GUTS Steering Committee – 8/30/2026

August 30th, 2026 SC Meeting Minutes

SC Chair: Christian

BM Chair: Bently

Secretary: Lauren

SC Members Present: Kristen, Mike G, Bently, Justin F, Shawna, Christian, Elle, Lauren

1. Nominations Coordinator Position
   1. Lauren proposes formally establishing Nominations Coordinator as a GUTS service position. Lauren has performed these responsibilities for approximately two years and is willing to continue. Proposed Requirements: 1 year sobriety; 6 months service prerequisite; 1-year minimum term. Proposed Duties: Maintain and update the Service Commitment Document; track when members enter service positions; maintain position duties, requirements, and notes; conduct nominations in the threads three days before the Business Meeting; post current nomination information; ensure nominees accept before or during the Business Meeting; and update the Service Commitment Document following elections. Lauren proposes that this be an ongoing position, meaning the current coordinator may continue beyond the minimum term until stepping down or another qualified member expresses interest. The outgoing coordinator would be responsible for training their replacement. The Nominations Coordinator would be required to attend Business Meetings and maintain the relevant documents in a timely manner.
   2. Motion to take to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (5 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
2. International 7th Tradition Contributions and Currency Fees
   1. Anthony notes that UK banks may charge foreign currency conversion fees when members make 7th Tradition contributions to GUTS. He asks whether alternative contribution/payment methods could be made available to international members to avoid or reduce foreign currency conversion fees.
   2. SC Response
      1. Shawna-What comes to mind. I remember in a previous host script it would promote the 7th tradition in general. PayPal Friends and Family doesn’t take fees. There’s no recourse either.
      2. Elle-Just putting it out there that we have had other accounts like PayPal and CashApp which were difficult to manage. GiveButter handles all the accounts at once. That’s why we did that. I can check to see if there’s a way to waive international fees. I think we can absorb fees. I need to look into it.
      3. Motion to take to BM
         • Seconded and Passed (6 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
3. Use of the AA “Yellow Card” at Meeting Closing
   1. Anthony asks whether GUTS should consider closing meetings with an anonymity/confidentiality reminder similar to the Yellow Card; commonly used in AA meetings in the United Kingdom: “Who You See Here What You Hear Here When You Leave Here Let It Stay Here” The proposal is intended to reinforce anonymity and confidentiality at the conclusion of GUTS meetings.
   2. SC Response: GUTS already includes a message of anonymity and confidentiality in the Host script before the meeting begins.
   3. Motion to not bring this to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
4. Prohibition on Screenshots During GUTS Meetings
   1. Anthony notes that GUTS prohibits audio and video recording and proposes explicitly adding screenshots of members to that prohibition. He cites an incident at a Scottish meeting in which a newcomer reportedly took a screenshot of another member, causing the member significant distress.
   2. SC Response
      1. Lauren-The service team needs the ability to take screenshots for accountability’s sake during the meeting. There are times when it is necessary for us to take screenshots of the meeting. I think there are appropriate times when people take screenshots.
      2. Kristen-We already have guidelines in place to ensure that people aren’t taking pictures of other people. We have security measures in place already. There may come a time when we need to be able to protect the meeting legally and take screenshots. If people are taking screenshots inappropriately, then we are allowed to take measures to protect our members.
   3. Motion to not take this to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
5. Service Incident
   1. Shawna reports that Steve entered the meeting at approximately :30 before his scheduled service hour and requested co-host privileges through Zoom chat. Shawna directed him to communicate through the WhatsApp Live Chat in accordance with Group Conscience. According to Shawna, Steve believed she was “playing games,” stated that he intended to complain, and indicated that he would leave the following hour for Shawna to host.Shawna reports that Steve subsequently appeared to leave the meeting. Screenshots have been retained for potential retraining purposes.
   2. SC Response
      1. Shawna-I put this into the SC Feedback for documentation purposes. I wasn’t sure where to report this information
      2. Gabi-Talked to Steve about this issue. There was a lot of confusion about group conscience and what needed to be done. All is well now.
      3. Shawna-Agreed that the matter is concluded and resolved.
   3. Motion to not take this to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
6. Reported Contact with Ron (Banned Member)
   1. Momma Christi reports that Ron Roma contacted her through Telegram and stated that he had heard her hosting the previous night. She notes that the communication itself was not offensive but questions whether Ron was present in the GUTS meeting despite his permanent ban. She does not intend to respond and plans to block him on Telegram, as she has previously done by phone and WhatsApp. She reports having retained a screenshot of the message.
   2. SC Response
      1. Bently-I just wanted to say for clarity’s sake. I sent a group message that the group wouldn’t be having him back in service. There was no response. I don’t think we can really do anything with this. We can’t do much about it since he’s no longer in the group’s jurisdiction.
      2. Kristen-He’s blatantly come in under his own name. He sent me a very rude message after he was booted from the meeting. It’s group conscience for him to not be there. He’s not showing any signs of accountability.
   3. Motion to not take this to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
7. Non-Active Cohosts
   1. Bently raises concern about service members reporting for service and then disappearing or becoming unresponsive for significant portions of their scheduled hour. He notes that this creates difficulty when hosts attempt to contact those service members through the Live Thread and receive no response. Bently proposes that hosts have discretion to revoke co-host permissions when a scheduled service member is not actively participating in their service responsibilities or responding in the Live Thread.
   2. SC Response
      1. Bently-This is a problem. There was a situation in which I had to remove cohost permissions from another member because they were inactive. People can’t just hang out and stay tagged. We need to be more on top of removing tags from people who are not actively engaging in service. We need to be more strict and on the ball about this.
      2. Kristen-When people become territorial about their jobs, that becomes evident to others in service. When someone has stepped away, that becomes more clear. We are all supposed to help each other out. If you are going to take over the job, make sure to do the job. People will be caught when they are not doing the work.  A reminder of GC might be needed.
      3. Lauren-Just a suggestion: Maybe we could review our guidelines every year to keep people on the same page about group conscience
   3. Motion to take this to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (6 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
8. Ethics Committee Summary
   1. This section will encompass three of the SC feedbacks that were submitted regarding the Ethics Committee.
   2. SC Members agree that the Ethics Committee is new, and there will be some trial and error involved with this committee. We need to iron out the details and figure out what the group needs as we go along. There will be some GC that will need to be added to the guidelines for the Ethics Committee.
   3. First issue: How long can someone stay off the service schedule? We need to clearly define how long the Ethics Committee can keep people off the schedule. Members pointed out that there may be instances in which disgruntled or resentful members might submit feedback in order to remove someone from service indefinitely.
   4. Second issue: Timeliness of resolving issues. One member submitted feedback for the Ethics Committee and didn’t hear back until weeks later. Group members understand that these are voluntary positions and that the committee members have lives, but there might need to be a better balance with this. In some cases, those who are involved in complaints will need to accept being off the schedule temporarily.
   5. Third issue: Breaking anonymity. The group will need to decide what measures should be taken when the Ethics Committee members along with those involved in the complaint break anonymity. This committee was meant to handle complaints anonymously.
   6. Fourth issue: This committee was created in response to the SC handling these types of concerns. There is some worry that people will jump to the SC when they don’t like the outcomes of the Ethics Committee’s decisions.
   7. Motion to take these issues to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
9. Diana’s Ethics Committee Feedback
   1. Diana requests Steering Committee review of the Ethics Committee's handling of a complaint she submitted regarding Joan’s conduct while serving as a co-host. Diana states that she submitted information to the EC concerning behavior by Joan that she characterized as combative before, during, and after an hour of the marathon meeting. Diana believes the behavior threatened the safety of the meeting and states that she retained the complete record of the chats. According to Diana, the EC subsequently characterized the issue as a personal matter between Diana and Joan and returned Joan to service. Diana disagrees with that determination and asks the Steering Committee to review the EC’s decision and whether the complaint should have been treated as a group/service matter rather than a personal conflict between two members. She specifically raises the AA principle of “principles before personalities” in questioning the EC’s decision.Diana also submitted additional information regarding the same incident. She reports that at approximately 11:00 PM, halfway through Joan’s co-host shift, Joan shared during the meeting that she was too stressed to continue in service, wanted to drink, and was going to “go out.” Diana asks that her interaction with the Ethics Committee and its handling of the complaint be reviewed by the Steering Committee.
   2. SC Response
      1. Diana-I don’t have any personal issues with anyone in GUTS. I was kind of surprised by the outcome. I have never had any conversation with Joan that wasn’t during service. I also wasn’t interviewed about my complaint or asked anything about it. I thought the Ethics Committee could help and provide direction. I don’t feel that this is a personal issue between Joan and I.
      2. Shawna-I do remember that particular share. The way it came out of the meeting was distressing in many ways. There was content in the share that could have reflected poorly on the service team. Where do service team members submit their concerns? Is it supposed to be the Ethics Committee or the SC? That’s something that might be addressed.
   3. Motion to take this to the BM
      1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
10. Permission to Share Guidelines
    1. Lauren conducted a Group Inventory for another group. The group is struggling with conflict resolution and has no guidelines for handling conflict. She offered to send them some of our guidelines but does not want to do this without the group’s permission.
    2. Motion to take this to the BM
       1. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
11. Intergroup Rep Report
    1. Shawna would like an opportunity to speak about Intergroup related updates for the group at the Business Meeting.
    2. Lauren will include this in the BM Agenda

Closing – Voted to Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned with members encouraged to attend the upcoming Business Meeting.