Guts Business Meeting – 01/07/2024

January 7^th BM Notes

BM Chair: Mark M

BM Co-Chair: Dennis

Secretary: Lauren (Volunteer…Thank you also to Rachel for getting things started!)

1. Treasurer’s Report – Elle

1. Beginning balance of $2,838.11.
2. Contributions: $413.74 Givebutter Transfer, $51.79 PayPal Transfer,
   $465.53 total contributions.
3. Expenses: $144.72 for ORC expenses, $19.00 for Virtual Office (DE Address), $27.00 for MailPoet expense.
   $200.72 total expenses.
   Ending Balance of $3,102.92.
4. Elle explained that Mail Poet is a new expense. Mail Poet was added as a tool to help website optimization and functionality. A 10% discount was obtained reducing the cost from $30/Month to $27/Month.
5. Beginning January 3^rd, we have added contributions to the General Service Area 12/District 4 which is the area in Delaware where we are incorporated.
6. Elle suggested that we split our donations into thirds between GS Area 12/District 4, Intergroup, and GSO.
7. Dennis suggested we should re-balance our contributions instead of a straight split between the three groups based on his experience in other meetings. This is entirely up to the group, but we can look at it again in the future. (Example: Intergroup 50%, GSO 30%, Area 10%, District 10%)
8. Elle to research if there is an electronic option to make the donations to GS Area 12/District 4 vs. checks.
9. This quarter there will be a $50 annual fee for filing our annual non-profit tax report.
10. Reserves – ORC $16.00, Zoom Annual Fee Reserve $65.00, WordPress $400.00.
11. Motion to approve report.
    **Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

2. ORC Report – Del

1. For December we provided 2 Big Books, 1 Twelve & Twelves, and 10 Milestone coins which came to a total of $145.98.
2. Shipping costs increased for December. Not sure if it was short term increase due to the holidays or long-term increase in shipping. Time will tell.
3. Motion to approve report.
   **Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

3. Committee Reports.

1. Host Feedback Workshop – Lisa

1. Next step is to create a thread for those who did not attend the previous workshops and go from there. How to get everyone attend and get the information needed.
2. By end of February, we would like to have everyone who hosts meetings attend the workshop.
3. If by the end of February those folks do not make the effort to attend the workshop, then it is suggested that they be removed from Host rotation.
4. Motion for the Group to remove Hosts from rotation who have not attended the Host Workshop by the end of February:
   –   Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
5. Mark (To Lauren) – Will you write notes from here on out? Lauren: Yes. 

2. Unity Workshop – Lauren

1. Last BM: In December’s BM we approved renaming this workshop from “Fourth Step Workshop”. We also approved using the CoDA pamphlet called “Boundaries” as a source for one of the sections in the workshop. Christian and Suzie expressed interest being part of this workshop. Let’s get some more people involved.
2. BM Update: Lauren has completed the Unity Workshop. Remember that these are not mandatory workshops, but everyone is welcome/encouraged to attend. 

• These workshops are supposed to be held semiannually per GC. Next set of workshops will need to be created in 6 months. 
• I posted the questions for the Unity Workshop in the threads. Please look them over and think about them for the workshop.
• A reminder that I am not anyone’s sponsor. I encourage members to take the work done in this workshop to their respective sponsors. My feedback will be minimal and will redirect people, if needed. Safety Guidelines still apply to this meeting. This workshop can be a way to incorporate some recovery into service work. 
• I will be bringing whatever solution-based ideas or data from this workshop to Mark and Christian.

3. Motion for the Unity Workshop to be held these dates:
   Wednesday 1/10/2024 3pm PST
   Thursday 1/11/2024 11amPST
   Sunday 1/14/2024 11amPST
   Thursday 1/18/2024 3pmPST.

• Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

3. Intergroup Rep – Lauren

1. Covered the new description for the LGBTQIA+ and Allies meeting on Intergroup.
2. Motion to update Intergroup with the description.
3. Seconded and Passed (20 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
   

4. Late Night GUTS Timer

1. Issue:

1. Timing methods for the five-minute share limit were discussed that would allow participants to see when their share time was up. Group consensus was to use the Zoom App Timer

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Motion passed to Recommend the Zoom App Timer be used for the five-minute share limit and bring it to the Business Meeting.

3. BM Response

1. Dennis – Haven’t had a chance to use it yet. He wants to learn how to use the timer at a later time.
2. Ian M – People in the meeting need to be directed to look at the timer at the top left-hand corner. With that vocal reminder combined with a flash of the 5-minute prompt on the screen, that seems to be effective.
3. Lauren – Just reminded the group that this new information needs to be brought to the trainers too. Just so new members can be trained to use the timer.
4. Kelly – Many meetings use the Zoom timer now. It’s pretty simple to use. You just go to the “App” section on Zoom. The timer is right there.
5. Lisa – Trainers will need to learn to use the Zoom timer too, and this is something that can easily be added to the training checklist.
6. Daren – When people are hijacking the meeting with shares, Hosts need to redirect. People continually push boundaries with the time limits. Every other meeting ends on time. Can help prevent burnout. 

• Mark M: We will be covering limited shares in the next Topic.

7. Dennis-Motion to use 5-minute Zoom App Timer.

• Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
  

5. “Cowboy Steve” and “Mrs. Butterworth” Addressing Unlimited Time Shares

1. Issue:

1. The group decided the intent of this feedback was to limit all shares throughout the marathon meetings to five-minutes. 
2. It was noted by Kristen that this has come up many times throughout the history of GUTS and ultimately ends up having the larger group decide that unlimited share time is always preferable.  She noted that this is unique to GUTS and is often a plus for people.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Recommended (6-2) to send this to the Business Meeting to vote on keeping unlimited share time for all meetings (except for the last meeting that now has five-minute share limits) or to limit shares to five-minutes as we do in the last meeting of the marathon.

3. BM Response

1. Sarah S – In favor of a trial of 10-minute time limit on shares. Any more time than that is basically a speaker meeting. Keeps people from going into the gray area or outside issues. She urged the group to wait on voting for this until next month. It might be too much of a change all at once. Plus, we need the time to prepare people for that change and teach people how to use the timer. 
2. Suzie – Loves GUTS because people weren’t cut off during emotional moments. On the flip side, we get the time-hijacking problem in the meeting. Might be uncomfortable for Hosts.
3. Ian M – Most in-person meetings have a timer. Agrees that this would help with the time-hijacking problem. He wondered if there could be Breakout rooms for newcomers. 
4. Lauren – Supports Sarah S’s proposal because it’s well-thought out and the execution would be easier having that trial period. Having time limits on the shares would be more consistent with the last hour of the meeting. I also support Suzie’s point of view about offering leniency for those who are emotional or newcomers.  Outside issues are running rampant lately, and the time limit might help. Also, LNG has been establishing these boundaries, and they are uncomfortable, but necessary. Time limits are not a new concept for AA.
5. Lisa – Wanted to urge caution. Breakout rooms can be an issue. Hard to control them and explained that the logistics are difficult. People always have the option to use the phone list. Sometimes, that little push is what people need to pick up the phone. 
6. Kristen – Supported Lisa’s points on Breakout rooms. This is something that comes up sometimes. We used to do Breakout rooms, and this group has a bad past with them. They turned out to be like Jerry Springer and drama galore. She said that things can change, and the group is different now. Maybe they would work now, but she would like the group to be careful with this idea.
7. Jason A – People can get away from a topic when they are sharing in a meeting. Hosts need to redirect members. People who hijack the meeting need boundaries set by the Hosts. He emphasized the need for redirection.
8. Sarah S – Boundaries show newcomers how to share the time with others. Giving people a 10-minute allotment is extremely generous.
9. Thomas – Wanted the whole group to be made aware before a change like this is implemented. 
10. There was a motion in the chat to table Breakout Rooms to figure out the logistics and see if they could work. (Seconded)
11. Jeremy – Times change. People change. GC evolves over time. We might need to seriously consider time limits to help prevent hijacking.
12. Sarah S’s proposal was seconded. Some members wanted to implement this change immediately.
13. Mark M – Reiterated the SC Response and said that we needed to pick 5-minute limits or unlimited shares. One or the other.
14. Sarah S – Are you saying that we have to choose one or the other? The group is allowed to make changes based on the topic. The SC Response is merely a suggestion. At Business Meetings, we have the ability to discuss and figure out what GC will be. That means that there are changes that happen.

• Mark M – If we want any changes made, then everything needs to go through the meeting’s process for decision-making. Reiterated the two options of 5-minute limits or unlimited shares.

15. Jeremy – Explained that this does not have to go through the SC again. We have a seconded motion on the table. The group can vote on whatever they want.
16. Lauren – Clarified the motions currently on the table. Anything that is seconded is obligated to go through a group vote. The group is allowed to make amendments to initial proposals. Side Note: Sarah S was correct. SC does not dictate what GC is going to be. We can use SC responses to help the group as suggestions, but they don’t determine the exact GC. Only the group decides GC. The group is the boss. 

• Sarah S’s proposal was seconded. 
• Tabling the Breakout Room idea before the next SC Meeting (to figure out logistics and “how” it would work) was seconded.

17. Daren – Wanted to implement the 10-minute change immediately. No trial period. Just do it. 
18. Christian – Enacting the 10-minute change immediately was not the initial proposal. Not everyone knows how to use the timer yet.

• Mark M – Agrees. Logistically, that would be a mess.

19. Mark P – Unlimited shares for now. 10-minutes for future vote.

• Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
• Jeremy: Come up with a game plan through the Steering Committee which is basically what Sarah S was proposing.
  

6. 12/23/23: Donna 2.0 – BM Feedback limited to two shares per person per topic.

1. Issue:

1. It was noted that a group conscience on this already exists.  BM shares are limited to two shares per person per topic.  All shares are to be limited to two minutes.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Recommended to enforce the current group conscience.  Christian and Mark will coordinate the enforcement of this group conscience for the 1/7 business meeting.

3. BM Response

1. Mark and Christian explained that we are currently applying this feedback to the meeting now. This is already GC which is being enforced now. Don’t need to vote.
   

7. 12/3/23: Mona – Reporting Harassment or Inappropriate Behavior During a Meeting (LGBTQIA+ Meeting)

1. Issue:

1. It was noted by Christian, Mark, and Kristen as it relates to the group remembering Tradition 12.  It is easy to forget that personal behavior should never supersede AA principles.
2. The group discussed different reasons for bans as it relates to harm or ill intent towards the group or individuals in the group.
3. Bans are not in place as punishments or tit for tats against members due conflicts with personality or behavior. The guidelines for banning are to be used as a last resort.
4. The GUTS history of banning has only been used in extreme cases when sexual harassment, stalking and law enforcement/police have been involved.  These extreme cases facilitated the need for GUTS to act for the safety of the overall group and for the safety of the targeted individuals within the group.
5. It was agreed by the Steering Committee that a general discussion on the overall differences between personality and principles related to Maya’s actions as outlined by Mona in the feedback. This will need to be addressed by the BM.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Voted 7-1 to send this issue to the BM for discussion.

3. BM Response

1. Mona – There was some conflict at the LGBTQIA+ meeting. An ally shared and Maya was passive aggressive. She didn’t seem to understand the format, so Mona explained vocally. There’s a pattern of behavior that breaks Traditions 3, 5, and 11. Mona referred to Tradition 1 and the Safety Card. 3 members brought up their discomfort with the aggressive behavior that was shown during that meeting. This is about principles, not personality. Maya has brought the press, radio, and internet into the meeting. Newcomers to the meeting were very uncomfortable. Mona suggested a strike or a ban. Mona said that the group needs to decide on this. Mona reached out to Maya directly, but it was combative. Mona said that Maya has stated that she does not follow AA’s 12 Traditions.
2. Dennis – Doesn’t think Maya needs a ban. However, those who come out and say that they do not follow traditions should not be in service.
3. Daren – We have been having this problem for a long time. Maya tends to victimize people to prove her points. He does believe that she has a good heart. He believes that a permanent ban is needed. If the group does not permanently ban her, he said that he would leave service. He loves the group because it has saved his life, but we have banned people for less offensive behavior. Banned certain people who helped him throughout his recovery. Maya has posted articles about AA members online and broke their anonymity. 
4. Holly – Does not have history with this person and does not have strong feelings. She is trying to be neutral. She supports a strike because Maya stated that she is openly against the traditions. Seemed to agree with Dennis’s point.
5. Suzie – Doesn’t know a lot of history with Maya. She spoke from her own experience. She directly reached out to Maya. Amends were given when Suzie reached out to Maya kindly and respectfully. 
6. Jenn – Showed up at the LGBTQIA+ Meeting as a newcomer when all of this occurred. She doesn’t know the history. Maya reached out to Jenn based on a share at a normal GUTS meeting. Jenn tried to help Mona during the LGBTQIA+ meeting. She is not a newcomer to AA, just to GUTS. There was a clear attack on Mona that she witnessed, and Jenn tried to offer help. Jenn believed that the behavior belonged in a BM setting and not a recovery meeting.
7. Trish – Sorry that a newcomer had to see that happen and that it left a negative impression. Maya said something bad about Trish. AA is for all of us. Be real and honest.
8. Holly – Had one incident in the women’s meeting. Maya tried to say that the flyer they made had to do with rape and religion. This was something that did not come to light. She tends to drop bombs and then run away. She said the overall experience was uncomfortable and confusing.
9. Mona – Didn’t want to attend the Women’s Meeting. Maya made many attempts to disrupt the Women’s Meeting. Maya focused on rape the entire meeting which was disconcerting to the members. Flyer was made to empower women, not to imply anything offensive. Mona motioned for a 6-month ban to follow the Ban Guidelines that were created. The process is there for a reason, and we should follow that. 
10. Kelly (in Chat): Tried to speak to Maya and set boundaries. She immediately went against them with me, the group, and the traditions/principles of AA.
11. Daren – We have banned people for less. Maya shouldn’t get to tiptoe around the consequences for her behavior. If she gets to stay, he will leave the meeting and start his own. “GUTS version 2.0” She needs to be permanently banned!!!!
12. Mark M – Offered Mona’s motion for a 6-month ban which was seconded by Mark P. 

• Seconded and Passed (20 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
  

8. Al’s Revote for Return Back to Service

1. Issue: 

1. It was decided that the zpoll for Al’s return to service is invalid.
2. We will give Al a fair vote at the BM to determine his return to service.
3. Lauren’s Voting proposal was discussed as a viable alternative to zpolls and straw polls.  This proposal in summary allows for a once a month zoom meeting with a host/co-host to conduct live votes for all issues needed to be voted on outside the BM.
4. Clarification on Lauren’s proposal – This would not be a meeting where issues or voting items would be DEBATED.  This is purely open as a voting station where people come in already educated on the issue and ready to vote their conscience.
5. Mark P. stated that whatever voting mechanism is employed we need to make sure that all threads provide notification so all members can vote.  Mark expressed a thumbs up on the current proposal from Lauren so long as everyone gets a chance to vote.
6. Kristien expressed concerns with creating another meeting.  Her thoughts were to vote during the BM, but she expressed her support for Lauren’s proposal.
7. Dennis commented that normal BM voting should take place as normal and the new proposal would only be used on an as needed or ad hoc basis.  The group agreed with this statement.
8. Mark P. made the point that it may be easier to just consider having all votes at the BM.
9. Jeremy agreed with Mark and made the point that the BM would be a more efficient way to handle votes.
10. Barbara stated that service position votes should be handled at the BM and expressed that she believes that a return to service vote may not be necessary anymore.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Unanimous vote to take Lauren’s voting proposal to the BM (Review Proposal).

3. BM Response

1. Lauren/Poll Meeting – Covered the Poll Meeting document that was screenshared during the BM. Members wanted to make some changes. People felt that the voting should happen at the Business Meeting. Lisa suggested holding a ZPoll at the BM. That way, when members enter the room, they can vote. Kills two birds with one stone. A separate meeting might not be necessary and could be difficult to remember. There can be transparency with the voting because the ZPolls keep track of who votes. 
2. Mark P – Wavers back and forth whether it should be separate or not. Having voting at the BM can cause problems for the Chairperson and can be messy. Combine the polling idea with the BM.
3. Lauren said she would work with Lisa, Sarah, and the SC to make this poll happen for the next BM. Lauren already has the information necessary for holding nominations which will happen 72 hours prior to the BM. The main drawback of this polling method will be we can only issue polls once per month. 

• Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent).

9. 12/23/23: Kelly S – Feedback on Service Members needing to be voted back into service after resigning.

1. Issue: 

1. It was stated by Jeremy that someone leaving service should not need to be voted back into service.  Only people who have been removed from service would need to be voted back into service.
2. Kristen advised that the group conscience on voting members back into service was to prevent members from quitting service and then returning to service multiple times within short time frames.  It was instituted as a preventative measure to quickly quitting and rejoining service as well as to hold members accountable to their commitments.
3. Kristen stated we need to distinguish the difference between members taking a break from service as opposed to leaving service all together.  Brief breaks arranged with the group are allowed and will not need return to service votes regardless of the vote outcome on this issue.
4. Jeremy stated that when someone leaves service and is considered to return by a vote the results are based on personality and popularity.  This is not an ideal way to conduct AA business.
5. Kristen and Dennis expressed thoughts on employing the same process for voting people back into service for people who are banned.
6. Jeremy clarified that a ban to service members would not translate into that member being banned from the group.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Unanimous vote to take this to the BM for a vote on whether to keep the return to service vote or to do away with the return to service vote for members who have resigned their service positions.

3. BM Response

1. Lisa – The reason we have this GC is to prevent people from bouncing in and out of service which can be problematic for schedulers. She also stated that WhatsApp also keeps track of who leaves the threads. The voting process can hurt people’s feelings. She does not support removing the polling altogether. There can be a middle ground for this.
2. Lauren (in Chat): Reiterated the current GC. People can take up to 30-day breaks that are communicated with the schedulers. People are removed from the threads if they ghost the schedulers for a week.
3. Kelly – The polls put personality before principles. Even if people rage quit, it’s none of my business. Don’t block people from service. Unless there are strikes or bans against the person, there shouldn’t be a problem. The strikes should weed out those who are breaking safety guidelines/boundaries.
4. Thomas – He is a person who would join and rejoin service. He felt that he was going to be banned. There are too many group politics. Don’t control people or limit shares.
5. Daren – Didn’t leave service due to resentments, but to live life. People who cause drama and leave can be a problem. If you are that sick, you shouldn’t be in service. 
6. Rachel – Needed to take breaks here and there but is mainly consistent. She motioned to not revote people back into service. 
7. Kristen – There needs to be a middle ground with this. These polls have become a popularity contest. There has to be some accountability and recognition that service is a commitment. When we give people an inch, they take a mile. Strikes are there, but that can also be a problem too. Issuing strikes can become a mob mentality and popularity contest. 
8. Sarah – Why are these the only options? We bring up the topic and people can motion to make changes.

• Mark M – Used to non-Zoom AA meetings. The new proposal can go through the feedback, SC Meeting, and then the BM. This is only my second Business Meeting. Still figuring out how all this works.

9. Lisa – Service tracking is important. As a trainer, she saw that some people don’t make it through the training process. There needs to be some accountability. There’s nothing wrong with people developing connections and relationships in service. 
10. Mona – Motioned to keep the return to service vote.
11. Suzie – Reiterated that people are trying to make changes to the initial proposal which the group is allowed to do. 
12. Lisa – Made a concrete motion to vote people back in who have been gone for 6 months or longer. Revisit the topic in 6 months.

• Seconded and Passed (19 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
  

10. 12/27/23: Suzie J (and others wishing to remain anonymous) – Reporting Harassment or Inappropriate Behavior During a Meeting.

1. Issue:  

1. Christian stated that some of these things could just be personality and behavior and that we cannot attack members for this reason.
2. Kristen advised that we can give reminders during the BM meeting to make sure people are aware as well as reminders during the live meetings.
3. Suzie shared that the complainants are seeing this behavior as unsafe.  She stated that it is not about personalities, its about a combination of behaviors and inputs that hijack the meeting.  Hand gestures, reactions and multiple long shares.  Suzie said there is a lot of good content and empowerment in these shares, but there has to be a dialing back of actions.  It is having an effect on an entire group.  There is a concern that people are leaving the group.  Suzie wants to address individually these incidents without a ban or strike but rather with conversation.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Voted 6-2 to send this issue to the BM for discussion.

3. BM Response

1. Suzie – Went over her feedback. She felt that this was worthy of attention. She suggested tabling. There has been problematic behavior and time-hijacking. She went over the Safety Card and the traditions. 
2. Rachel – Is not clear on the issue. The feedback is a little broad-scoped; so, it’s hard to discern what is going on. We have boundaries in place. It’s up to the service team to handle issues.
3. Kristen – She clarified that this is about addressing chronic hijackers and their behavior.
4. Suzie – There’s been a combination of several behaviors throughout the meeting. She wants something done about it. Someone needs to motion.
5. Jeremy – These issues fall under Host Discretion. We can’t control what everyone is doing all the time. If something is distracting, don’t look. In our Redirection Guidelines, it addresses time hijackers. Jump to the next person, let others share, then come back to the original person who already shared. 
6. Kelly – There’s not a clear motion or proposal in this case. Stay in the solutions and acceptance. Focus on one’s own program and recovery. Sometimes, we struggle to get hands up. When people get their hands up, that can be a service to the room. 
7. Jayna – This is not about someone sharing hour after hour. It’s about the clear hijacking and aggressive behavior that is not helping the newcomer.
8. After this, some members started arguing with each other. For the sake of compassion, I am not disclosing the entire argument in the notes.
9. Mark M – Told the arguing members to talk outside of the meeting. Talk to each other as grown adults in sobriety. This argument does not belong in the Business Meeting. Everyone, please be aware – This is a reminder to work on patience, tolerance, and acceptance. We can only work on ourselves.
10. No Vote was held. Meeting was ended.
    

TABLED:

11. 12/29/23: Sarah Sky – Topic for Business Meeting Agenda – Eliminating the 1:30am PST cutoff time for hands during the last meeting.

1. Issue: 
   According to LNG Service Members, we can now eliminate the 1:30am PST cutoff time for hands during the last meeting.
2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)
   The Steering Committee agreed that the 1:30am PST cutoff is no longer necessary.  SC recommendation is to send this item to the BM to be ratified.
   

12. 12/30/23:  Jason W – Topic for Business Meeting Agenda – Shipping hardcover books.

1. Issue: 
   Jason recently received a softcover Big Book from ORC – he wants to see if hardcover books could be an option to be shipped.
2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)
   The Steering Committee agreed that hardcover (vs. “hardcore”) books could be sent if requested.  It was voted to send to the BM so we can discuss additional costs and other logistics in offering hard copy big books as well as softcover books. $14.95/sc, $16.95/hc.

13. Specifying Job Roles

1. This was the content from the July 2nd BM.
   1. SC members wanted to discuss the GC of Hosts being scheduled as cohosts. Balancing the Host/Cohost responsibilities interchangeably. (April SC Meeting)
   2. Donna made the point that Hosts are subject to Cohosting per GC. Schedulers follow this group conscience. (April SC Meeting)
   3. Lisa made the point that there are those who do have preferences regarding Hosting/Cohosting. This could be worthy of discussion at the BM. Group Conscience can evolve based on how the group feels about it. (April SC Meeting)

B. BM Response (July 2nd)

1. Dennis-He is aware that he is not immune to cohosting, and he understands that everyone can’t be available every night. Hosts need to cohost sometimes.
2. Kristen-Doesn’t mind being scheduled as a cohost. She expressed, “Go where the need is.” When giving availability, she suggested that members specify whether or not they can host or cohost on certain nights. However, she felt that this could potentially confuse schedulers. She offered “Keep it Simple” and keep doing what we have been doing.
3. Lisa- It doesn’t need to go both ways. Cohosts can remain cohosts if they choose. Hosts need to cohost sometimes too, for the sake of filling in the schedule, and allow others to participate in Hosting. She talked about the pros and cons when making specifications to schedulers. The pros involve allowing people to choose what service they provide to the group. The cons would be making the scheduling more difficult, people’s egos can become an issue, or people could become competitive. 
4. Kelly-Encouraged members not to get carried away with doing one or the other. Doing both can keep the skills fresh when the need arises. 
5. Lauren-Asked the group if they wanted to motion for anything. After a long pause, Lauren felt that inaction on this topic might be the best route and keep things the way they are for the sake of simplicity. People can read the Business Meeting notes for any insight regarding this topic.

1. Per the August 20th BM, there was a motion to revisit the “Specified Jobs” Topic to include scheduling a mixture of genders. They would be scheduled to work together to help accommodate our newcomers, protect our service team, and can be an additional safety measure for attendees.

1. Would we like to discuss this topic?

14. 24/7 Contact List

1. The contact list is a great idea. We were informed that this was previously a GC. There’s no list currently. We discussed having one at the August 20th BM. There were some concerns in terms of implementation. If we want to establish this going forward, we will need a Coordinator or someone to spearhead this. Some wondered if this would be a mixed-gender contact list. 
2. SC Response

1. Lisa – Proposed highlighting people in the current contact lists. She felt this might be easier than having a separate contact list.
2. Kristen – Felt that a specific list might be needed. Not everyone on the list will be available. On a separate list, we can add notes and let people know when these individuals have the availability to talk. 
3. Lisa – There might be a lot of maintenance for a separate contact list and doesn’t want us to reinvent the wheel. Keeping it simple.

15. GC Manual

A.    Lauren: I am proposing a voluntary committee to work on cataloguing all group conscience and creating a GC Manual. Some work has already been done towards this, but I am hoping we can get a group of experienced members together to finish the task.

16. XVI.Non-Facilitated Topics

1. Lauren:  Any group-approved BM topic/proposal that has not been facilitated for 3 months will be tabled until a concrete proposal is brought to the group. Investigation and background work for accomplishing those topics can still be done. Bring the completed project to the group when it is ready for group approval and implementation. 
2. My main concern is the follow-through on projects that have been left undone for months. The group has amazing ideas, but keep in mind that work has to be done for these ideas to be accomplished.