February 5th BM
BM Chair-Lauren
Timer-James
Secretary-Lauren
I. Treasurer’s Report-Al
-Motion to Approve-Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
A. Al would like to motion to contribute to the WA area(AREA 72) for H&I for this quarter since nothing is decided for the lottery yet.
-Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
II. Tech Report from Danielle/Tech Issues
1. Gave a list of options and prices for the server upgrade.
-Motion to hold off on upgrading the server to see how MailPoet will work.
-Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
2. Gave a list of options and prices for updating MailPoet.
-Motion to update MailPoet for $30 per month
-Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
3. Gave a detailed report on how traffic affects the website and where the traffic spikes occur. The website gets used a lot at night when the meeting is in session.
A. Additional Tech Helpers (Revisiting GC from Jan 15 BM)
1. Having 6 new tech helpers at once, would cause issues that could irrevocably damage the Website/Zoom room. New people tampering with the website/Zoom at all different times of the day along with having access to the keys of kingdom, so to speak, might not work out. Having the training coordinator in the fold is acceptable for now. One person at a time.
2. We may be able to add on 1 new tech helper in the future with the understanding that this person needs to have a vetted skill set (Word Press, Domain Management, Zoom Admin) along with the guidance of Danielle’s/Sarah’s experience.
3. Lauren motioned that Danielle, Sarah S, and Lisa would remain the IT people. The group can add one new tech helper in the future, if needed, with the understanding that they need to have Word Press Knowledge (for Web Admin) and guidance from IT members.
-Seconded and passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
III. Additional Service Positions
A. Email Coordinator
1. Mona and Al suggest adding a service position where in which someone organizes the email inbox.
-Danielle nominated Mona for the position
-Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. LGBTQ Contact List Coordinator
-Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
-Mona was nominated for LGBTQ Contact List Coordinator, and Lauren agreed to help out the Contact List Coordinators
C. BIPOC Contact List was suggested, and Maya agreed to be the Coordinator. This will be discussed at the next BM and was placed in the SC Feedback.
IV. Cutting the Daily Topics Announcement (SC Feedback)
A. Sarah S: Until we get our website/server situation resolved, I think we should hold off on announcing Daily Topics. I know it’s a nice perk of being a member of GUTS to have them emailed, but if people aren’t receiving them, or if they’re receiving them sporadically, it might be more frustrating than anything else.
1. Members were concerned that this had to do with removing the ability to receive emails, but Sarah S informed the group that this is only not removing the vocal announcement from the vocal script until the email issue is resolved. Members will continue to receive the Daily Topics Emails.
-Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
V. Founders Day Raffle! Thread being set up for GUTS members who would like to pay their own way to attend Founders Day (check dates). Wondering if GUTS could set up a basket for funding a raffle to send one or two members on the trip as well. Would have to clear a basket and announce prior to using funds! Daren/Mark (MLKC) have prices.
A. This topic was tabled (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. After being given info from Mark (MLKC), he and Daren did not intend to involve GUTS in this endeavor and did not want this placed in the SC feedback. No further GC is needed on this topic.
VI. What Constitutes an Emergency Vote/Meeting?
A. Issues that hinder the meeting technologically, harassment, meeting safety, and member safety that can’t wait until the next BM-Lisa
B. Members seemed to agree that these issues are worthy of emergency, but we need to make sure that alarm bells aren’t being raised when the matter can wait. Allow for issues of non-emergency to go through the BM process.
C. Danielle motions for emergency votes/meetings to be called in cases of IT (issues that directly affect the functionality), member safety, and harassment issues to constitute an emergency vote/meeting.
-Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VII. WhatsApp Thread Issues
A. Polls and transparency
1. Al: Remove polling in threads unless it’s transparent!
-Al placed this in the SC feedback because an issue arose in the thread. A member was concerned that the polls can be tampered or extra votes from the same person can happen if someone has two devices. The member believed that everyone’s votes should be transparent.
-Members seemed to agree that the honor system and trusting our fellows with the voting process is the ideal route.
2. How would we like to proceed with polling?
-Lauren motioned to keep the polling the way it is because there are members who would like to remain anonymous in their voting. Trusting one another is an integral part of the program and keeping the unity as members discussed.
-Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. Several of our threads on WhatsApp have only one admin. Might be a good idea to add more admins to WhatsApp Threads to prevent the need to re-create threads. (Proposed by a member)
1. Elle proposed 3 Minimum thread admins for the GUTS thread/GUTS Announcement Thread since the others already have Admins.
2. There were various solutions proposed. The motion was made to include the ideas given. All 3 schedulers as Admins, SC members included (numbers/position varied), having 1 regular service member was proposed to allow for more service participation, and it was proposed that the SC member would need to be voted into the Thread Admin position.
3. Lauren motioned for all 3 schedulers to be admins. Hold a vote for 1 SC member with no current SC leadership position and 1 service member position. WhatsApp Thread Admin positions would be a 6-month commitment.
-Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
C. All service members (Including Sister Meetings, ORC, IT, Topics Coordinator) should be included all GUTS service threads on WhatsApp.
1. There was some concern about defining what constitutes being a part of the service team because of the GC vote that was done in which inactive members in the regular meeting get removed from the threads.
2. Members seemed to agree that even the members who are not regularly participating in the regular meeting are still part of our service team and belong in the threads. Only those who are not participating in any kind of service for the room should be removed. ORC, Sister Meetings, Topics, etc. should still be included in the service threads. Decisions regarding these service positions occurs in the threads, and they should be freely allowed to see what happens. Sister meeting cohosts/hosts should be able to see who comes in next for the regular meeting (Schedule Thread).
3. There was some concern about people who are not doing service in the regular meeting asking to be cohosted without letting schedulers know. The marathon meeting has GC votes in place because the main distinguishing factor between sister meetings and the main meeting is scheduling. Sister meeting cohosts need to follow the marathon meeting GC that the schedulers have.
D. Lauren motioned: If you are on the service team in any capacity (ORC, IT, Topics Coordinator, Sister meetings, etc.), you are allowed to be included in all of the service threads. If you are no longer serving under any capacity for GUTS, you must be removed from the threads and inform the schedulers. If you are filling in for cohosting in the regular meeting, you must tag a scheduler in the Live Thread to inform them that you are participating in the regular meeting. This is only to be used in circumstances of extreme need, and schedulers must be made aware of the situation and let them know that the person was tagged. Service members who are not regularly participating during the marathon meeting cannot fill in because they feel like it; they must adhere to Schedulers and the GC that goes along with scheduling for the main meeting just like everyone else.
1. Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/2 No Votes)
VIII. Launching Outreach
A. Is there anything anyone wants to discuss before officially launching Outreach?
1. Samantha motioned to launch outreach (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
2. Danielle was nominated for ORC in the chat.
IX. A complaint was lodged against a fellow service member. This individual was disrupting the Live Thread, insulting fellow members, and made a negative comment about a newcomer’s sobriety in the public chat. This individual did not follow the guidelines in place when a member’s sobriety is in question and muted the newcomer’s mic without discussing the issue with the service team. The Host was in the process of re-directing the newcomer in a kindly manner per Host discretion. This individual continually sent insulting and combative messages to the Host while the meeting was in progress. The scheduled service team attempted to redirect this individual repeatedly in the Live Thread. (1/21/2023) Member was named in the SC Feedback
A. Is a strike necessary for this situation? How do we want to proceed with this issue?
1. Group members agreed that the individual was given multiple chances to stop but continually argued when service members attempted re-direction.
2. This affected a newcomer’s experience with the room and goes against our primary purpose. It broke our GC when handling intoxicated shares.
3. The behavior affected 3 different Host’s hours with the infighting between service members and disrupted the unity of the service team. Our primary purpose is to help the next struggling alcoholic.
4. Lauren motioned for a strike to be issued.
-Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. Lauren posed the question of how the issue will be issued. Discuss the strike with the person privately or give the strike in the BM?
1. Some members thought that the strike should be given privately so that the member isn’t “called out” in front of the meeting. The issue of “who” would give the strike could not be resolved. Bad blood between two people could occur privately.
2. Some members thought that the direct approach would be better in the BM meeting setting to be transparent and prevent personal misgivings. The anonymity of the BM protects this individual from gossip.
3. Some members thought that including the name in the BM notes was necessary for the sake of transparency with the group but that does not allow for any kind of gossip or mistreatment regarding this matter.
C. Lauren motioned to name the person in question in the BM notes and let the person know that they have a strike in the BM meeting setting.
1. Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
2. Mark (MLKC) was given a strike which entails a 7-day break from service based upon the ethical guidelines on the website.
3. The behavior that was exhibited is being handled by the group by letting him know in the here and now. That is how the matter is being settled.
X. Language Monitor Thing on Zoom
A. Sarah S would like the group to review the chat etiquette policy that is currently in use to prevent racial and homophobic slurs, as well as extreme profanity, and vote to keep or disable it.
B. Sarah S also compiled a list of slanderous terms and phrases, but she requests not getting a GC on each individual word/phrase. She and an anonymous member (AL) both seem to be in concurrence regarding the removal of racial/bigoted/homophobic words and phrases from the chat. Allow service team discretion on any other words…like “fuck,” “shit,” or any of the other colorful and fun words we like to use as alcoholics.
–This is not a ban on all cuss words-this is just for racist, bigoted, and homophobic words/phrases from the chat along with words that are extremely profane. Sarah compiled a list that is transparent for anyone who wishes to see the list. Any usage of other cuss words would be within service team discretion since context makes a difference.
C. There was quite a bit of debate on this issue.
1. Members were concerned that monitoring profanity is governance. Most meeting members aren’t going to be using those words anyways. However, members made the argument that members should be able to use them freely because we are all adults. Also, some members were uncomfortable with banning words without knowing what was on the list, and the option to add/remove words is available along with the ability to see the list. They were concerned about how far members will take the ban on profanity and maybe become too authoritative. Also, the point was made that we should go through each word as a group. People worried that this could lead to a bigger issue than it needs to be.
2. Some members argued that most meeting members may not use those words, but bombers and nefarious folk use those words. Words that are sexually charged (In the extreme) target women in the group/service members who receive nasty messages. Plus, it doesn’t seem necessary to use the words that are on that list in an AA meeting. This isn’t a way to police people on using cuss words or profanity-these are just words in the extreme that bombers/perverts enjoy using. It’s a small price to pay to not use a few words in the chat. It keeps the room from being filled with that kind of nonsense, and it can be off-putting for newcomers to see some of the words that are included. It doesn’t exactly leave a good impression.
3. Both sides agreed that the racist/homophobic/bigoted words needed to be banned for the safety of the members and the room. People were more divided about the few words of extreme profanity that made the list.
D. Lauren motioned to keep the list they way Sarah S made it. Any specific cuss words on the list that need to be added or removed can be placed in the SC feedback form for the group to vote on.
-Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/4 No Votes)
– Sarah S has the list of yucky words that anyone can see if they want, but I don’t recommend it. It’s gross.
Tabled/Other Issues:
I. An issue of harassment was brought up during the BM, and the member was told to place the issue in the SC feedback per GC on issues of harassment. Any issues of harassment must be placed in the SC feedback! It’s not intended to be dismissive of the issue, and we have procedures in place for harassment. The group needs to be given context, background, and information to be brought to this meeting. We want to make sure we are giving the group the informed ability to vote. Now that there is a GC vote for emergency meetings, the BM chair can call for a meeting regarding this situation. If a ban needs to happen, it’s very serious and must be addressed. If this issue gets placed in the SC feedback, the BM chair can look into the matter and act with the help from the SC and group. All decisions regarding harassment go through the group.
A. The fact that the proper authorities can be called in these situations was also addressed.
II. A complaint was lodged against a Host who holds the host tags 45 minutes into the next Host’s shift and gives themself cohost tags when they are not scheduled. This Host takes 20 minutes to cohost scheduled service members. The Host was not named in the SC feedback.
III. Topics and the Spirit of Rotation
A. Jocelyne: In the spirit of rotation, shouldn’t we have someone else doing topics? I think it has been at least 18 months of one person writing them.
B. Lauren: Justin T is willing to step down from the Topics Commitment, but his 6-month term is over Feb 8 which is a week after the next meeting. Might not be necessary to bring this to the next BM since his term is ending anyways. He has completed two terms, and he cannot be re-nominated for another 6 months. He is aware and does not wish to be re-nominated. Maybe we can hold nominations and the new Topics Coordinator can take over Feb 8.
C. Group agreed that nominations can be opened, and this does not need to go to the next BM. (Seconded and Passed)
IV. Division of Jobs (SC Feedback)
V. Shortening Readings to Prevent 15-minute Introduction
VI. Alternate Sister Meetings