July 30th Steering Committee Notes
SC Chair: Lauren
SC Members Present: Lisa, Elle, Kristen, Maya, Jeremy, Barbara, Amy, Donna, and Dennis
Old Business
I. Lifting Zoom Account Requirements (July BM)
B. Members suggested conducting a trial run to temporarily lift requirements due to low attendance. This trial run would last for a couple of weeks to evaluate attendance numbers and collect necessary information. They acknowledged the potential for bombers but expressed confidence in the service team’s ability to handle such disruptions. Zoom requirements do not provide 100% protection against bombers. A trial run can shed new light on what adaptations the group can apply to this GC. Concerns were raised about newcomers or individuals unfamiliar with Zoom, who may require a meeting and are unable to gain entry. Members perceived a decrease in the number of newcomers since the requirements were implemented. They argued that this meeting is centered around newcomers. A trial run could allow us to figure out what kind of communication is needed for those who can’t get into the room.
C. Other members emphasized that the requirements make it more challenging for bombers to gain access and filter out potential disruptors. They explained that lifting the requirements could lead to an increase in attendance; however, there could be an influx of trolls causing disruptions. These members reiterated the importance of prioritizing the safety of meeting attendees. They discussed the positive impact of the Zoom requirements in reducing disruptions caused by bombers, allowing the focus to remain on the primary purpose. The service team can provide more support to attendees without the distractions that bombers cause. Members expressed the importance of protecting meeting attendees from explicit content that bombers typically display. Their presence could potentially drive away existing participants. The need to protect the peaceful environment of the meeting is paramount. Bombers tend to sow chaos and, at times, display foul content that can’t be unseen.
D. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (9 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
A. Lauren: I will repost the July 9th BM in the SC Thread for review.
B. Members wanted to know why we are revisiting the content of this Business Meeting. They wondered if there was a need to re-hash this all out.
1. Lauren responded: I was approached with concerns about the meeting being announced last minute. There needed to be more of a heads up, and I played a part in the lack of communication. The meeting and decisions felt rushed for members of the meeting. The content of this BM is extremely important for the group, and there are a lot of changes to implement at once. We did vote for a revisitation for the July 9th BM.
– The group can vote to add this change at the BM. Lauren can include any and all changes that the group makes in the group announcements after the BM too.
C. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (9 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
New Business
I. Hosts Picking Topics (July SC Thread)
A. Kristen: I don’t know if it goes against group conscience, but some hosts make up their own topic for their hour. When we have topics, we post everyday. Not sure if this is an issue to address. I’ve gotten complaints of people being confused as to why the host is coming up with a topic when there’s topics posted in chat. I bring it up because the topics people are voted into the position by the group. So, if it’s not needed and hosts come up with topics, then we need to readdress and take a group conscience to eliminate that position.
B. SC members agreed that group clarification and discussion will be needed in this situation. One host picks their own topic for the hour which contradicts the Topics Coordinator’s service position. This creates confusion with meeting attendees. Many members come in prepared to speak on the topics because they are emailed out every day. Currently, Hosts are not disallowed from picking their own topics, and there is no previous GC on this issue. The Topics Coordinators work hard to select topics every single day. Also, the topics that the coordinators create are loved, valued, and a core aspect of the group.
1. Some SC members offered the perspective that some Host autonomy should be allowed, and other meetings give Chair-people the option to pick their own topic.
2. If the group decides to keep our daily topics, we will be opening nominations for Topics Coordinator(s). Samantha and Kristen can be renominated.
C. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (9 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
II. Service Thread Maintenance (July SC Feedback)
A. Leona: The GUTS thread is kinda like the fellowship thread for all service people. Any questions, discussions, FYI’s are posted here. It has 64 participants in it. The GUTS Announcements thread is for announcements from the Business Meeting and Polls for all service people. It has 72 participants in it. The GUTS Live Co/Host Chat is for posts during the meeting for all service people. It has 75 participants in it. The GUTS Schedule/Topics thread is for the Topics and Schedules posts for all service people. It has 74 participants in it. The Current & Daily Sched Req thread is for Schedule changes for all service people. It has 73 participants in it. When people are brought into service, the schedulers are supposed to add them to all 5 threads. They are all service threads. It was my understanding that only the schedulers and the thread admin were to be admins for the service threads. The only exception is the GUTS Schedule/Topics thread which also has the two topics people also. When people leave service, they should be removed from all of the service threads because they are no longer in service. If people do not want to be a part of one of the threads, like the GUTS thread, they can leave the thread. It appears there are people in service that are not in the GUTS thread. There are people in the threads that are no longer in service. There are admins that are no longer in service. There are admins that are no longer in those positions. I have a feeling the Thread Admin is not aware of all of this. The Thread admins are supposed to work with the schedulers to find out who needs to be removed or added. Service members for the regular meeting are required to be in the Live Thread and scheduling threads. People can leave the GUTS thread and Announcement Thread. Some of the GC differs for Sister Meeting service members, but they are allowed to be in all service threads. Thread admins can also remove members based on severe cases of harassment or infighting. I suggest guidelines be set up on what the service threads are, what each thread is for. And the guidelines should include who does what.
B. Lauren: For the sake of clarity and organization, I posted a couple of documents in the SC Thread for review. These documents include descriptions of the various WhatsApp Threads, their purposes, and the GC that goes along with Thread maintenance. I held onto the “Service Practices” document to ensure that it stayed current. It includes Scheduling GC and the functioning of the WhatsApp threads too.
C. SC Response
1. Dennis asked a question about the “Service Practices” Document. He wanted to know if Hosts can cohost members who are not on the service team in any capacity. He referred to a past incident where a Host gave cohost tags to a member who used to be on the service team. He was wanting for clarification about the GC relevant to this situation.
– Lauren responded: No, members cannot be cohosted if they have not returned to service. Everyone who wants to return to service, regardless of past experience, needs to go through the “return to service” process.
– Side note: I thought about this discussion after the meeting. The only exception that comes to mind is a group vote being held in the Live thread, and there was an extremely specified need for this member to be cohosted. That would be a darker gray area for this GC since a group vote in the Live Thread does count as a mini group conscience. Live Thread votes are highly situational. Since I am unaware of the specifics of this incident, potentially, there could have been a well-reasoned instance in which this was done. However, according to our overall GC, this should not be done, especially not on a regular basis. That’s why my initial response was “no.” Perhaps, the group will want a concrete GC on this type of issue at a later time.
– Side Note: Lisa is 100% correct. An overhaul is completely necessary, and maybe this could be a solution that is offered when we give an update to the group. Perhaps, we can encourage the schedulers and Thread Admins to attend the business meeting and read over the WhatsApp Document that was created. The document outlines the specific GC for the various threads and scheduling. There is a TON of GC to navigate including the Old GC that we need to revisit. I will include this section in the Business Meeting because I think Lisa summed it up perfectly.
3. Kristen offered the suggestion that we could assign newer members to beginning level service leadership positions such as Thread Admin. Might be a good way to allow newer members to be involved in group business.
– Side Note: Other good starting positions would be ORC, contact list coordinators, topics, or getting involved in one of our specified committees. This would need a group vote, but I believe that Kristen’s suggestion is wonderful food-for- thought. I would not be opposed to bringing this to the next Steering Committee meeting and allow for more deliberation. (Will bring this to next SC Meeting)
4. Lauren: I worked with Leona on the feedback that was posted because she made valid points. Maybe the WhatsApp document can be used as “guidelines” for the Thread Admins and Schedulers.
– Dennis graciously suggested placing the document on the Website which can certainly be an option.
5. Side Note: I attempted to describe the intentions behind making these documents, but I was experiencing word congestion and a tied tongue. This should help clarify what I was trying to convey and explain the purposes of each document that was posted.
– Service Practices Document: The Service Practices section on the Website is outdated. There was a vote held in a previous SC meeting to update the group about Scheduling GC. I combined these documents to kill two birds with one stone. I held onto this document to await scheduling software and to keep the document current before bringing it to the group. It is not ready for the website yet; so, it can be used as part of the update due to our current needs in the group.
– The WhatsApp Document: The WhatsApp document was created yesterday. This document describes each of the threads, their functions, and the GC that goes along with them. I want to include the content of this document with the project I am currently working on.
– The Project: I am working on a project that encapsulates how our group functions, how GC is created, answer commonplace questions, and includes core GC that the group has discussed. As I stated previously, this group has A TON of GC. When my term is over, a new BM chair is going to take over. I had a very difficult experience figuring out our group’s GC. SC Notes weren’t taken at all. A plethora of information is lost except through people’s memories. There are numerous contradictions and information that was not noted. This document may aid the next person and prevent the massive headache while tiptoeing around the GC minefield. Also, this can help prevent the rehashing of old issues that have been discussed to the point of exhaustion and not beat the dead horse. (Of course, any topics that have been discussed twice at a BM can be revisited within 6 months.) ßThis is an example of what would be included in the document.
– This document should help any of the new members on the service team understand how our group works and easily get new people involved in the meeting’s business. This will be a simplified document that can be edited and maintained with each BM Chair and/or Secretary(s). This document can help the group stay informed and updated on the group’s GC. The pièce de résistance will be brought to the group for approval.
– GC Manual: A fellow member was working on a GC Manual, but the project was too big of an undertaking for one individual. This manual was supposed to include all the group’s GC. Near the end of my term, I will be suggesting the creation of a committee to work on a GC Manual. I am hoping the committee will consist of previous BM Chairs/SC Chairs/OG Members to collectively tackle this project. There is a lot of GC that is not clearly logged. People’s experiences will be necessary. (Bring to next SC Meeting)
– Thank you for reading my tangent. Carry on.
6. SC members seemed unsure about how to facilitate the feedback. Lauren suggested to update the group using the documents that she posted in the SC Thread. She said that she could send these documents to the Thread Admins and Schedulers too.
7. Lisa motioned to give an update regarding the feedback that was posted and answer any questions/concerns that may arise.
– Seconded and Passed (9 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
III. Mandatory Business Meeting Attendance for Service Leadership (July SC Meeting)
A. Kristen proposed this topic as a result of the content from the feedback from Topic II. The connection she made involved the low attendance for Business Meetings and Steering Committee meetings alongside not reading the notes. The group discusses these new service positions, at length, at the Business Meetings. The notes that are posted are detailed and serve the purpose of fostering communication. Kristen made the point that the responsibility to attend the meetings and read the notes belongs to each individual. Complaints, confusion, and misunderstandings can be reduced greatly when taking the initiative to be a part of the meeting’s business. We go to great lengths to inform the group of changes, and the service position duties are outlined very clearly through the attendees of meetings and the written notes/announcements.
B. Kristen proposed for the required Business Meeting attendance from members who have been elected to a service leadership position. However, circumstantial leeway could be given. She understands that people can’t attend every single business meeting. Absences should be the exception and not occur regularly. She emphasized that our leadership positions are a commitment and staying updated with meeting business is our responsibility.
C. Lisa and Amy both seemed to agree that it would be difficult for members to feel encouraged to be involved in meeting business when they are required to do so. Lisa emphasized that we are having a rough time filling empty service positions. Required Business Meeting attendance may discourage members from service leadership. Lisa suggested that more communication with members who are entering new service positions might be needed. Explaining the duties of these positions to new members hasn’t been happening.
D. Amy pointed out that we no longer require new members to cohost 3 scheduled shifts for the first two weeks per the June BM. The reason behind removing this previous GC was to allow for inclusion for our service team’s availability. For the sake of consistency, she suggested that we should not require business meeting attendance.
E. Lauren’s Side Note 1: Both sides made strong arguments and understand both sides of the equation. I would like to emphasize that members are going to be out of the loop if they do not attend our BM’s/SC Meetings. Assumptions get made and misinformation spreads around the group due to a lack of attendance or participation which can be a problem. I strongly agree with the principles and values behind Kristen’s argument. I also agree that leniency with people’s schedules should be allowed. I want people to feel encouraged and willing rather than pressured to attend. Also, I think it will be hard to enforce or keep track of everyone’s attendance. Perhaps, the group can find a creative solution or middle ground for this topic.
F. Lauren’s Side Note 2: Furthermore, I would like to include that misunderstandings and confusion can be avoided when people ask questions. When members start new service positions, I have witnessed people staying silent on many occasions. That silence leads to inactivity. No one will be mad at anyone who asks questions. We are all here to help because that’s what we do in this group. I am happy to talk to anyone who has any concerns or questions about the meeting’s business. There have been many resolutions and insights through the very few members who have directly messaged me. It keeps me accountable, allows for mistakes to be fixed, and issues can be resolved. I am incredibly grateful to the members who have come to me regarding meeting business and will continue to be available.
G. Motion to bring this topic to the BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (9 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IV. Wording in HIW (July SC Feedback)
A. Jason W: We need to or can we please change the “men and women” to the “people” reference in how it works to be in line with the more open and inclusive term used in the preamble as approved by AA.
B. SC Response
1. Dennis argued that HIW is directly taken from the Big Book and that we should not alter the wording. Not altering the wording of the first 164 pages of the Big Book has been discussed by GSO. He urged that this is more of an AA level issue that could be brought to them.
2. Jeremy made the point that this change should happen at the AA level. He has no issue with the principle behind changing the wording or the inclusion of the wording. The wording should be changed at the AA level and then brought to individual groups. He agreed that he would abide by the group’s decision, but he feels strongly that we should not alter the wording. Jeremy felt that altering the language for HIW in the meeting might not stop at this one phrase.
3. Maya argued that using “men and women” rather than “people” can create exclusion for our non-binary members. The language in AA can chase people off, and we want as many people to be comfortable in the meeting as possible. If we want to be consistent with our inclusion for group members, then changing the wording to “people” should not be a problem. Discrimination against non-binary people isn’t always as blatant as an offensive term. Language matters.
4. Kristen made the point that the autonomy of groups and group conscience can allow for a change like this within the meeting. Making this kind of change is not new for groups. She made the point that there are many people who read HIW change the wording while they read. We don’t stop people from reading HIW differently than the wording that is screenshared. The way people read HIW applies to one’s individual recovery because we do not govern. Also, Changes start within groups. Inclusion/progress can be made when each group chooses that option with their group’s consciences.
5. Amy pointed out that it’s one word, and it’s a simple solution for inclusivity and having a welcoming environment for all of our attendees.
C. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
V. Complaint (July SC Feedback)
A. This member stated that he was criticized for the length of his sharing time.
B. Rich: AA Grant Us The Serenity is UNIQUE! There is no time limit for sharing and this allows people to reveal their innermost self. If you have a problem with people sharing more than 5 minutes, this may not be the meeting for you. There are plenty of marathon meetings on Zoom that have strict time limits of 4 minutes or 5 minutes. And AA GUTS has always been the meeting where alcoholics can share their innermost secrets to help heal themselves. (We’ve even had a “shark” share here.) If an alcoholic who is sharing talks too long, it is up to the host to speak to the sharer about finishing up their share. It is not the concern of any participant to rebuke the sharer. In AA GUTS, this is considered rude. And we don’t blame any participant for causing someone else to lower their hand because they may have got tired of waiting. This is jumping to conclusions and is considered rude. That is negative crosstalk. Crosstalk is only acceptable when you want to PRAISE another participant. Crosstalk is never acceptable for criticizing another participant. People are dealing with enough rejection; they don’t need to get it HERE. AA GUTS is a SAFE place for you to express yourself.
C. SC Response
1. Kristen talked about the situation. She perceived that the Host was being rude to the member and cut off his share. The Host felt that Rich was off topic, but Rich explained how his share related to his alcoholism. Host discretion is allowed to cut off shares, but it should only be used for the common welfare of the group. There is a balance between love/tolerance and Host Discretion. Cutting members off should not come from self-will gone riot. Rich’s feelings were very hurt by this situation.
2. Dennis said that hopefully Rich and the Host will attend the Business Meeting so that a resolution can be found for this situation.
3. Lauren’s Side Note: This group has no strict time limit on shares. The reasoning for cutting off/redirecting shares is outlined in the Share Guidelines section on the Website, and they are group approved. The usage of Host discretion should also be explained in the Live Thread for group transparency. That’s how we avoid unilateral decisions.
4. Members can be cut off for time-hijacking at the top of the hour or discussing something completely unrelated like ranting about tasty tacos for 30 minutes. Time hijacking at the top of the hour can be prevented altogether through these methods: a. Hosts communicate with the person who is sharing 5-10 minutes prior to the end of the hour and inform members that their Hosting shift is ending. b. A member can be asked if they want to share during the next hour.
D. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VI. Committees (July SC Meeting)
A. Lauren: Maybe the group can get an update from the committees that are currently facilitating group votes from the June BM. There was an update from the Ban Guidelines Committee in the July BM. I would like to hear what the other committees have worked on so far.
B. SC Response
1. Jeremy proposed that committees need to give the group an update each month at the Business Meeting. That way, the group can be informed about the progress that the committees have been making. We can check in with them to see if they need any group votes for their ideas. Additionally, we can see if these committees need more time.
– Bring this to the next BM for a group vote.
– Seconded and Passed (9 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
2. Having a spokesperson from each committee to give a monthly update was suggested.
3. Lauren agreed that this is a great idea, but it will need a group vote for implementation. Until we get the vote, I will put out an announcement asking committee members to attend the BM to give an update. So far, Lisa agreed to give an update for the Host Feedback Committee.
VII. Revisiting Old GC (July SC Meeting)
A. Lauren: A couple of old GC’s were brought to my attention. I would like them to go through the group process. The group can decide to keep these GC’s in place, change them, or remove them.
1. Motion Passed: Service members will receive a strike if they miss 3 service commitments in 30 days (no call, no show); hosts must notify Leona with no shows. (9/12/2021)
2. The other one involved the Announcement Thread. A member informed me that the Announcement Thread used to be mandatory. People had to read what was in the thread and reply to whatever was posted to ensure everyone’s understanding and comprehension.
3. Motion to bring this topic to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)