Guts Business Meeting – 04/07/2024

4/7/2024 Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair: Mark M. BM Co‐Chair: Dennis BM Secretary: Noelle

SC Members Present: Mark M, Dennis, Elle, Kristen, Mark P, Christian, Suzie, Barbara, Sarah Sky

1. Treasurer’s Report (Elle)

$2,918.12 March beginning balance

+$515.18 total deposits

‐$375.34 total expenses

+ $640.03 7th Tradition donations

$3,697.99 ending cash balance

Mark P – Some hosts are very passive about 7^th Tradition. Maybe up the enthusiasm to get more people interested.

Elle – I can add a widget to the website for “7^th Tradition – Donate Now” that folks can just click to donate. Other group’s websites have these. We could announce 7^th Tradition twice each meeting and/or have a QR code for ORC contributions.

Kristen – If we voted to stop having topics sent out, could we reduce our MailPoet expense? (Elle says yes, it would make the subscription free)

Glenn – We could have a special 7^th Tradition for ORC. Or inform folks that they can actually buy books if they can afford to.

Rachel – Let folks know when announcing 7^th Tradition that there are entire meetings of 100+ people that are netti ng zero donations. Need strategic approach to increase donations. Increase awareness of our expenses.

Motion to approve Treasurer’s Report – Seconded and passed (20 Yes/0 Dissent)

2. ORC Report (AnaMaria)

We sent out 8 Big Books (~$22/ea with S/H), 5 12&12s (~$22/ea) and 11 coins (~$11/ea) in March @ total cost of $367.51

Dennis ‐ We should order our books from GSO, instead of Hazelden so all money goes to AA. AnaMaria ‐ Will look into pricing at GSO. If it’s not more expensive, we can switch.

Jason W – Has received many thanks from folks who have received coins and books Motion to approve ORC Report ‐ Seconded and passed (26 Yes/0 Dissent)

3. Committee Reports

Host Feedback Workshop (Kristen) ‐ Integrated into the Host Training moving forward

Unity Workshop (Lauren) – Not much to report. People are enjoying the workshops and getti ng a good understanding of group conscious. Will continue hosting these once per month.

Intergroup Representative (Lauren) – Nothing to report

4. POLLS/VOTING (Lauren)

Poll results for open positions:

1. 1. 1.SC Member: Ian M.
   2. 2.Schedulers: Jayna & John E. 1 SC Thread Admin: Sarah S.

2 Topics Coordinators: Britt & Suzie 1 Website Admin: Glenn

2 Tech Helpers: Jovian & Don (motioned and passed to have 2 Tech Helpers)

Kristen – Noemi has been doing the schedule on her own since February. Julia stepped away from the role so, per group conscience, she’s no longer in the position. If people aren’t doing their job(s), let the group know so we can support you. No one should bear the brunt of the work themselves.

5. Group Inventory (Kristen/Ian/Sarah S)

Ian – We like Jack (3^rd party moderator), just need to find a date. Issues are finding a secretary and recording audio. Meeting can be very long. Set a ballpark date/time, send a pamphlet out ahead of time with questions.

Suzie – Noelle is willing to secretary

Kristen –Do we break meeting up over a two‐day period or just one day? There are strict guidelines to follow.

Suzie – When decisions are made, the BM group should have an opportunity to ask questions or disagree, etc. Not everyone knows the group inventory is happening.

Mark – Give people enough advance notice. Let’s make this the next step.

Sarah – Everyone is welcome to attend but we have to be practical. Committee is already 18 people and it’s hard to make decisions. We’ve been tasked with doing it so let’s take action.

6. Applying Term Limits to Tech Team for the Website (Sarah S) – SEE ADDENDUM “A” BELOW

Proposal made last month to limit the term of the Web Admin (or similar position) to 1 year, 2 terms max (2 years total) and hold elections for the succeeding Web Admin at least 3 months before the end of the Web Admin’s second term to give the incoming Web Admin 3 months to learn the system.

Glenn – We have two people willing to be Tech Helpers. Can we vote for two instead of one? Motion to approve term limit ‐ Seconded and passed (21 Yes/0 Dissent)

7. Moving Guts‐Specific Documents from Website to a Google Drive (Sarah S) Proposal to move GUTS documents to another platform to simplify/improve website functionality. – SEE ADDENDUM “B” BELOW

Motion to remove GUTS‐specific content from the website to a Google Drive in phases (Phase 1 ‐ moving the voice script and co‐host links, subsequent phases and “go live” date TBD, likely 10‐14 days after motion passed) – Seconded and passed (22 Yes/0 Dissent)

8. Website/Google Docs Feedback/Suggestion (Al G)

Al G wrote in to second moving GUTS documents to Google Docs, supporting what we just voted on above.

9. Making 1 hour cohost shifts available (Mark M)

Leona – Being a co‐host for 1hr has always been an option.

Donna – Co‐hosting can be one hour but it would be a nightmare for scheduling. That said, people do ask to share shifts when needed.

Will table until next month. SC will decide if it’s even an issue to be brought to BM.

10. Specifying Job Roles (Tabled Last Month)

SC members wanted to discuss the GC of Hosts being scheduled as cohosts. Balancing the Host/Cohost responsibilities interchangeably. (April SC Meeting)

Christian – Per GC, up to discretion of the schedulers. Mark – This is a non‐issue. Case closed.

11. GC Manual (Tabled Last Month) (Lauren)

Propose a voluntary committee to work on cataloguing all group conscience and creating a GC Manual. Some work has already been done but hoping a group of experienced members can finish the task.

12. Non‐Facilitated Topics (Tabled Last Month) (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. Main concern is follow‐through on projects that have been left undone for months. The group has amazing ideas, but work must be done for these ideas to be accomplished.

 

ADDENDUM A:

TOPIC: Applying Term Limits to Tech Team (Sarah S)

Currently, we find ourselves at a crossroads. We have no one in either the Web Admin or Web Admin assistant position. I am ready to step down from the Zoom Admin position. With all of the tech positions, which have no term limits, essentially open, we are in a unique position to evaluate how we want to structure our tech team.

No matter how we structure the team, I would like for us to limit the term of the Web Admin (or similar position) to 1 year. Then the Web Admin could serve 2 terms (2 years). Two terms is consistent with other service positions at Guts. I suggest we hold elections for the succeeding Web Admin at least 3 months before the end of the Web Admin’s second term. This will give the incoming Web Admin 3 months to learn the system.

Please understand there will be updated information in the days ahead. The SC meeting was originally scheduled for March 31st, so I thought I would have more time. I’m doing my best to get the substance of the proposal out to the group on short notice.

 

Steering Committee Discussion Points:

• The spirit of rotation is very important to an AA group.  A one-year term with the ability to be re-elected is a great idea for the Tech/Web Admin team.

• A decision on the make-up of the team will need to be made in order to spread the responsibilities around so individuals are not overwhelmed with work.

• Sarah will continue working toward identify the roles of the Tech team.

• We had a discussion on the need for more than one Web Admin.  Currently we are looking at a team of at least one Web Admin and one Web Assistant.  

• It was asked if we are going to eventually simplify the web site then do we need more than one person to fill this role?  It was discussed that we might want to have two service members for this job due to the potential for a great amount of time and work if/when something goes wrong.  

• The group ultimately agreed that at least two people are likely needed regardless if we simplify the website or not.   It will be a significant effort to complete the simplification since we have different mail server jobs, document generations, meeting verifications, greater than fifty plug-ins all needing periodic updates and many other as yet unidentified fixes and/or tasks.  

• We might need to hire a professional contractor to help with the resolution of these issues as well as to help with the transition period to the new Web Admin.  A contractor could bring up to speed our internal team where they can pick up the maintenance.  

• It was suggested for the Admin roles they be only self-nominations due to the specific skill sets that are required.

Motion:  Web Admin / Web Assistant to have service terms of one year for each position.  These positions will be eligible for two terms.  To provide a three-month lead-in for the new Admins when these terms are up to bring the newly elected Admins up to speed.

ie:  If a Web Admin’s term is up in August ’25 then we will need to have elections for a new Web Admin in May ‘25.  This will provide the lead-in time for a three-month training program to be given by the outgoing Web Admin to the incoming Web Admin.

Motion to bring to the BM passed 9-0.

BM Discussion Points:

Proposal made last month to limit the term of the Web Admin (or similar position) to 1 year, 2     terms max (2 years total) and hold elections for the succeeding Web Admin at least 3 months before the end of the Web Admin’s second term to give the incoming Web Admin 3 months to learn the system.

Glenn – We have two people willing to be Tech Helpers. Can we vote for two instead of one? Motion to approve term limit ‐ Seconded and passed (21 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

ADDENDUM B:

TOPIC: Moving Guts Specific Documents from Website to a Google Drive (Sarah S)

Background:

When Guts was formed in 2020, a few founding members were programmers & website developers. It was natural for them to create a website which doubled as a repository to store Guts related documents. They built a WordPress website with all the bells and whistles, even using an API instead of a plug-in (it’s a more intricate system) to build PDFs for meeting verifications. Service members grew accustomed to using the website when hosting/co-hosting the meetings. Things went well until Steve, the primary builder of the site, left in the Fall of 2022. Since that time it has been rocky – we’ve had consistent problems with topics, verifications, and the site intermittently being down. The site is not always updated within a reasonable time frame, causing frustration among the service team members. The issues have been compounded by the lack of communication between web admins since Steve’s departure.

The following is a list of cons regarding keeping Guts-specific documents on the website. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting we get rid of the website. I am only asking that we move our Guts documents to another platform.

-It puts a lot of pressure on a few select people to update and maintain the site.
-Positions within the tech team do not have term limits because of the specific knowledge required. This is in conflict with the important principle of rotation of service.
-The costs of maintenance can be significant
-We no longer have members who have a good working knowledge of WordPress
-These consistent problems with the website divert us from our primary purpose. It is a waste of resources and energy to maintain such a complex system.

What makes the most sense (to me anyway) is simplifying what we do on the website by moving our Guts specific documents to a Google Drive. This is what most groups use to store and distribute their documents. Even the large groups with websites use Google or something similar.

I’m advocating for us to simplify this one area by proposing the following:

Motion 1 is to remove Guts specific content from the website to a Google Drive in phases. (this is only addressing the question do we want to do this or not, it has nothing to do with implementation)

Motion 2 is to proceed with Phase 1, which consists of moving the voice script and co-host links. Subsequent phases are yet to be determined. “Go live” date is also yet to be determined, but guessing it will be between 10-14 days once the motion has passed.

Please understand there will be updated information in the days ahead. The SC meeting was originally scheduled for March 31st, so I thought I would have more time. I’m doing my best to get the substance of the proposal out to the group on short notice. Thank you all for considering this proposal. I recognize it represents a rather major change.

 

Steering Committee Discussion Points:

• Our website was initially built by service members who are professional web developers.  It became common place then for all of our group functions (including in-meeting functions) to be centered within the site.  This is now no-longer sustainable as those original service members are no longer with the GUTS group.   This group’s marathon meetings can no longer afford to rely as much as they do on the GUTS website availability.  Anything we need to run the meeting needs to come off the website ie: voice script, host-co-host page, our documents for readings (HIW, Trads, Promises etc…).  

• Maintaining a website of this complexity is far out of scope for an AA meeting.  Google Docs will be much easier to access and will be a benefit to the website’s performance.

• All people with the proper permissions can edit these docs real-time.  It will not be necessary to have updated copies of these docs continuously replaced on the live thread.  

• Initially we will move over the voice script and co-host page to Google Docs as a phase one.

• Service members who take on this task need to be ready for a long-term service commitment.  It will be, and has been in the past, very difficult to maintain this position if there is great amount of turnover.  We need to stress to all volunteers this position’s importance as well as the personal time demands it places on the service member.

Initially Proposed Steps:

1. Guts specific content from the website to a Google Drive in phases. (this is only addressing the question do we want to do this or not, it has nothing to do with implementation)
2. Phase 1 of transfer to a google document will consist of moving the voice script and co-host links. Subsequent phases are yet to be determined. “Go live” date is also yet to be determined, but guessing it will be between 10-14 days once the motion has passed.

Motion to bring steps 1) and 2) to the BM passed 9-0.

 

Addendum: 

Al G Feedback to SC in support of Sarah S’s motion (4/5/24)

Just writing to support Sarah Sky’s motion to consider google docs and alternatives to the website for documents and the like! I don’t think I’ll be able to attend the BM so I just wanted to leave the SC with a couple of points.

– GUTS started on google docs!

– Steve created the website and then we voted on moving our docs to the website. 

– The website really was just our google docs enshrined on a WordPress Website.

– The only real difference service wise was that now only 1 person had the skill to update and make changes to the service documents.

– The web admin service position places a lot of unnecessary constant responsibility on one person: Google docs wouldn’t require that.

 

Other points 

– Steve, the website creator, supports Sarah’s motion.

– Google docs doesn’t crash

– Other successful websites have a simplified website and function on google docs (see 319 AA groups website)

– Google docs is a more accessible and therefore democratic way of availing service positions. Anyone can use it.

– Using something like google docs won’t require making exceptions for tech savvy members to hold positions that extend far beyond our general service terms. 

 

We thrived on google docs. The website can still hold presentational use… having the Zoom link, and other functions. 

It’s a beautiful website! We’ll still retain it.

Google docs is superior for document management for our purposes as a AA group. 

Thanks for reading!

AL

  

BM Points:

Moving Guts‐Specific Documents from Website to a Google Drive (Sarah S) Proposal to move GUTSdocuments to another platform to simplify/improve website functionality.

Motion to remove GUTS‐specific content from the website to a Google Drive in phases (Phase 1 ‐ moving the voice script and co‐host links, subsequent phases and “go live” date TBD, likely 10‐14 days after motion passed) – Seconded and passed (22 Yes/0 Dissent)