren proposed for the Host’s discretion to have last call for hands at 1:30 and cutting off the hands by 1:45 on slow nights only. She experienced a few nights where there weren’t enough shares to fill the hour.
– Make sure to call for burning desires and give struggling members the chance to share. This gives priority to the newcomers in the room.
3. Lisa proposed going back to the Host’s discretion but making sure to emphasize that cohosts can leave at 2am and are not obligated to stay.
4. Kristen expressed that the cutoff should be consistent for all Hosts because Host Discretion can pose certain issues that she has witnessed in her previous experiences.
– Members might put pressure on Hosts to stay.
– Some might get carried away and let members share past the 3am hour.
5. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VIII. Revisiting Joan’s Ban (May BM)
A. Due to the high volume of dissent (8-6) vote, Lauren proposes to revisit this topic. The perspectives that were expressed were divided-No ban/Ban for a year.
B. Lauren proposes to revisit this topic for the sake of finding a middle ground. Perhaps, the decision was rushed, and more thought could be given to this decision.
C. A second business meeting with another vote (one that reflects the group’s conscience in a balanced way) might remedy this situation. The goal of this revaluation is to mend and strengthen the unity of the group with a solution that is more inclusive.
D. This topic cannot be revisited for 6 months once it has gone through the BM process again.
E. Motion to take to next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IX. Topics on the Website (April SC Feedback/Tabled from the last SC Meeting)
A. Ross: there used to be a link to an extensive list of topics on the webpage. Does that still exist?
1. Jocelyne said that non-service members need to subscribe to the mailing list to receive topics. They do not have the same access as service folk to see the topics on the website.
2. Lisa and Lauren suggested reaching out to Danielle to see what can be done in this situation.
3. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
X. SC Updates/Topics that could use SC Attention
A. Group Inventory (Needs more time)
1. Lisa said she plans on moving forward with this.
2. Dennis wants to look into GSO suggestions for Group Inventory and see what he can bring to the group too.
B. Scheduling Software (Tabled from May BM) (Needs more time)
1. Lisa suggested that we call for volunteers at the BM to help Danielle test out the scheduling software.
C. Host Feedback Workshop
1. Any suggestions on how we move forward with this?
2. Lisa suggested calling for some volunteers at the next BM. We will need, at least, two experienced Hosts to facilitate this group decision. Maybe a couple of other service members to help organize the workshop. The service folk involved in this endeavor do not have to be SC members.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
New Business
I. Dissent
A. If there are dissenting views, current GC allows for inclusion and revaluation. GC can go through the BM process twice, which gives the group a chance to make an informed decision. This process is limited to two Business Meetings due to the importance of honoring group decisions. Group Conscience evolves over time, and a 6-month waiting period gives the topic a chance for revisitation. This GC provides a fair balance between adapting to changes in GC and respecting the group’s decision-making.
1. There have been concerns raised about the way the group handles disagreeing perspectives. A reminder to offer one’s point of view with respect and compassion might need to be given. We play our own part in creating a positive atmosphere for others to do their service work and protecting the unity of the group.
B. There has been an influx of infighting this past month which has negatively impacted group members. Reminding members that they have the ability to give SC feedback, topics can be discussed twice in a BM setting, attend the SC Meetings/Business Meetings, and letting them know that their concerns are heard/discussed could be beneficial.
C. Offering dissent helps the group grow, and members are not discouraged from using their voices to create changes in a meeting. However, the approach matters. Having civil discussions on situations with differing perspectives is important.
D. Motion to bring this to the next BM as a reminder to the group.
– Seconded and Passed (6 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
II. Ban Guidelines
A. Based on ideas that were offered by another member, Lauren is proposing to set limitations on bans as a preventive measure for over-exuberance or a reliance on bans for resolving conflicts. Bans are still pretty new for the group, and this could be worthy of discussion.
B. These guidelines could be a group-approved way to handle issues regarding bans. For example: set timeframes for bans and instances that do or do not warrant bans. Using AA approved sources as guiding material. (AA Safety Card, Safety and A.A.: Our Common Welfare, etc.).
C. Lisa suggested that GUTS could use some ideas, suggestions, and wisdom from other groups who have experience with bans (319, etc.). We could ask our Intergroup Rep to investigate this.
D. Al: https://takethe12.org/c5/ https://aaoklahoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Informed-Group-Conscience.pdf The sources above discuss informed group conscience on controversial topics, the value of considering minority opinion on heated topics, and substantial unanimity on those topics to preserve group unity. I believe if there are going to be motions to remove members for a year, in the absence of any sort of gradual system (which should be the rule, after all we do afford service members gradual service removals – with exceptions to imminent threats to the group) those removals should require 75% majority AND a period of adjournment for deliberation before the group moves to vote. See concept 5 – though it is for world service, it considers an important principle. (May SC Feedback)
E. SC Response
1. SC members seemed to agree that some sort of guidelines should be in place.
2. Barbara suggested that a committee or group of service individuals work on this.
3. Barbara and Donna proposed a strike policy that looks similar to the service strike policy.
4. Lisa and Kristen urged caution regarding giving strikes because there was some tomfoolery in the past. They both recommended focusing more on the guidelines themselves rather than giving out strikes. The strike system was viewed as a form of governance and strikes were alcoholically spewed on others.
5. Kristen offered that the guidelines should be consistent with the behavior that is exhibited and treat members equally with no exceptions. Making sure to look at principles of situations over personalities. She also reiterated the usage of AA approved lit and following the guidelines AA has in place for member removal when making these guidelines. There needs to be a unified approach to this.
6. Dennis emphasized Kristen’s perspective and that the guidelines should, for example, have set timeframes in place and make sure that repeated or extremity of behavior be kept in mind.
F. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
III. Fourth Step Workshop
A. Kelly: Maybe we could offer the 4th step workshop as a normal thing, like quarterly or something to help keep the group resentments and outbursts to a minimum.
1. Lauren supports this solution-based approach. This might allow for conflict resolutions prior to a Business Meeting.
2. Lisa suggested that we ask for volunteers to spearhead/facilitate this every few months.
3. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IV. Service Member Complaint
A. Sarah F: Sebastian. I am unsure as to why he feels like he needs to have his hand in everything, but he’s often so confidently incorrect and rude about it. His passive aggressiveness, his willingness to attack other service members, and his complete lack of understanding of GC make him impossible to work with. The discussion today in the announcements thread (May 11 – in case you need to go back and review) is just not acceptable. This is not the first time he has caused disdain within the group. I am also a part of the sober sisters thread and I am not the only person who thinks this. I know that there are struggles with unity sometimes, but it seems as though he is vehemently against unity within the group. He’s a dry alcoholic I feel and his ego takes over. I don’t think he is a bad person, but I feel as though his actions are questionable at this time in his sobriety. I worry that he paints a bad picture of the service team, especially to those who are new to service. I don’t know what the solution is, but I would like this to be brought to the SC so that a discussion can be had – perhaps a chance for him to see how his behaviour is having negative effects, and give him the option to make some changes? But again, it’s not my decision, it’s something we should decide as a whole. (May SC Feedback)
B. Chelsea: Please remove Sebastian from service, he is constantly causing drama and makes unnecessary problems out of nothing. No shame in putting my name to this, it’s clear that myself and a lot of other people do not get along with him and haven’t for some time. It’s not about personalities clashing, it is his stupid comments and whining that bring the group down. Motion to remove Sebastian from service. Thank you. (May SC Feedback)
C. Mona: Earlier this week during my hosting shift while listening to a share there was a square unmuted When I saw the box that was unmuted (green square round it) the name was a bunch of symbols. I immediately removed from meeting. Then to be confronted by Sebastian assuming I should know this. To my knowledge he was named Sebastian the donkey…. I said in live chat after he in situated I knew who he was…he was disrupted in thread.
1. Sebastian and his disruptive behavior and responses to team members…in live thread….in all threads Insulting other members and telling them their words are invalid…. this demeaning behavior IS NOT COMMON WELFARE. (May SC Feedback)
D. Anonymous Member: Sebastian the Donkey is harassing service members and is spamming the live threads with wild accusations and ill will. It is pointless and provocative and needs to be addressed. He has delusions that we are out to get him, starting with Al, now moving on to various others. Please address this. (May SC Feedback)
E. Donna: Sebastian has become combative with the service members more than once. It is something that has become evident in numerous places but I can only speak about things where I have been personally affected. He directed his share towards me last week then followed up with publicly telling me not to talk to him and not to write to him in chat even though I was being supportive towards his share. This is unacceptable behavior. He continues to be argumentative to anyone who tries to help, or who goes against his expectations. I would like to see a 7-day hiatus for him. (May SC Feedback)
F. Amy L: is SC going to address Sebastian the Donkey? He antagonizes many, many service members. It’s disruptive when I host and I really feel he should be addressed. I don’t feel he is genuine in service. (May SC Feedback)
G. Context: Sebastian wanted to nominate Leona for the non-SC WhatsApp Thread Admin and Non-SC Board Member, but this nomination was given after the 72-hour nomination period. These nominations were tabled by the SC for further discussion. The other complaints revolved around Sebastian using his own name in his language. This is a world-wide meeting, and there are times members have names in different languages. He was mistakenly removed, and there were no unkind intentions. Respectful communication in the Live Thread can be used in these situations to prevent misunderstandings. Also, there needs to be an understanding that mistakes happen sometimes, and it’s not personal.
H. SC Response
1. Lisa-the SC feedback is not meant to be a venting space. Utilizing recovery solutions like taking a pause should be used before posting. Taking a little time before posting allows for constructive feedback to the group. Keeps the focus on solutions rather than resentments.
2. Kristen expressed that we have GC in place for dealing with infighting. It’s important that we stay transparent when there are formal complaints issued. It gives the group the option of what to do moving forward- group discussion, offering reminders, issuing strikes, etc. Sebastian is taking a break from service, and a strike may not be necessary. She also imparted that this is not the only case of infighting this month. Rather than individual-attacking, we want to make sure that this is included with the other issues of disunity as well. This is something that can be lumped in with the 4th step workshop.
3. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (6 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
V. Service Member Complaint 2
A. Anonymous Member: Is there a reason why Tyler continues to be scheduled every Sunday night even though he’s only hosted about 2 of the last 7 commitments? He tends to give little notice and I am wondering why he continues being scheduled. Perhaps there is a different time of the week he can regularly commit to. I don’t think this is fair to the service team.
1. Also, is there going to be accountability for those that continue to no-show? If we had a scheduling software where service members check in, I feel like no shows would be fewer or would be addressed quickly. A commitment is a commitment. No-shows affect all of us! (May SC Feedback)
B. Lauren: The “No Show” topic was addressed at the April BM. There are scheduling GC measures that are in place when a member does not show up or communicate their absences. Members were encouraged to communicate with schedulers in the REQ Thread along with giving their availability. Scheduling software was tabled from the last BM and is still a work in progress.
1. There have been instances of members calling out last-minute on a regular basis which could potentially use attention. Maybe a reminder that members could be more definitive with their availability and ensure that they are able to show up to shifts? There is a valid point in there about this being a commitment and the effect no-shows can have on others.
2. There is another side to this coin too. Hopefully, we can find a balanced solution for this issue because we do not govern. People have daily life commitments, responsibilities, and priorities that require attendance. These are voluntary positions. Being tolerant when members can’t make their shifts is also important too.
C. SC Response
1. Dennis suggested a minimum timeframe for callouts so that the schedulers have enough time to fill in the missing slot.
2. SC members agreed that there are GC measures in place for “No Shows,” and the schedulers follow that GC. We cannot control whether others call out from their shifts because life gets lifey. Current GC: In the REQ Thread, Hosts kindly let the schedulers know when members do not show up to their shifts without communicating their absences.
3. Kristen and Lisa said that new members might not be aware of our GC, and we may need to update the group. Making sure that we (everyone in the group, not just SC members) refer people to the proper sourcing for GC. There is a lot of GC to navigate and Kristen proposed a workshop of sorts regarding our GC.
4. Lauren will be working on “GC Bylaws” which will cover important GC within the group. Hopefully, this will help answer common questions/issues that pop up. When this document is completed, she will bring it to the group for approval. Give her some time, and please be patient. She has quite a few documents to create, participates in regular service commitments, works at a daily job, has life commitments, and will be chairing the BM this Sunday which requires a great deal of prep work. This document will be created within the next couple of months.
5. Lauren offered to write up a document that gives an overview of current GC on scheduling. Lauren also wanted to make members aware that she does not create documents without peers looking over her work. She does not write up these documents unilaterally. This will be done within the next couple of weeks.
– Motion to facilitate this feedback through this document without the BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VI. Service Member Complaint 3
A. Can we ask Leona not to give cohost instructions on doing our job in the middle of our shifts. If she has an issue, she should bring it up at the board meeting or submit a request. Cohost tags not removed when not on schedule is starting to occur again. (May SC Feedback)
1. Lauren: Perhaps, a reminder could be given to Hosts to follow the schedule and to check members’ tags.
B. Context: There was disagreement between members over name changing.
1. Some felt that changing the names prior to members entering the room was an efficient way of protecting anonymity. It doesn’t take long to change the names in the waiting room.
2. Some felt that changing the names after members enter the room was an efficient way to speedily give members access to the room. They made the point that people can change their own names in Zoom Settings.
3. Both perspectives made valid points. Maybe the group can offer constructive dialogue regarding this situation. Current GC allows for both methods to be used. As long as the name is changed, the method is up to the cohosts.
4. Lauren was reminded that she wrote a document outlining the division of cohosting jobs back in March. This can be re-posted, if needed.
– Motion to facilitate this feedback without the BM through the document. This document will be posted this week with a few updates and include Topic VIII.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
C. SC Response
1. Lisa and Kristen wanted to remind others to not be territorial over jobs. Dennis also wanted to give the reminder that members should also be mindful when others are doing a certain job. Simple and kind communication in the Live Thread should resolve any confusion regarding the division of jobs.
2. Kristen pointed out that names should be changed promptly. Every so often, scroll through the participant list to make sure that there are no last names or personal contact info within a person’s name. All positions-including Hosts are responsible for protecting anonymity.
VII. Mini Marathon
A. Daren: i suggest that to increase room attendance for out nightly marathon meeting we OFFER a 4 Hour Mini Marathon 11-4 EST possibly M W F – OR JUST FRI SAT SUN that we , hit coast to coast over lunch breaks and shift changes ,i would be able to host more during the days and i would love to see possibly new service members accumulate as we put this meeting on to intergroup (if voted in) Plus the extra use of the room ( wich we pay for ) will definitely increase 7th tradition donations $$$ And offer people a new meeting during the day they can call home Thanks i thoroughly appreciate your time and consideration <3 Daren G.u.t.s (one very proud very grateful steering committee member ) P.S. I am not a robot i am a FOX. (May SC Feedback)
B. SC members agreed that this might not be feasible for schedulers, and we may not have the manpower to accomplish this task. There are other meetings that have times that can accommodate service work for members. Kristen also discussed that taking on a project like this can create burnout and the responsibility to carry it out is placed on others.
C. Motion to table this feedback until Daren can attend. (Daren shortly resigned from service after the SC Meeting)
1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VIII. H&I
A. The group still needs to determine an H&I. SC also felt that it would be helpful to discuss the method for giving out a donation to H&I. Group voted for a rotation to occur, but it could be beneficial to discuss how we do that going forward (Lottery?).
B. Bring this topic to the BM (Treasurer’s Report)
1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
C. Contributions and the follow-through on service sign-ups are down.
1. Elle proposed adding to the 7th tradition blurb and let members know that the various payment options can still be used through GiveButter.
2. Lisa wanted Hosts to encourage people to sign up for service throughout the meeting, not just at the beginning. If someone seems interested in doing service work, send them the link.
3. Lauren proposed to add these updates to the Division of Jobs document since that will be posted this week. Remind Hosts to vocally announce that various payment options can still be used with GiveButter and to encourage people to do service work. Will not be brought to the next BM. This will be facilitated through the document.
– Seconded and Passed (5 Yes Votes/No Dissent)