July 2nd Business Meeting
BM Chair: Lauren
BM Co-Chair: Lisa
Secretaries: Elle and Lauren
Timer: Lauren Forgot
I. Treasurer’s Report-Elle
A. Motion to approve.
1. Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. Donation
1. Elle motioned to split the $400 donation between GSB and OIAA. Each would get $200. She also said that she needs more time with H&I.
2. Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
II. ORC
A. Del: Hi, regarding the ORC we have three outstanding international orders. These may be cost prohibitive due to shipping costs. For example, to send a coin to New South Wales the shipping is about 48$. I thought we should bring this to the group before finalizing these orders due to the possibility that it may deplete our funds for ORC or if only for the sake of transparency.
B. BM Response
1. Jason-He has some experience with Outreach. Previously, he had reached out locally to get a person’s book to them because shipping cost more than the book itself.
2. Kristen-Find someone locally? Are we still funding the materials if we do find someone locally?
3. Dennis-If we can’t find someone locally, we should still send the materials to people. We are an international meeting.
4. Elle-We do have the funds to fulfill the orders. Motioned to fulfill the orders and plan for international orders going forward.
5. Jason-Move forward with the 3 international orders, but ORC needs to search for local help or a more economical process for these situations. Jason offered to help ORC with this issue.
– Seconded and Passed (12 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
III. Revisitation of Hosts Passing Tags (June SC Meeting)
A. If cohosts determine that a Host is not sober, the Host will be asked to pass their tags to someone else. Current GC is a vote between cohosts in the Live Thread.
1. There is no defined group conscience on how to handle such issues after the cohosts have requested the Host to pass their tags. I suggest discussing and establishing a group-approved process for these situations.
2. I would like to amend this GC to include the incapacitation of the Host’s ability to perform their duties during the regular meeting.
3. Amending this GC would encompass a broader scope. The amendment to this GC would include situations where the Host did not relapse, but they are unable to complete their shift due to other factors.
B. BM Response
1. Kristen-Incapacitation can mean other things like falling asleep or anything else that could happen. She wanted to add to the amendment to include that Hosts need their tags pulled by key-holders if they refuse to pass them.
2. Lisa-If a Host is unwilling to pass their tags, the tech team pulls tags. If a GC between cohosts needs to occur, bring the issue to the SC for discussion moving forward.
3. Dennis-Made a suggestion to Hosts: pass their tags if they are too tired or fatigued. Make sure that one’s shift is covered when situations like this happen.
– Lauren-I can make a note of this in the Group Announcements that follow the Business Meeting.
4. Lauren motioned to amend the GC to include the incapacitation of the Host’s ability to perform their duties during the regular meeting. If a Host is deemed incapacitated, a Host will be asked to pass their tags. A GC vote among cohosts will need to be held in the Live Thread.
– If a Host refuses to give up their tags, a member of the tech team needs to be contacted to remove the Host’s tags.
– After this happens, please contact SC members so that the issue can be discussed.
– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IV. Service Practices (June SC Meeting)
A. Lauren: I have been updating the content for the Service Practices section of the Website. I am including Scheduling Group Conscience with this updated document. I was attempting to facilitate the GC vote held at the May SC meeting.
1. Lauren offered to write up a document that gives an overview of current GC on scheduling. (May SC Meeting)
B. Service Practices on the website includes outdated scheduling GC; so, I created a section for scheduling. This document will not be posted until scheduling software is put into place and figured out. Lisa and a scheduler looked over the document.
1. Lisa pointed out that scheduling new service team members 3 times a week for the first 2 weeks isn’t happening. She proposed a discussion about this to see if the group would like to keep this GC.
2. This is what Lisa was referring to: Availability for service shifts will be shared with the schedulers before training. A new member’s first few shifts will be scheduled immediately after training. (Service Practices)
– For the first two weeks of service, a new service member will be scheduled three times a week to put training into practice. (Service Practices)
C. BM Response
1. Dennis-Wanted to know why we want to revisit the GC. He felt that people may not be available 3 times a week when they are first scheduled.
– Lauren-We are revisiting this to see if the group wants to keep this GC, and we felt that it warranted a group discussion.
2. Lisa-Hasn’t largely been used for a year now. Explained the reasoning behind the GC. The GC was there to familiarize newer members with service work. Putting the work into practice. She said that there are cons for this GC. Some members are unable to work their schedules around the 3 days a week and can only commit to 1-2 days. Some have set schedules.
3. Leona-She also explained why the GC exists. She reiterated that newer members need to be able to put their training into practice immediately. She said that the newer members are told that they need to work the 3 days initially, and they typically understand the need to work their schedules around it. When people don’t start doing service work right off the bat, they might forget what they learned or need to be re-trained later on.
4. Garrett-Said it might be hard to commit to the 3 days. He said he wanted to do some service, but he would have to rethink if 3 days a week are required.
– Lauren: It’s only 3 nights for the first two weeks. After that, availability can reflect a person’s regular schedule. We are currently deciding whether or not we will keep this GC in place.
5. Kelly-She said that starting out with 3 nights for the first two weeks might scare members off. People might think that they have to keep up with that commitment. Perhaps trainers could suggest that members start with 3 nights a week but reiterate that they are not required to commit to that schedule in the long term.
– Lauren: I like the compromise there. It might be a good way to meet in the middle.
6. Kristen-She understands why the GC is in place and originally agreed with it. However, she feels that any amount of service is needed within the group. It’s important that we don’t become exclusive and accept whatever amount of service that people can give. Suggestions can be interpreted as, “I have to do that, and there could be consequences if I don’t do it.” In recovery, most of us take suggestions as “do it.”
7. Lisa-She talked about how trainers are more flexible and willing to help the newer members. Also, a lot more people in the regular meeting help out while newer members are working their shifts. People answer questions, and they are very supportive. Trainers have been willing to retrain members.
8. Barbara-Everybody in the meeting helps the newer members. 3 nights a week might be a turn off.
9. Amy-We all benefit when members put in the effort. She sees the value in the service work trainers provide for the group and expressed appreciation.
10. Dennis-Felt that trainers could explain the reasoning behind being scheduled 3 nights a week for the first two weeks. Have the trainers explain that it’s a suggestion, not a requirement.
11. Lisa motioned to remove the requirement, remand this issue to trainers, and make sure that the trainers know to keep the door open for folks to be retrained.
– Scheduling new service team members 3 nights a week during the first two weeks of service is no longer a requirement.
– Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
V. SC Thread (4/28/2023) (April SC Meeting)
A. SC members wanted to discuss the GC of Hosts being scheduled as cohosts. Balancing the Host/Cohost responsibilities interchangeably. (April SC Meeting)
1. Donna made the point that Hosts are subject to Cohosting per GC. Schedulers follow this group conscience. (April SC Meeting)
2. 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
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.
VI. LGBTQIA+ Contact List (June SC Meeting)
A. Mona stepped down from the contact list position. Maya is willing to step in and combine the BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ Contact list. Cultural Resource Coordinator would be the title of this service position. This Coordinator offers resources to the group that are relevant and supportive to the group’s diversity and various cultural backgrounds.
1. Lisa-She motioned to combine the two positions to create the Cultural Resource Coordinator. We have been having a hard time getting nominations or having positions filled.
2. Maya was voted in to fill the Cultural Resource Coordinator position since she’s willing to do it.
– Seconded and Passed (12 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VII. Ban Guidelines Update (June SC Meeting)
A. Dennis: Update group on what committee has so far. The system for issuing bans is mostly worked out. The committee will be working on a list of what constitutes a ban and the appropriate timeframe.
B. BM Response
1. Dennis presented an update for the group. Dennis put together a process for bans. He suggested substantial unanimity and ⅔ majority group approval for bans. There are a few little parts that are still being worked out. We are considering whether or not to have a waiting period when there are strong dissenting voices on a ban. He suggested a gradual process with bans.
2. Lauren put together a rough draft of what constitutes a ban and appropriate timeframes. Time will be needed so that the committee can offer their ideas and more organization.
– The list includes a gradual ban, which can be applied to instances of repeated and unchanged behavior that has affected the primary purpose, meeting functionality, and/or created ongoing disunity/infighting.
– First Offense-6 months. Second Offense-1 Year. Third Offense-Indefinite Ban.
– An Indefinite Ban can be issued immediately for extreme situations.
– Permanent Bans can be issued to the most severe cases like illegal/criminal behavior.
VIII. Anniversary Committee (April SC Feedback)
A. Anonymous Member: Form Anniversary Committee? Last year and the year before were run by self-selected alcoholics last minute and it was self-will run riot! Thought it would be useful to start thinking about getting a committee started to propose ideas to the group and sort out details! GUTS turns 3 in November. If it’s too early, it’s all good! (April SC Feedback)
1. Lauren motioned to create an anniversary committee consisting of 3-4 members.
– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IX. Zoom Background Blurring (June SC Feedback)
A. Jeremy: Can we change the zoom settings to allow us to blur our backgrounds? When we add our zoom account to Guts it is removed from the settings in all meetings. I had to set up a new account so I can do it in the meetings and hosting. But would like to go back to 1 account. (June SC Feedback)
B. SC Response
1. SC members explained that they have seen background blurring from various members in the meeting. They have also been able to blur their own backgrounds.
2. Elle said she would see if she can blur her own background and check into it after the SC Meeting.
3. Elle suggested asking members if they are having problems blurring their background at the BM and direct any issues to Sarah S.
C. BM Response
1. Lauren- Presented the topic and asked if the group wished to discuss. She is not a tech person and has never used the blurring function. She appealed to people in the room who have more experience with this.
2. Lisa- Asked if anyone is experiencing any issues blurring their backgrounds.
3. Kristen-Perhaps this is a user issue?
4. Elle- “I shared my zoom account setting after the SC meeting and pointed out where the background setting is. I can blur as well. It looks like a user specific account setting. I can help members with their setting if they have an issue.”
X. Lifting Zoom Account Requirements (March SC Feedback)
A. 3 requests from Anonymous members were placed in the SC feedback for the Zoom Account Requirements to be lifted for 2 weeks. They want it lifted to increase attendance. (March SC Feedback)
1. SC asked Sarah S for her perspective on this. The SC and Zoom Admin seemed to agree that this might not be an ideal route. (March SC Meeting)
2. Daren made the point that other meetings that do not offer this feature have been swarmed with bombers. Anyone who wants to attend the meeting can make the changes and have Zoom set up properly to get into the room. (March SC Meeting)
3. We have had a few bombers in the meeting, but Sarah S made the point that it’s Spring Break; so, there is a slight influx. SC members agree that the bombers have drastically decreased since this requirement was put into place. (March SC Meeting)
4. A point was made that it’s not the number of people who get into the meeting that matters. We still have a healthy number of attendees at the meeting. There would be more bomber participation and attendance if the requirement is dropped. (March SC Meeting)
B. BM Response
1. Kristen-Suggested that we go through with the trail run because attendance is low. Having the extra hoop for members needing a verified Zoom account might be a contributing factor. She proposed that the trial run be revisited within a month with numbers. She said that we might get bombers, but we have a service team to handle it.
2. Dennis-Having the Zoom requirement does not prevent bombers 100% and does not see the harm in trying out a trial run.
3. Lisa-Requirements make it much harder for bombers to get in, and it filters a lot of them out. They make it harder for folks to cause disruptions repeatedly. We still have a high attendance. If we have 100 people in the room and lift the requirements, our numbers may increase to 120. Most of those additional 20 people could end up being trolls bombarding the chat and video with inappropriate stuff.
4. Barbara-We still have a healthy attendance, and we should protect the people we have in the meeting. Prioritize safety.
5. Leona-Was concerned that a month is a long time to have bombers running rampant in the group. She suggested issuing a poll to end the trail run if there are too many bombers.
6. Amy-Pointed out that there used to be a ton of bombers before the Zoom Requirements were put into place. We could barely keep the chat open. Now, we can focus on having a meeting and the primary purpose rather than chasing after bombers all of the time.
7. Kristen-Her concern was for the newcomers or those who have never experienced Zoom. There are people who may not be familiar with how Zoom works and need a meeting. We have fewer newcomers now than we did prior to the requirements. We still get newcomers, but this meeting is centered around the newcomers.
8. Dennis-He suggested a two-week trial period. He also suggested that we start asking people to turn on their cameras when they enter the room.
– Lauren-I have been to meetings that require showing cameras upon admittance. It is effective, from what I have seen, but we may not have the manpower to do that. We do have a large meeting. Might be hard to keep track of that.
9. Susan-The people we do have in the room might be driven away by the explicit content that bombers typically show. We don’t want to chase off our members. Protect the environment.
10. Lisa-Has anyone asked Sarah S about this? Are there analytics?
– Lauren-I don’t know if she has analytics. She and I have discussed this topic previously, and she talked about it at the March SC Meeting. She is against removing the requirements.
11. Lisa-Since we don’t have a clear GC on this topic, Lisa motioned to table this topic for the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)