Guts Business Meeting – 03/03/2024

March 3^rd Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair: Mark M.

BM Co-Chair: Dennis

Secretary: Lauren 

1. Treasurer’s Report – Elle

1. February: $3,365.73 beginning balance.
   $395.27 Total deposits.
   Total expenses: $841.88.
   End balance $2,919.12.
   7th Tradition Donations: $488.18.
   Ending Cash Balance: $3,407.30
2. One time allocation for the ORC. Allow a one-time contribution to the ORC if we know that we are running low. We don’t want to get in the habit of choosing where money is allocated. Gets administration heavy. She’s okay with a one-time allocation.

1. Motion to move $150 from General reserve to the ORC for Quarter 1.
2. Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

3. Motion to approve Treasurer’s Report

1. Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
   

2. ORC Report – Del

1. February: We sent out 10 – Big Books, 4 – 12&12s, 10 – Coins. Total cost: $326.75.
2. We are down to $20 for funds set aside for this quarter with one more month to go. See item B above to move $150 from General reserve to the ORC for Quarter 1.
3. Motion to approve ORC Report.
   – Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

3. Committee Reports

1. Host Feedback Workshop – Kristen

1. We agreed to take the Host Feedback Workshop and synthesize it into the Host Training moving forward.
2. BM Response: Might not need any more updates. The group will need to decide how often the workshops are needed. Need to talk to the training team and discuss how many workshops will be needed. 
3. Motion to approve Workshop.

• Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

2. Unity Workshop – Lauren

1. Any more on the horizon? Lauren distributed another PPT deck to all threads.
2. BM Response: The Unity Workshop this month went very well. Newer members are asking lots of questions which I love to see. They are very interactive. People had a lot to say and seemed very passionate about the content in the workshop. I focused on the second tradition and asked questions that related to that tradition. This month will be the third tradition. No changes there.

3. Intergroup Representative – Lauren

1. Anything new to report?
2. BM Response: Nothing New!
   

4. Polling

1. Lauren – POLLS/VOTING

1. Issue: We will implement ZPolls for new service members.
2. Nominations are open for the following positions:
   1 SC Member (Leon Declined),
   1 Treasurer (SC Only),
   2 Secretaries (SC Only),
   1 Zoom Admin,
   1 SC Thread Admin.

2. BM Response

1. This was a pretty confusing topic for all of us. So, I am going to keep this straightforward and include what was decided rather than the whole discussion that happened.
2. Motion for Elle to fulfill a second term as Treasurer. This position will keep her in the SC too. That means that the SC is full right now.

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

3. Motion to detach the Secretary position from the Steering Committee.

• Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

4. Motion for Noelle to fulfill the Secretary position. She is also requesting to be on the service team.

• Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

5. There were no nominees for 1 Secretary or 1 SC Thread Admin.
   

5. Group Inventory

1. Still waiting for an outside source to help us monitor this.

1. Barb: Contacted some people and asked them to help.
2. Leona: Contacted Central Office a year ago and got some names – contacting them again.
3. We have a Thread…we need action!

2. BM Response

1. Kristen: We have the thread going. Many people are offering services and information. No one is really in charge of it. Need to get the outside person before we can discuss group inventory. Need to have the meeting before the meeting so to speak.
2. This topic was mainly a reminder to get the ball rolling with Group Inventory and to see where we are at currently.

6. Donna – Create a memoriam page.

1. Issue: Would like to see a memoriam page dedicated to GUTS members that we have lost. We’ve been going for 3+ years and have lost several brothers & sisters. It would be nice to honor them.
2. SC Response/Action (January SC Meeting)

1. A unanimous vote to take this to the BM for discussion and a vote. How to proceed and who will be responsible for this to be done – website?

3. BM Response

1. Jason A.: Raised concerns about people’s anonymity. Does it break their anonymity to create a memoriam page? 
2. Leona: Went to aa.org blatantly stated that we need family permission before putting a memoriam page up on the website.
3. Ian: Someone will have to do the footwork to make it happen. If we really want this page, we will get family permission to do it.
4. Suzie: Wanted to point out that the person is still anonymous. I don’t know how we want to identify them. We could abbreviate their name. We know them, but it’s not public.
5. Kristen: We could reach out more about it. There are people who have family members who don’t know the person is in AA. Are we going to create more trouble? Some people are private. Could end up creating problems. We will need more info for this. Reach out to GSO just to make sure we can still do it without family permission.
6. Dennis: Motion to table

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

7. Mark M: Work needs to be done to make it happen.

7. Dennis – Appeal Process for Banned Members.

1. Issue: A clarification on the appeal process. 

1. (From the GC Ban Guidelines): All bans must have substantial unanimity to pass (2/3 majority vote). 
2. Anyone on the dissenting side can appeal. If someone wishes to appeal, they can request one revisitation for the next BM.
3. The dissenting side will have the first chance to speak. After they have spoken, the Chairperson can ask if anyone would like to change their vote. If anyone says “Yes” the Chairperson can entertain a motion to revote. This motion will require a simple majority and is not debatable.
4. If the motion passes, another vote is taken which will require a 2/3 majority to pass. The decision would be final and cannot be revisited for 6 months.
5. If a ban is reversed, the Chairperson may entertain a motion for a shorter ban or none at all based on group discussion.

2. SC Response/Action (January SC Meeting)

1. This was NOT brought up at the SC meeting, but we need to have this clarified for the next person who gets banned.

3. BM Response

1. Sarah S: The process makes sense to me. The appeal having it in the second month is not workable. Maybe we can agree to approve removing the next month part. Appeal process should happen during the meeting. It’s commonly done in many meetings.
2. Motion to remove having appeals occur in the consecutive month. Make sure it happens in the same meeting.

• Seconded and Passed (25 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
  

8. Jesus – LGBTQIA+ meeting Attendance.

1. Issue: When the LGBTQIA+ meeting was started, I was asked by the originator of this meeting Mona to participate as a rotating host since the inception of the meeting. 
2. There has not been consistency in participation on rotating the host every Sunday for this meeting.
3. There were 3 host that started in the rotations – Mona, Coda, and me (Jesus). There was a thought from 1 host that it would be nice to maybe change the meeting from 4pm PST to 5:30pm PST.
4. When that was read by Mona, she did not like it, stepped back immediately as of Tuesday 01/23/2023. I have made efforts to contact the remaining host, and crickets.
5. Participation in the meeting has diminished over time to a consistent 2-3 folks and one of them is me (Jesus) as the host.
6. Discussion Points: 

1. * Coda may be unaware that hosts are needed since he may be on a service break.  We can alert Coda to see if he may want to jump back into this meeting.  We can put up nominations for additional hosts.
2. * Mona has decided to withdraw from the meeting, so it may be valuable to see if we can find additional hosts.  Since she was one of the founders of this meeting it will difficult to sustain this meeting.  We need to put some air in this meeting with group outreach to keep it going.  There is no reason to give up on the meeting, we should keep having it if possible. 
3. * Possible solutions to swap the time for the Chip meeting with the LGBTQIA+.  We may need to limit the Chip meeting or stretch it out to occur every 6 months.

7. SC Response/Action (January SC Meeting)

1. Unanimous vote to take this to the BM for discussion and a vote. ***How to proceed and who will be responsible for this to be done?

8. BM Discussion

1. Members seemed to agree that there has been low attendance for both the LGBTQIA+ and Allies Meeting along with the Chip Meeting. Members were in favor of changing the time for the LGBTQIA+ meeting to 5:30PM PST to stay consistent with the other sister meetings, but there were various ideas about the Chip Meeting. Some wanted the meeting integrated into the regular meeting and others wanted the meeting to be held every 6 months. Some made the point that people have birthdays every month and 6 months is too long. Hosts were encouraged to do the day counts at the half hour mark, which had been regular practice previously. The group agreed that we want to give the LGBTQIA+ more time to get off the ground and ensure that we include the word “Allies” to show that the meeting is inclusive of regular members too. 

9. Motion to have the LGBTQIA+ Meeting moved to the 5:30 Timeframe. Make sure that the word “Allies” is emphasized and that members who are not LGBTQIA+ are allowed to attend. Also, the entire marathon meeting will celebrate birthdays on the last Sunday of each month. 

1. Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

9. 10-Minute Time Limit for Shares

1. BM Response

1. Most members agreed that there shouldn’t be 10-minute limits on shares because not having time limits is part of what makes GUTS unique. Some felt like too many rules are being imposed on the group and what that to be lessened. People might feel like they need to share the entire ten minutes. 
2. Motion to dismiss topic.

• Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
  

10. 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)

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. BM Response

1. The group seemed to agree that this is a topic where reaching a concrete answer is difficult. Members encouraged Hosts to be flexible with Cohosting and not to overcomplicate the scheduling. There was encouragement for people not to call out. These are voluntary positions and, “We can’t regulate integrity.” This isn’t something that can really be enforced. Members talked about how burn out can be problematic.  Some argued that this is a commitment and having designated positions should be required.
2. The meeting ended before a conclusion on this topic could be reached. There was discussion about dismissing this topic since this is a gray-area kind of issue. “This won’t be solved at all. Everything in AA is a suggestion. “Let this issue die on the vine because there is no resolution.” Since no action was taken on this topic, a vote is not necessary.
   

Motion to close Meeting 

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

Tabled Issues

11. Donna – Create a memoriam page.

4. Issue: Would like to see a memoriam page dedicated to GUTS members that we have lost. We’ve been going for 3+ years and have lost several brothers & sisters. It would be nice to honor them.
5. SC Response/Action (January SC Meeting)

2. A unanimous vote to take this to the BM for discussion and a vote. How to proceed and who will be responsible for this to be done – website?

6. BM Response

8. Jason A.: Raised concerns about people’s anonymity. Does it break their anonymity to create a memoriam page? 
9. Leona: Went to aa.org blatantly stated that we need family permission before putting a memoriam page up on the website.
10. Ian: Someone will have to do the footwork to make it happen. If we really want this page, we will get family permission to do it.
11. Suzie: Wanted to point out that the person is still anonymous. I don’t know how we want to identify them. We could abbreviate their name. We know them, but it’s not public.
12. Kristen: We could reach out more about it. There are people who have family members who don’t know the person is in AA. Are we going to create more trouble? Some people are private. Could end up creating problems. We will need more info for this. Reach out to GSO just to make sure we can still do it without family permission.
13. Dennis: Motion to table

• Seconded and Passed (19 Yes Votes/No Dissent) 
• Mark M: Work needs to be done to make it happen.

12. 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.

11. 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.