Guts Business Meeting – 02/04/2024

February 4^th Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair: Mark M

BM Co-Chair: Dennis

Secretary: Lauren (Massive SHOUTOUT for working through bad weather affecting internet connection)

SC Members Present: Mark M, Dennis, Barbara, Christian, Kristen, Mark P, and Suzie

1. Treasurer’s Report – Elle

1. Bank balance: 3,365.73, 7th tradition $615.43, MailPoet expense was due, ORC expenses were $202.89 and $25. 7th Tradition apps were $294.27. Between January and February-contributions are down after Christmas. We tend to get more contributions during Christmas because people seem more giving around that time. 
2. Ending Cash Balance: $3,654.56, WordPress bill is due $400. This is a web expense that is required. Elle showed the reserves that the group keeps for various expenses. 
3. Conversation between Dennis and Elle

1. Dennis: Wanted to know if we are still buying from Hazelden. Elle: Yes, we get a 10% discount. Dennis: Are we now in Delaware district 4? Elle: We are currently a part of an online district starting at the end November. GC allowed her to do that. Our district is where we are incorporated. Dennis: Is it an online district? Elle: Technically, it’s a geographic district, but we are flagged as an online district. The online districts are still forming. The Washington group number originated from the person who started the group. At the time, it was pertinent to being able to apply our 7th tradition contribution to a group. Elle changed the group number. Our contributions were going to the Washington area until we got our new group number. Now, we are service area 12 district 4. Dennis: We need to buy literature from GSO. Elle: I might need some help from ORC to do that. Dennis: Hazelden is not a part of AA. We should have our money going to AA. Not knocking Hazelden, but our money should not go to an outside agency. Elle: We (Group) should have a discussion on that. I will post relevant feedback for the next SC meeting.

1. Motion to approve report.
   **Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
   

2. ORC Report – Del

1. Wants to help Elle figure out our vender. He’s terming out, but he is still willing to help out during the transition. We are just under $400 for ORC money. Significantly high number of donated literature/coins: Comprised of 11 milestone coins, 8 12&12’s, and 7 Big Books.
2. Motion to approve report.
   **Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
   

3. Committee Reports

1. Host Feedback Workshop – Lisa

1. Lisa: We have made it through about 8 workshops. The one person who has not attended the workshop should communicate with the SC. She would like to step down because her time is done. Wants to hand over the reins to someone else. Posed the question: Are we going to do this again?
2. Kristen: We voted this in to handle complaints and address issues. We didn’t have a plan at the time because we wanted to see how it worked out. Are we going to do this for upcoming service members? Do we want to incorporate this stuff in training? Is it done? If any issues come up again, we could use the workshop solution again. Received wonderful feedback. People are implementing the information, and there were no complaints. We just need to decide as a group whether or not we continue. Do it for Hosts coming in or put it to rest?
3. Lisa: I do think we should have continuing education. Having people come in with their tips and tricks is useful. We used to have an extra meeting for training. Not a lot of people attended. On their own, most people don’t show up. We could incorporate the Host Feedback info into the training document. She has the checklist. Host training could benefit from the info. Many Hosts were offering their suggestions too. 
4. Lisa: Motion to take this host feedback workshop, and synthesis it into Host training going forward.

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

5. Thomas: Has a suggestion. Maybe prepare a document that articulates the current consensus on what Hosts should or shouldn’t do. These are some suggestions. Have the document have the dos and don’ts for Hosting. Tell hosts that they can encourage newcomers to share. People can read the document and train themselves. Takes out the time commitment and scheduling headaches. 

• Mark M Responded: We have documents, but these workshops were given to help people additionally with redirection. There were other issues involved too. The Host Feedback Workshops were a solution to a problem of sorts. We have an entire library of helpful information available to the service team.

6. Jason A: How much cohosting do I need to accomplish before becoming a Host? Is there any further training I need for Hosting?

• Lisa/Mark M Responded: 30 shifts or 60 hours of cohosting before becoming a Host. We just had extra training for Hosting and redirection GC. Once those hours/shifts are completed, then someone can be trained for Hosting.
• Lauren (side note): There’s also fast-tracking GC in place too. If cohosts agree to do LNG regularly for two months OR become a Sister Meeting Host, cohosts can be fast-tracked into Hosting. 

7. Lisa: There are a lot of land of gray issues in Hosting. Having input from other Hosts helps. We get multiple other perspectives. The humanity of the workshop is beneficial. We get to have the discussion with other humans. Not too time-consuming to incorporate the Host Feedback Workshop, but she doesn’t want to speak for the training team.
8. Kristen: Second Lisa’s motion to add the info to training. We can fine tune it and get together with the trainers and synthesis it. Won’t be laborious if we work together. Need a GC to do that moving forward.
   

2. Unity Workshop – Lauren

1. All workshops were held and attended. Lauren distributed a PPT deck to all threads.
2. Lauren: So, the workshops are done. I am wondering if we want to hold a workshop monthly because I think it helped newer service team members navigate some of the group’s conscience. I think it answered a lot of questions about our guidelines. I wouldn’t want to hold four a time because it’s a lot of work. Just having one per month should suffice. I am going to focus on one tradition per month. Last month was tradition 1. This month would be tradition 2. I would welcome anyone who would want to be involved in running this workshop. I want to see what the group thinks about holding one workshop per month. During the 11am timeframe, more people seemed to attend. I will probably hold it during that timeframe and select a day each month for the workshop. Give everyone plenty of heads up.
3. Thomas: Saw some info for the Unity workshop, and he wrote down the times. Life was so busy that he didn’t get a chance to attend. Maybe limit to one session per month. Let people know in advance several times. Let people adjust their schedule. Lots of meeting stuff happens in the middle of the night. Plus, there’s the afternoon meetings. Sometimes, people can’t attend. It can be a commitment to attend all these various meetings. 

• Mark M Responded: We remind people as much as we can. There’s a motion on the floor. Holding the Unity workshops once per month.

4. Dennis: We already have a Traditions meeting for members of the group who want to study the traditions. 

• Mark M Responded: Well, there can never be too much covering of the traditions! Dennis agreed.
• Lauren Responded:  I am not intending the workshop to become a Traditions study meeting. Just to apply the traditions to the group and have discussions that are relevant. The main goal of the workshop is to show the group’s guidelines and GC for the service team, especially newer people who come into service. There’s a lot of GC to navigate in this group. The more education we freely offer to the group, the more we all stay on the same page.

5. Motion to hold the Unity Workshop facilitated by Lauren once per month.

• Seconded and Passed (20 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

3. Intergroup Representative – Lauren

1. Nothing new to report.
   

4. Lauren – POLLS/VOTING

1. Issue: We will implement zpolls for new service members.
2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. Unanimous vote to take Lauren’s voting proposal to the BM (Review Proposal).
2. 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. 
3. Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent).

3. BM ZPoll

1. Sarah and Lisa set up the ZPolls prior to the Business Meeting. It went over smoothly. An accident occurred, and Sarah S held voting after the BM. 

4. The group took no action on this topic because the implementation was happening during the Business Meeting.

5. Sarah Sky – Limit Business Meeting to 2 Hours

1. Issue:  I would like to limit the length of the business meetings to 2 hours. If there is a compelling need to go over 2 hours, an on-the-spot group conscience can be taken to extend the meeting for “x” minutes. An example of a compelling need? The group is close to coming to an agreement on a topic, but the 2-hour mark has been reached. The group can then vote to extend the meeting by 10 minutes, for example, in order to get it done.
2. Steering Committee Response:

1. Mark P:  Proposed to limit one share per issue in the BM.
2. Mark M: Would like to post somewhere all the tabled issues so people have more transparency into why issues may not be getting done.  Many a time issues get pushed off due to more urgent issues that are brought forth.
3. Dennis:  The importance of the items on the agenda are in order as reported.  But we can put the most important ones first and the others put off to later.
4. Suzie:  Great idea for a two-hour limit.  The length of meetings ends up burning people out and it gets tough after 3 hours to think clearly on issues.  Suzie in support of BM time limit.
5. Kristen:  We as the steering committee can prioritize the agenda beforehand for BM so we can indicate the top issues in need of immediate attention and tag issues of less importance for tabling. 

3. SC Action (January SC Meeting)

1. A unanimous vote to take this to the BM for discussion and a vote.

4. BM Response

1. Mark M: Went over the notes. Limit the Business Meeting to two hours. Take an on-the-spot GC based on compelling need. Business Meeting can be extended “x” number of minutes. Emphasized Mark P’s, “One share per topic.” Prioritize the topics. Mark made the point that importance is in the eye of the beholder. He asked if the order was okay in the SC Thread and was not given a response.
2. Dennis: Would like it if the BM was two hours because he has to work. 
3. Kristen: We have changed GC to limit shares. People would be upset when we didn’t get to items on the agenda. SC’s main purpose is to itemize the agenda. That was the role of the SC back in the beginning. The SC would organize the agenda during Steering Committee Meetings. The topics were prioritized on the agenda by the Steering Committee. We just need to go back to that. We have already limited the BM to two hours. She emphasized that AA moves slowly sometimes. She wants people to understand that topics will be held over. She would really like if we re-enforced this GC. Seconded the motion times infinity!
4. Lisa: Likes the two-hour limit. Hopefully, we can be flexible. Doesn’t want to stop in the middle of an important discussion. Some are more flexible than others. She would like it if we had wiggle room, especially if the issue is important like tech or safety. Let’s not have a hard stop. Let the issue be finished in half an hour. She understands that we need boundaries. The thought to stop would be a 30-minute max. Then table it, if needed. 
5. Christian: Mostly nothing good happens after two hours. People get tired and frustrated. Doesn’t seem like it’s been productive to delve into the third hour.
6. Mark M: Clarified that on-the-spot GC can be given for x minutes if we are in the middle of something. 30 minutes is more than enough time to wrap it up. Maybe 15 minutes. Have either 15 or 30 minutes. His preference is 15, but he will go along with whatever the group decides.
7. Dennis: Be aware of what needs highest priority and keep that in mind.
8. Mark M: Going to bring notes to Steering Committee. See what keeps getting pushed back. Doesn’t want the SC meeting to go on for two hours.
9. Sarah S.: Did put the “x” in the proposal but thought we would take a GC vote at the time it’s happening or on the spot. If we are in the middle of something, we won’t know how long that will take. Let’s not have a set time right now. Leave the timing open-ended because each situation is different.
10. Samantha: I like where we went with the 15 minutes. On the spot it can be 10 minutes. Not that everyone’s 2 cents doesn’t matter. If GC is ready to move on, it’s ready to move on. That’s important in teamwork. Issue can be tabled or brought up later. There’s lots of ways to keep the meeting from running longer than 2 hours. On the spot is a good balance to either extend the discussion if need be or close out the meeting in a timely way.
11. Thomas: Motion to end the BM at 2 hours. *Motion to extend the meeting in an open-ended way if we are close to resolving an issue.

• Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No dissent)
  

6. Group Inventory

1. Kristen:  Our group inventory has been on the to-do list for over a year and a half.  We have had outside people that were willing to do it.  For various reasons this has been put off repeatedly.  We should bring up a GI again. We need people to get involved here.
2. BM Response

1. Mark M: Kept getting tabled, tabled, and tabled. This has been on the table for one year and a half. For various reasons, this was put off repeatedly.
2. Lisa: Do our group inventory ourselves. She explained the background of why group inventory didn’t happen.
3. Mark M: Someone has sources for group inventory. Expressed that he would like to be a part of the group inventory.
4. Dennis: We need a group inventory every couple of years. Might have someone in mind. Might have someone who can facilitate or be a moderator.
5. Kristen: Form a committee to get someone from the outside to do our group inventory. A small group can make sure this doesn’t get pushed off. Have people keep the ball rolling.
6. Lauren: I already did somewhat of a group inventory with the unity workshops. I would much prefer having someone outside of myself doing the group’s inventory. However, I would like to be involved in the group inventory process, whenever that’s decided.
7. Suzie: Do this in a way that can be generalized. Let’s not have one person dictating group inventory.  Have a general inventory.
8. Sarah: We need someone outside of us. They might not know how our group works because they aren’t with us day in and day out.
9. Motion to have a committee formed for the Group Inventory to figure out how to proceed.

• Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
  

7. Sarah Sky: Topic for Business Meeting Agenda – Eliminating the 1:30am PST cutoff time for hands during the last meeting.

1. Issue:  

1. 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)

1. 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.

3. BM Response

1. People in the chat seemed supportive of removing the 1:30 cutoff time.
2. Ian M-Said that we have a good crew for LNG. Just wanted to know if the meeting would still end at two. Mark M-Yes, there would still be a hard stop at 2am.
3. Ian M: Motioned to remove the 1:30 cutoff for hands.
   –      Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
   

8. “Y” – Daily Topics Sources

1. Issue:  Wondering about the daily topics. I really focus on AA-approved literature and constantly see a lot of outside sources. Is this something we could look into?

1. Notes: SC voted to bring this request to the BM.  The group may decide to change the GC to just use AA Literature.  Currently the GC allows for AA material as well as related literature that applies to our recovery. 

2. SC Response/Action (January SC Meeting)

1. A unanimous vote to take this to the BM for discussion and a vote.

3. BM Response

1. Dennis: Prefers AA literature, but we should still allow outside sources.
2. Samantha: Having outside sources gives an opportunity for newcomers who are not familiar with AA literature to join in a conversation that they might otherwise do since they are not yet familiar with AA literature.
3. Kristen: We want to promote AA literature, but when she selects these alternate sources, she is looking for the AA message “put into different words” – the same message just delivered differently and maybe that delivery makes sense to the newcomer.
4. Mark M: There’s presently no motion. That means the group is taking no action and not making any changes. Topic sources outsides of AA remain in usage.

9. Jason A. – Verifications

1. Issue:  in announcements we asked all the time in Chat can we let them know the Verifications is before the meeting ends in announcements
2. SC Response:

1. Request to clarify our verification process.
2. Suzie: Some hosts are already stating that verification links are put in the chat during the last ten minutes of the meeting.
3. Kristen:  Jason is asking for this to be an addition to the script, so it is said out loud to the group.
4. Mark P:  The introduction is already long enough, and I fear to add anything to the intro script.  Putting in the chat should be sufficient.

3. SC Action (January SC Meeting)

1. Vote 7-0 to take this to the BM for discussion and a vote.

4. BM Response

1. Sarah S: You know how we post the blurbs at the beginning. Maybe add a sentence that shows that verification is posted near the end of the meeting. That way, people know when to expect it or later.
2. Mark M: Maybe people will think they can just show up 10-15 minutes before the meeting ends and only stay for that portion of the meeting. Just wait for their verification. I get what you are saying, Sarah. Host state it at the beginning and post blurbs throughout the meeting.
3. Barbara: At the bottom of the topics, we have the directions for raising one’s hand, why don’t we add a little paragraph that says, “Verifications will be posted at the end of the meeting.” We post the topics several times throughout the meeting. That way, the blurb is automatically included, and we don’t have to make the intro any longer. 
4. Don: I don’t know if this can be done. If someone came into a meeting, maybe hosts and cohosts could watch members to see if they stayed 55 minutes to an hour. That way, people don’t come in just to get a verification and make sure that people actually attend the meeting. Is there a way we can do that in our group? It can be construed as unfair for people to do this. If this were a physical meeting, people would have to stay the entire time. People will keep doing this over and over. They might take advantage of our system for verifications. 
5. Mark M: Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I think that people are going to ask, ask, ask. Their primary reason is to show that they were at the meeting.
6. Ian: I want to know how verification works on our end. Do they send in a paper, and we sign it? Response: No, they fill out the info in the link and the verification is emailed to them. Ian cont.: I will be hosting, and people ask for verification. I just send them to the cohosts. I think something should be in the script. Might be good to let people know at the beginning. I am a part of this court program. I know people who will come in for the 2-3 hours, have their phone on “low” and they are just waiting for the link. I know we can’t access it on the website, but I don’t think it’s going to change with people asking for verification. 
7. Kristen: There’s another Zoom meeting. Their GC is to have a Host verification person. They only announce it at the beginning. They have 10 minutes to reach out to that person. Those people who want verification are watched the whole time. This is something we discussed a long time ago. We decided that we can’t control people. We would have to change the entire format to do this. We can’t force willingness. 
8. Samantha: We have had this discussion many times. We can’t control other people. Those people are the ones who get it or don’t. It’s their responsibility to attend the meeting. Add to script.
9. Mark: Motion to put this in the script. Hosts mention verification and cohosts post a blurb in the chat.

• Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
  

10. 12/30/23:  Jason W – Topic for Business Meeting Agenda – Shipping hardcover books.

1. Issue:  

1. Jason recently received a softcover Big Book from ORC – wanted to see if hardcover books could be the standard to be shipped.

2. SC Response/Action (December SC Meeting)

1. The Steering Committee agreed that hardcover 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/soft cover, $16.95/hard cover.

3. BM Response

1. Ian: In person meetings give the option of passing out books at the end of the meeting. Votes for hardcover. Hard cover might be more meaningful.
2. Jayna: Received a soft cover from ORC and is grateful for it. Soft Cover is the same book, just cheaper. It’s also free.
3. Mark: Might be harder to throw away a hard cover book.
4. Motion for hard cover.

• Seconded and Not Passed (9 Yes Votes/6 No Votes)

5. Mark: We do NOT have a 2/3 majority here.
6. Christian: We need only 2/3 majority on votes to ban members. He offered the dissenting viewpoint that it’s the same book, but cheaper. Whether people read it or not, it’s free.
7. Dennis (to Mark): Ask if anyone wants to change their vote.
8. Revote on this issue. We are sticking with the soft cover books. No for softcover. Yes for hardcover. Seconded and Not Passed (13 No Votes/3 Yes Votes). Softcover with remain the standard issued Big Book through ORC.

11. 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.

3. BM Response

1. Kristen: She has grown since then and changed her mind. She agrees with Lisa now. The contact list would be a lot to maintain. The reason we had this as a proposed solution was due to a problem that we faced. This was a solution to a previous problem. Currently, this is a moot point.

• Lauren (Side note): Kristen is right. People weren’t responding or people on the phone list were being very rude to newcomers. So, this was one of the proposed solutions at the time. The women’s contact list was neglected for a long time. The problem was resolved when Barbara became the women’s contact list coordinator and did a giant overhaul on it. Big kudos to her.

2. Suzie: People should be using the resources available to them. We might not need a whole new tool. People are responsive now on the phone list.
3. Barbara: She went through the entire list. Making a whole new list would be a ton of work. She understands the amount of work that goes into compiling, organizing, and maintaining the contact list. She said that she could highlight people who are currently on the list based on need.
4. Ian: We could always ask people in the meeting to give out their numbers to immediately speak to those in need.
5. Mark M: There’s no motion. That means the group is taking no action and not making any changes.
   

TABLED ISSUES:

12. 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?

13. GC Manual

1. 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.

14. 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.