May 7th, 2023 Business Meeting
BM Chair: Lauren
BM Co-Chair: Lisa
Secretaries: Elle/Lauren
Timer: Dennis
I. Treasurer’s Report-Elle
A. Motion to approve report.
1. Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. Registered Agent
1. Elle suggested that the group takes action to switch Registered Agents for the sake of cost and practicality. She offered a detailed presentation about pricing and explained the projected cost savings.
2. This is the resource she shared. https://www.delawareregisteredagent.com/
3. Motion for 2 years with this registered agent and business address. $19 per month for the address/virtual office. $58 for 2 years with the registered agent.
– Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
C. GiveButter
1. GiveButter will help with 7th tradition app management, not exactly password management, but will cut down on them. GiveButter is one link (rather than 3) that allows multiple app choices for 7th contributions including texting a custom phrase.
2. Elle discussed this at the end of the BM to see if she could do a trial run. The group was pleased with what she showed, and there was a motion to start using GiveButter.
– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
II. ORC/Treasurer Topic
A. Del gave an update regarding ORC. He said that there have been 66 requests, and there is a lot of interaction with the ORC email. Some members come back to get their next milestone coins. A lot of gratitude and appreciation has been expressed for the services provided.
B. Elle proposed a couple of options for splitting the money for ORC. We can ensure enough money for them or continue at 25%. Continuing at 25% might not allow them to get through the 3rd quarter.
1. Elle motioned to amend current GC allocation for ORC to have 60% and the other 40% would go to contributions to other organizations.
2. Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
C. Elle proposed to add a contingency. If ORC is running short at the end of the quarter, temporarily use prudent reserves to give money to ORC. There is currently $2000 in the prudent reserve. This contingency would only be used if the ORC has hit the maximum (60%) at the end of a quarter.
1. Members felt that it was appropriate to have a hard number or limit placed on how much can be taken from the prudent reserve. Elle suggested no more than $500 given from the prudent reserve.
2. Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
D. Suggestions were offered if ORC gets close to the 60% limit.
1. Elle said that the ORC could alert her when this happens. Keeping in touch with the Treasurer is important.
2. Del said that we could potentially pull ORC from the script to help modulate expenses.
3. Jeremy said that we could make an announcement to the group when this becomes an issue.
4. Daren suggested offering chips at the Chip Meeting only.
III. LNG Ending/Sharing Time
A. Jocelyne: I really think something needs to be done or said about the same people who are not struggling sharing for 10-15-20 minutes after 2am. The same people. I don’t know a solution, but I don’t think it’s necessary or healthy for the meeting to not have boundaries around the time the meeting is supposed to end. I don’t mean to sound as harsh as I am. Can something be changed with this? I think there would be more volunteers for cohosting late (like me) if the meeting wasn’t held hostage to sometime after 3am.
B. Lauren motioned for these two suggestions.
1. A member proposed limiting members to 5-minute shares after 2am.
2. Daren proposed for 1:30am to be the last call for hands.
3. Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/2 No Votes)
4. Script will need to be updated to include the changes for LNG.
IV. Scheduling Update
A. Scheduling Software (Tabled from March BM)-Danielle
1. Danielle gave the group a nice update. She said that there are a lot of options for scheduling software. She made it clear that there will be pros and cons to each one. None of them are going to do everything. She requested to discuss the various options with different members and schedulers. She is hoping to test them out, work with other members, and see which option might work best for the group.
2. Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. General updates about scheduling/ORC will be given. The SC was interested in any suggestions that could help them with their commitments and make sure that all is going swimmingly.
C. Scheduling Update-Holly
D. Holly requested that the icon gets changed for the REQ Thread because it looks similar to the Live Thread picture.
1. Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
E. 1 Scheduler has stepped down. Open nominations?
1. Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
V. Self-Regulating Host Feedback
A. Members gave various perspectives on this topic. Most seemed to agree that feedback should not turn into a share. Even if there are a few hands, that time shouldn’t be filled in with feedback. That time can be used to encourage fellows to share or inform people about resources that are available in the chat. Members recognize that feedback makes GUTS special and is a core aspect of the meeting, and the goal is not to nitpick. Members just emphasized the need to be self-aware and mindful when giving feedback. The purpose is for the sharer to be heard and offer support.
B. Lauren motioned for the Host Feedback Workshop that Elle proposed at the March SC Meeting.
1. Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)
C. Kristen brought up the discussion of whether or not the Workshop would require members’ attendance.
1. Some felt that required attendance might not be inclusive to be people’s varying schedules.
2. Kristen made the point that this is not intended to be a punishment or seem like governance. This is a way for the group, as a whole, to grow and for the sake of betterment. Those who need to go might not attend otherwise.
D. Danielle motioned for 2 of these Workshops with the understanding that it should be inclusive to people’s work/life schedules. The details will need to be sorted out when it comes to timing. If Hosts do not show up to one of these meetings, they will only be scheduled to cohost until they attend.
1. Seconded and Passed (12 Yes Votes/2 No Votes)
VI. Complaint
A. James L: I am a regular member of this group. I have been coming nightly for several years. I was on the meeting tonight and Joan came on to share and told the previous sharing member to STFU. The guy was venting about a resentment. Joan then started sharing about how she lived in New York and her neighbors are gangsters and mafia types who can hurt people for her. I mentioned in chat that no one ever tells women to STFU when they are sharing/venting. She saw my chat and said that she was going to hunt me down and have people cut my balls off. Her tone and demeanor and previous statement about having mafia friends and the fact that she has mentioned she works for Google and is in a high position there and can probably get anyone’s information if she really wanted, makes me think this is a genuine threat. She was not kidding. Kelly was the Host and Mark M. was the cohost. I plan to go to the next business meeting to bring this up. I’m not putting my email address in as I’m not going to give anyone any information about me.
B. Jason W: Hello steering committee, A quick incident report regarding Joan. She shared on screen last night and gave direct feedback to a share that ask for feedback she included "if you don’t have a sponsor then shut the fuck up." She continued and proceeded to share. The chat progressed with reactions to that and then she responded to a chat with quotes I will find you and cut your balls off " at that point I posted in the live thread that I have to boot her. Got an okay from the host and then did just that. There were minimum repercussions in the meeting and chat. I’m available for any further questions. I think I would do it all again. Kelly handled it beautifully as did everybody else. Thank you for your time.
1. Jason W: To add. She (Joan) did all of the offensive behavior live on voice and camera. In hindsight, I wish I had saved a screenshot of the transcript. And there should probably be public repercussions, consequences, or punishment because the behavior is unacceptable. I suggest a temporary ban.
C. Members were divided with this complaint.
1. Half of the members believed that banning in this situation was extreme. Joan was referring to 13th stepping when she made that threat. It wasn’t directed towards the person. They felt that booting for 24 hours after giving warnings or a more temporary ban would be sufficient. Many felt that a year was too long for the ban.
2. Half of the members believed that we need to give equal treatment when it comes to bans, various members attempted to talk to her, there have been many situations where newcomers have been affected, and we need to follow traditions/safety card/primary purpose.
D. Daren motioned to ban Joan for a year.
1. Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/6 No Votes)
VII. Training Prerequisites (April SC Feedback)
A. Lisa: Hi, we need to vote on concrete guidelines for trainers. They just haven’t ever been discussed/voted on. Here’s my suggestions (only suggestions):
B. 6 months sobriety
C. At least 30 co/host shifts already served. This suggestion is to piggyback but applies to the trainer group, not the individuals. I don’t think it’s necessary that ALL trainers have host experience, but I do think AT LEAST 2 trainers with host experience should be on the team at all times. I am not sure of what the best and most simple way to go about that is though. Thank you!
1. Lauren motioned for Lisa’s proposal along with 6 months across the board. 6-month sobriety and 6-month term.
2. Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VIII. Chip Meeting Blurb
A. Lauren: GUTS now offers a celebratory meeting for milestones, birthdays, and day counts. Each day of sobriety is a victory, and your achievements matter! Join us on the last Sunday of each month at 5:30PM PST/8:30PM EST to partake in the festivities and collective jubilation.
1. Seconded and Passed (12 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IX. Board
A. Current GC for Board
1. SC Chair/Board President (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service)-Lauren
2. SC Secretary/Board (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service)-Lauren/Elle
3. Treasurer/Board (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service)-Elle
4. 2 Non-SC Members (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service) Currently, our two “Non-Steering Committee” Board members were voted into SC (Kristen and Lisa). We would just open up nominations for non-SC members to fill those positions.
B. First Proposal
1. Anonymous member: The Steering Committee and the Board serve two different purposes and should be separated. Conflating them was an accident, and the idea was not well-formed. Separating the two entities would eliminate any concerns regarding the Steering Committee and GC on run offs and rotation.
– The steering committee facilitates group conscience.
– The Board is a necessity, but it is nominal only – members on the board don’t do service. The Board is simply a group of service members elected to maintain incorporation. We need to maintain incorporation to keep our business bank account open for 7th Tradition, so that the account belongs to GUTS and not to any individual service member within GUTS.
2. Anonymous member: Here is the rest of the proposal after separating the two: – We could keep the personnel who serve on the SC and the Board as is it is.
– Terms for SC members who were voted to serve on the Board would be changed to reflect 6-month terms retroactively. Therefore, those terms end in May.
– Terms for their Board commitments would remain the same – i.e., continue for the 2022-2023 year. Those terms end November 2, 2023.
– Those SC members eligible to serve for another term may do so if they wish. If they do not wish to serve on the SC, their respective terms on the Board would continue for the 2022-2023 year.
C. Lauren’s Proposal
1. Separate the Board and SC. The Board’s purpose is to keep our nonprofit status. Those members don’t do any service work. The service is to use their name as a placeholder. SC terms are tangled with the Board currently which has led to conflicting term dates and an extension of terms on the SC.
2. Elle and Lauren keep their current term dates on the Board/SC Positions. When their terms have ended, the Secretaries’ positions become separate from the board.
– Lauren added the amendment that the Treasurer’s Position will remain on the board and become the Board President position.
3. Lead SC positions (SC Chair and Secretaries) go back to 6-month term limits.
4. Board requirements remain 1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, and Active in Service.
5. The set-up remains the same for the Board. No changes. Just simply vote in a Board President, 2 Board Members, and 2 Non-SC Members.
– If a SC member gets voted in as a “Board” member, this will not affect the length of their term on the SC. Their terms on the board will be separate.
6. The purpose of this proposal is to return to a simplified way of keeping track of terms and make it more organized and cohesive. The transition is necessary to prevent further and unnecessary confusion over term dates. It won’t be a stressful or sudden way to change, and the necessary/core components of the GC will remain intact.
D. Lauren’s Proposal was Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
E. What Board will look like now:
1. Board President/Treasurer-Elle (3/02/2024)
2. 2 Board Members- Lauren (1/05/2024)/Elle (9/14/2023)
3. 2 Non-SC Members-Will be polled in
F. After transition (1/05/2024):
1. Board President/Treasurer-Elle (3/02/2024) 1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, SC Only
2. 2 Board Members- 1 Year term, 1 Year Sobriety, “active in service”
– Can be a SC member or not. Regardless, the Board will not extend SC terms.
3. 2 Non-SC Members-1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, and “active in service”
X. Placing SC Notes on Website
A. Lauren: I suggest that we have a link for Steering Committee Notes on the Website. Not a lot of members attend the SC meetings, and the notes provide transparency and food-for-thought for the group. It is also a great way to keep track of any issues that have fallen through the cracks. Lastly, having a record of SC Notes can help future service members see what was discussed and get background/context.
1. Having the notes from the SC meeting posted on the website shows the group that we are addressing their concerns. They can see that all the SC feedback gets discussed by SC members.
B. Lauren: I also suggest posting the SC Notes in the Group Announcement Thread 24 hours prior to a SC meeting for the group to see what will be discussed for transparency. (Feb SC Meeting)
C. Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
Tabled:
I. Intergroup Updates
II. ZPolls
III. Adding “Additional Resources” (Cohost Blurb)
IV. SC Thread (4/28/2023)
V. Lifting Zoom Account Requirements
VI. Anniversary Committee