3/5/2023 Business Meeting
BM Chair: Lauren
BM Co-Chair: James
I. Treasurer’s Report-Al
A. Report was interrupted. All reports have been done during the BM since it’s inception. The group votes to approve the report. The accounts have been fully transparent since the beginning of GUTS. That means that the group has given GC approving the reports each and every single time a BM happens. Having a Treasurer go over previous reports that have already been approved per GC is counterproductive. -Lauren redirected the meeting vocally due to heated exchanges in the chat.
-2 members were booted from the meeting, but that was done unilaterally. I do not know who booted them because no one came forward or admitted it. It must have been a person tagged (I only tagged SC members).
-Person who booted these members took ownership for it during the Fourth Step Workshop that was done 3/12/2023
B. There was a motion to post the rest of the report in the SC Thread pending group approval. All reports from the beginning of Al’s term as Treasurer were posted transparently in the SC Thread (3/5/2023). Now, there needs to be a group vote to approve the report.
C. Seconded and Passed for the Group Approval on Treasurer’s Report to be done in the Threads. (16 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
II. Division of Jobs (SC Feedback)
A. Lisa: Can we please discuss the issue of the division of jobs during service? It is becoming a problem and needs some solution-based brain storming. Thank you.
B. There have been problems of in-fighting occurring because members are not following GC for cohosting. People are getting territorial about doing certain jobs. The only job that has 1 person is the prompter. (Jan/Feb SC Meeting)
1. Lisa proposes scheduling a prompter for each shift. (Jan SC Meeting)
-Members seemed to agree that scheduling a prompter might create more work for the schedulers. (March BM) There were different ideas offered, but there was no consensus.
2. Lauren proposes to update the group regarding the division of jobs for cohosting in the Group Announcements. (Jan SC Meeting)
-Members seemed to agree that keeping the GC in place regarding division of jobs for cohosting was the best approach. There was active discussion about encouraging members to communicate with one another. (March BM)
– Group members had various suggestions about the division of jobs, and there wasn’t much of consensus except in being more communicative with each other in the live thread, helping each other out is not stepping on toes, and the only job where one person can be involved is the prompter. We all need to talk to one another and adapt to the individual strengths/qualities that cohosts offer in service. It doesn’t go against GC to pick a certain job or ask what needs to be done at the top of an hour, but GC does not allow for possessiveness over a job. (March BM)
-Lisa motioned to follow current GC while adding in that cohosts need to check in the Live Thread and actively participate. It is a requirement. Communication about jobs needs to occur between the scheduled service team. She proposed to check in on the progress of this discussion in 2 Business Meetings from now which will be the May BM.
-Lauren added to update the group regarding the division of jobs for cohosting monthly in the Group Announcements. (March BM)
3. Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
III. 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.
A. How would we like to proceed?
1. Re-iterating the group conscience in the group announcements or have a monthly blurb to remind everyone of how to proceed-Lisa (Jan 2023 SC Meeting)
2. It was suggested to contact a member with a Host Key in situations where a Host is hijacking the tag or goes MIA. (Jan 2023 SC Meeting/Feb BM Agenda)
3. SC members brought up that certain Hosts not passing on their tags can be an issue at times. Having one on one conversations with these particular members who forget to pass their tags was encouraged. (Feb 2023 SC Meeting/March BM Agenda)
4. Lauren proposed to allow BM Chair and SC Chair to have access Zoom host key only to reclaim Host when needed and would not engage in any background Zoom admin responsibilities. (March BM)
-Lauren proposed this based on members wanting more people to be available to reclaim host when the need arises and was attempting to find a compromise. (March BM)
-Lauren also agreed to add pertinent information regarding passing tags in the group announcements to update members. (March BM)
B. Danielle motioned to table allowing BM Chair and SC Chair the ability to reclaim Host. She wants to see if there is a way that members can reclaim host without having access to the background Zoom Admin info. (March BM)
1. Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IV. Shortening Readings to Prevent 15-minute Introduction (Jan BM/Feb SC Feedback)
A. Jocelyne: It is not true that intergroup regulates what has to be read. There are many marathon meetings that only read them the first and last meeting. I was just suggesting shortening – it shouldn’t take 15 minutes to start a meeting. (Jan SC Feedback)
B. Karl: The number of announcements at the start of each GUTS meeting detracts from their potential to carry the message and support members’ recovery. I would like to raise a motion to reduce the number of announcements at the start of each meeting. Of course, there are essential components, but I am certain the script can be shortened. (Jan SC Feedback)
1. Al suggested contacting the Intergroup Rep (Sarah S) to see what Intergroup regulates in terms of the readings. (Jan/Feb SC Meeting)
2. There were various opinions about which announcements should be read or cut. Various members did say that the intros do take too long sometimes. The group seemed to unify in the fact that a lot of newcomers come to the meeting, and there is learning in repetition when HIW and 12 Traditions are read every hour. It was emphasized that the announcements can be summed up or skipped if there are more than 4 hands up (per Host discretion). (March BM)
3. It was suggested that if a topic is discussed 2 Business Meetings in a row, the group conscience vote cannot be re-visited for another 6 months. (Jan SC Meeting) -Lauren forgot to motion for a vote on this. (This will be added to the next SC notes)
4. No vote was made in the understanding that no changes will be made to the script or readings. GC stays in place. (March BM)
C. Jason W: I would like to shorten the intro as much as possible by stop reading the safety card. I would also like to add plugging the daytime meetings listed on the website. (Feb SC Feedback)
1. SC members seemed to agree that the Safety Card announcement is important. Hosts should not be reading the entire Safety Card because there’s already a vocal script that shortens it. There’s already a script for the Sister Meetings and a blurb for the Cohosts to post in the chat. (Feb SC Meeting)
2. Members expressed that the safety card announcement is informative and let’s the group know that people can get help from the proper authorities. The traditions do not shield people from the law, and we want to reiterate that our goal is to create a safe environment.
3. There was no vote on this because there were no changes in GC. (March BM)
V. Polling (Feb SC Meeting)
A. Lisa has offered a solution for polling because there were compromised polls in the last election for service positions. There is a way to create polls on Zoom. This could be an alternate way to poll rather than the previous methods. It offers a simple, clean, and organized way to vote within GUTS parameters (not needing to use outside polling sources). It was tested by Lauren and MLKC. People can only vote once per poll; Zoom tracks the emails linked to the Zoom account. Even if people leave and come back, they won’t have access to the poll again. In order to use the ZPolls, these are options that have been offered by Lisa and Lauren. There are pros and cons to each option that need to be discussed with the group. These are the options:
1. ZPolls can be open during the SC meeting? Polls could be run after/during the SC meeting while SC members are discussing other issues. This would mean that polls can only be done once a month. Who would issue the poll?
2. ZPolls can be open during the BM? BM cochair puts the polls up after the BM is over for members to vote on service positions. This would mean that polls can only be done once a month.
– These two options would mean overriding our previous GC on polling, and we would need to set up a new GC for nominations. How and when?
-Members seemed to agree that these two options are limiting and don’t quite stay in line with the GC already in place for polling.
3. ZPolls can run concurrently to the GUTS meeting in the training room (set up a different meeting for this, not the reg. Training ID). Leave polling open 2 hours for 3 nights in a row? That would fall in line with our GC to try and include GUTS members outside of the service team. It would require tracking the results and compiling them by hand (Anonymous Voting). SC members have access to the 2nd room now, and it could be used for this function. This would beg the question of which SC members would participate in the polling and training members to issue the polling. This would require manpower and time to accomplish.
4. Motion for the group to approve 3rd option. This going to be a “learn as we go” kind of experience, but the polling follows current GC timeframes for nominations and issuing polls.
-Seconded and Passed (19 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. ZPolls offer anon/transparent voting. Only the Zoom Admin will be able to who voted in the meeting. If results are not downloaded, Zoom Admin will be unable to see who voted. (This is applicable for all options for polling)
1. Hosts of the meeting are unable to see who voted, but they can see the results of the votes.
2. There are two sides to this. If Zoom Admin can see who voted in the polls, they can check for any compromises in the polling. However, this would mean that the polls are not fully anonymous.
3. Members discussed the trust that comes with the polling. Some members wanted full transparency to happen with the voting process. There are many group members with a preference for anonymity in polling. The group didn’t offer any motions on this issue; so, the BM chair weighed out what was said to create a motion. (March BM)
4. Lauren motioned to allow Zoom Admin to see the results of polling in the cases where there are discrepancies, issues, or the polling is competitive. Other than that, Zpolls will be anonymous voting.
-Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
VI. Al is leaving his Treasurer position and wanted to nominate Elle for the position.
A. Lauren motioned to allow nominations to be opened for Treasurer. (March BM)
VII. Mandi’s SC Position (Feb SC Feedback)
A. Mandi has been inactive in the SC. Members have attempted to contact her regarding this matter with no response. How do we want to proceed? Do we want to discuss having GC votes in place when SC members are not participating in SC meetings, discussions, or facilitating GC?
1. Lauren motioned for Mandi’s removal on the SC. (March BM)
2. Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. The SC discussed that we should have GC in place when SC members are inactive. Only SC members. There has been no previous GC on inactive SC members. (Feb SC Feedback)
1. Members believed that inactive service members for all commitments across the board should fall in line with our current GC for inactive Hosts/Cohosts. 30 days of inactivity leads to removal. SC members must be willing to participate or communicate in the thread and can’t miss 2 consecutive Business Meetings or 2 Steering Committee meetings. If members can’t attend meetings, they must communicate this. Lauren motioned for this. (March BM)
2. Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
1. Due to there being 3 open positions on the SC, Lauren motioned for Kristen and Daren to be SC members effective immediately. There was tie between them for the SC position. The 3rd position will be open for nominations. (March BM)
-Seconded and Passed (19 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VIII. Burning Desires (Feb SC Feedback)
A. Kelly H: I think it would be beneficial to see if there are any burning desires maybe at the end of each meeting just a quick ask. Thanks for all you do! (Feb SC Feedback)
B. Members enjoyed this topic and had lots of ideas. Some members proposed for an announcement to be vocally stated prior to starting the shares, some proposed a call for burning desires at any time during the hour, and people agreed that a burning desire needs to be explained to avoid confusion, people skipping in line, etc. Sarah S proposed a blurb for the cohosts to post in the chat. (March BM)
C. Lauren motioned that Hosts have the option to vocally call for a burning desire at any point during the meeting per their discretion. Also, a “Burning Desire” blurb will be added to the website to give context for a Burning Desire and give members the ability to reach out when they have a BD. (March BM)
1. Lauren will write up a blurb, and the group can vote on its approval for the website.
2. Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IX. Scheduling Results
A. Lisa-The results for three schedulers were close. The group seemed to back the nominees pretty equally. All three schedulers will need replacements due to terms being over or other reasons. We want to discuss how we will stagger in the new schedulers and how to proceed. More info needs to be gathered. For now, schedulers will continue their commitments.
B. Lisa motioned for a SC majority vote (2/26/2023) for Daniel to begin scheduling immediately. Now, we want to motion to approve Patricia for scheduling work.
C. Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
I. BIPOC Resource Coordinator
II. Placing SC Notes on the Website
III. SC Feedback Discussion
IV. Removing Sister Meeting Service Members from "Current & Daily SCHED Request" Thread
V. Alternate Sister Meetings