6/2/2024 Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair:         Mark M.

BM Co-Chair: Dennis

BM Secretary: Noelle

SC Members Present: Mark M, Dennis, Elle, Jason W, Mary M, Christian & Suzie

1. Treasurer’s Report (Elle)

$3,257.35 March beginning balance

+1,438.40 total deposits

-617.94 total expenses

+ 1,158.22 7th Tradition donations

$5,236.03 ending cash balance

Elle – Donations are still up. Slightly less than last month but hosts are doing a great job of emphasizing importance of 7^th Tradition. Until we get some GC to add money, ORC orders are on hold until July.

Glenn – We ran out of $ for ORC (distribution of books and coins)…is this the first time that’s happened? Should we consider changing the ratio of contributions toward ORC?

Elle – Currently 65% of contributions are allocated to ORC, 35% to GSO & OIAA. We can certainly vote to change this. I suggest 80% ORC and 20% GSO/AIAA. There was also a suggestion to cut out OIAA last month.

Kristen – We’re not getting a huge influx of newcomers like we used to. How many people come to our mtg knowing we give out free literature, come once, get books then leave? I worry that we may be being taken advantage of.

Elle – Possibly changing the blurb to “folks who can’t afford books”. Message currently sounds like “hey, we give out free books to everybody!” Jason (who does the ordering and correspondence with folks requesting books/coins) will speak more to this later (see Item VII). We actually are getting a lot more newcomers.

Glenn – I received my first Big Book for free from a mtg that I don’t even remember but I’m sober today and still have that book. I’d like to make a motion to increase the ORC allocation.

Suzie – Announcement used to be “if you can’t afford it” and now it’s more like an expectation that we give them out.

Dennis – We don’t judge people and don’t know what their situation is.

Daren – If they’re on a device, they can access a digital copy of the book and/or the “Everything AA” app. We also don’t have to buy books on Amazon. Resale books are available much cheaper.

Elle – Books are being purchased through AA.org which is less expensive than Amazon. Coins come from Hazelden. Both orgs donate money back to AA.

Noelle – I received my first AA book free in 2006, didn’t stay sober but still treasure that book. We should give out books to whoever wants one, no judgment, and when we run out we run out and let folks know we can’t buy more until we receive more 7^th Trad.

Motion to approve Treasurer’s Report – Seconded and passed (Unanimous)

1. ORC Report (see also Item VII) – Jason W.

Jason W. – I’m assuming Ana Maria is no longer part of ORC since she hasn’t responded.

5 books, 3 12×12’s and 6 coins went out in May then we ran out of money. We have 14 pending orders (11 books/9 12×12/2 coins) and I’m going to request more $ to fulfill those orders. Thank you to Elle for helping keep the ORC running smoothly! Cost is $11 for a coin with shipping (Hazelden), books are $10 each ($5 shipping) from AA (flat rate negotiated by Elle). Folks asking for a free book is rare (less than 25% of requests). We need additional ORC members to run efficiently. Would like to update announcement blurb to original intent of ORC (coins to anyone, books to folks who can’t afford them) Glenn – How about putting the new blurb on our website?

Dennis – We should be buying everything from GSO that we can, not other organizations.

Donald – Thanks to everyone for their hard work on ORC

Motion to accept ORC Report and change blurb re. free books – Seconded and passed (Unanimous)

• Committee Reports

Host Feedback Workshop (Kristen) – Group Inventory Meeting coming up June 8^th. We need to announce it at mtgs this week or post in chat because everyone’s welcome. We’ll be sending out questions/format ahead of time. Please review/answer these ahead of time so meeting runs as efficiently as possible.

Mark – Group Inventory is actually its Item VI. Can add to Committee Reports next BM

Unity Workshop (Lauren) – Nothing to report

Intergroup Representative (Lauren) – Nothing to report

Motion to accept Committee Reports – Seconded and passed (13 Yes/0 Dissent)

IV.                     Polls/Voting (Lauren)

Nominations are open for the following positions:

GREEN FONT indicates candidates was voted in

SC Chair (SC Only)

Don – Nominated and Declined

Christian – Nominated and Accepted (20 Yes/1 Dissent)

BM Chair (SC Only)

Mary Mc – Nominated and Accepted (23 Yes/0 Dissent) Mark M – Nominated and Declined

ORC Positions (3)

Sarah F – Nominated and Accepted (23 Yes/0 Dissent)

Grant – Nominated and Accepted (23 Yes/0 Dissent)

Suzie – Nominated and Accepted (23 Yes/0 Dissent)

LGBTQIA+ Contact List/BiPOC Resources

Jess H – Volunteered (23 Yes/0 Dissent)

Steps/Traditions Meeting

Glenn – Volunteered (21 Yes/0 Dissent)

Newcomer Meeting (2)

Glenn – Volunteered (19 Yes/0 Dissent)

Grant – Volunteered (21 Yes/0 Dissent)

V.                        Website Update (Glenn)

Glenn – We’ve been ironing things out. Jayna suggested website host script match the order in which hosts actually announce so we did that. We were able to restore the past BM notes that were lost through beginning of last year. Let us know if there are any other initiatives you’d like us to undertake.

Suzie – A lot of old topics are stored. Can we clear those from the website? I imagine they take up a lot of space.

Glenn – A lot of them have been cleared out.

Motion to approve Website Report – Seconded and passed (22 Yes/0 Dissent)

VI.                    Group Inventory (Kristen)

Kristen – Covered everything in Committee Reports above.

Mark M – GI Mtg is scheduled for June 8^th at 11am. Review/answer questions ahead of time, if possible! If 6/8 isn’t enough time to complete, June 22^nd is follow-up date.

Motion to approve Group Inventory Report – Seconded and passed (22 Yes/0 Dissent)

VII.                    Feedback on service team (Jason W, ORC)

Issue: I would like to make sure the ORC’s needs make it to the agenda. 1. Staffing 2. Blurb wording, 3. Funding/pulling the announcement, 4. etc.

SC Response/Action: Motion to temporarily remove blurb from script seconded and passed 9-0.

Elle – I support using GF to support pending orders and adding a little extra. $264 is pending balance and need more to continue operations through end of quarter.

Motion to allocate $500 to ORC to fulfill pending orders and keep ORC funded through June – Seconded and passed (22 Yes/0 Dissent)

VIII.                  Feedback on service team (Glenn, Tech)

Issue: I’d like to make a motion that we take the $67.12 that is being held in the reserve fund for the web site and move it over to ORC budget. It is not needed at this time. If we need funds in the future, we will ask for a GC appropriation.

SC Response/Action: Motion to transfer extra tech funds to ORC seconded and passed 9-0

Motion to move $67.12 from tech funds to ORC – Seconded and passed (22 Yes/0 Dissent)

1. The following five reports were discussed together:

                          1.           Feedback on service team (Anonymous)

I am personally upset with some of the individuals in the SC. Disappointed by comments that were made and actions that seem to represent a clique/alliance that has formed and has attacked another individual. I have contemplated leaving GUTS because of this issue. I had high respect for the individuals that I’ve mentioned in this post but now I am feeling unsafe/uncomfortable. I’m not seeing love and tolerance or principles before personalities. There is a power dynamic forming and I believe they are starting to govern instead of having the groups interest in mind. There was a recent GC that voted in Google Docs to be used as well as the website. I can’t understand why all of this fighting and rude comments have been made causing one person to leave and as I’ve stated myself contemplating leaving. I’m sure there are more members that would agree with me. I am choosing to keep myself Anonymous, as I do not want backlash or any kind of negative feedback, which is what I assume I would get from the SC members that disagreed with the GC and ganged up on another member that was previously on the SC!

                          2.     Feedback on service team (Al G)

I haven’t seen a group of adults act this much like children since I was on the steering committee. I’m sorry there are people running campaigns against each other when our primary purpose is to stay sober and help others achieve sobriety. The service is ultimately what counts, not the positions people take along the way. If the group has voted in the website, then it’s for a reason. If the group has also voted in google docs, it’s for a reason. You can have both! The service is ultimately what matters. There is no reason for people to be sending each other insults via direct message. And the hard positions will just drive the holders out of service, and they’ll end up alone full of resentment. Just my thoughts.

                          3.     Feedback on service team (Al G)

Training for SC members on their only role of facilitating group conscience. Currently there is training for most of the positions. Steering Committee members should be trained specifically because it is vital to group health. After election, a SC member should be walked through their duties and have the role explained to them.

                          4.     Feedback on service team (Al G)

I submitted feedback on training for SC members once they’re voted in. I know there are no rules or guidelines for it, but it doesn’t mean one can’t be created. Just a few points: (1) The purpose of the steering committee is to facilitate group conscience, and that’s it. (2) I do know emergency votes can create an environment of politicking and direct messaging to gather support and so maybe we should consider severely limiting “emergency GC” to true emergencies; (3) The Steering Committee Agenda and the Business Meeting Agenda should be enough to get the group by, (4) at the same time, curtailing GC like the steering committee is the roman senate is a problem for the group. So just some considerations I think should be balanced…I do think that if there are removal measures of SC members, those measures should have rules as well: they should be proposed by non-SC group members and by a sufficient amount. Maybe even only to limited circumstances. The SC are volunteers, they shouldn’t feel like they are under pressure. The problem arises when an SC member goes beyond volunteering and makes it their personal space to politick and/or harass other members. The SC exists for one purpose, and that is to organize the business meeting for the group. All other responsibilities, like taking member suggestions, and holding polls, are solely for that aim.

                          5.    Feedback on service team (Anonymous)

The steering committee needs to take all feedback from its members. It’s responsible to those they serve. The SC is not the group conscience.

SC Discussion Points:

• The point was made that perhaps the larger GUTS group was no longer in line with or supportive of the overall concept of a Steering Committee.
• The SC was asked by the chair to consider the purpose of the SC, how the committee has been handling issues as well as the different types of issues the committee is being asked to consider every month.
• It was pointed out that the SC are trusted servants doing the best they can, but mistakes can be made as we are all human beings.
• When the SC was first formed in GUTS there was a great deal of concern that this group would become a governing body. Over time it seems to have out stripped its purposes. The SC should ONLY be streamlining the feedback / information for the good of the business meeting. This is for greater efficiency on the business side of the group. Its concerning that this committee is now handling disciplinary and ultimately punitive issues that are far beyond the purpose of the committee. This does not serve the primary purpose and has in fact created a great amount of disunity within the GUTS group. Numerous newer service members have left due to the ugliness on the SC WhatsApp thread. Principles before personality and Love and Tolerance need to be adhered to in order to achieve the primary purpose.
• It would be more productive when Actual / factual examples being brought against individual SC members can be accompanied by the specifics of the incident in order for that person to learn and grow from their mistakes. It is difficult to operate under generalities or high-level complaints. If we are to know how we can improve then we need to understand where we are going wrong. Words like harassment and attacking are being used without specifics, which makes it difficult to change behavior or understand where out part is in the conflicts.
• It was pointed out that one role of the SC is to bring forward items that people feel strongly about or think need changing for the betterment of the group.
• Some history of the SC was presented, and it was noted in times past the SC was a much bigger problem than it is today. The opinion stated was that this committee is now much better than it was when it was first created. We can do better, but over-all it is moving forward in a much more transparent way with a lot less personal harassment.
• As a whole people will always continue to have conflicts, and short of demanding a dismantling of the SC and starting over this is a fact of the SC.
• It was discussed that most of the issues the SC collects on a monthly basis have turned into personal issues between people. Harassment, insults and disagreements are constantly being submitted with an expectation that the SC will conduct some sort of punitive exercise to give the submitter satisfaction. This is not the point of the SC. It is not a body that should be issuing or recommending disciplinary actions. For certain the SC would absolutely address real incidents of serious or overt harassment, however the recent issues have devolved this committee into a ‘referee’ style of mediation between members disagreeing with each other on a personal level. Issues between members need to be solved between those members, which is in fact part of our recovery. Productive, sober conflict resolution is part of our recovery. It was noted that the committee may need to have the larger group re-evaluate the SC directive as a whole.
• The SC purpose is already established, and having a growing pain should not facilitate starting over with a new directive. It is already established that the SC is tasked with preparing the agenda and should stick to that task.
• It should be clear to the whole GUTS group the SC is just a body to facilitate what goes on at the BM. Not a constructive criticism panel, a feedback panel or a complaint panel. The SC should not be involved in any of these types of items. If we need a body to act in this capacity, we need to set up some other process. Personalities will clash and we need to learn to deal with those clashes without becoming uncivil to one another.
• It was noted that if ten out of the thirteen items on this agenda are personally directed at the SC body or at individuals then it has become more of a complaint board than a facilitator of the BM agenda. If all the SC can do is to send all of these issues to the BM for resolution than that is what we should do here today. This will just transfer the larger disciplinary actions in all cases to the BM, which will begin to have some of the same issues the SC has now.
• There is an existing mechanism to address the service members who are not performing as the guidelines state. It is problematic that some of these feedback issues are general and submitted anonymously. We cannot solve anything with these types of complaints.
• If we need a complaint or disciplinary board than we should create one that is out in the open and fully transparent. It is concerning that the SC has overlapped into something that it was not designed to handle.
• Anonymous feedback submitted for general ideas, group improvement or fixing process should be OK. However, when anonymous feedback is submitted that is of a highly critical nature or one that is attacking the character of a named member. This makes it impossibly difficult for the SC to do anything without knowing specifics or the why of the submitter’s accusations. There is no context, which creates a level of real unfairness to the named person in the feedback.

SC Response/Action: Motion to send the first five feedback items addressing the SC to the BM for resolution. This motion was seconded and passed 6-3.

Dennis – These conflicts are between people all of whom are my friends and I don’t want to have to choose between friends. We need to start acting like adults

Amy – Here is a specific example. An SC Member DM’d me during my host hour and suggested I co-host another member. I said no because I already had 3 co-hosts. He said “You are making a big mistake” then immediately told the other member. This is menacing and threatening.

Lauren – There are specific ban guidelines that detail how/when to make complaints. All power belongs to the group, not SC. There is a delicate way of dealing with feedback with grace, anonymous or not. The GROUP decides punitive measures, not SC Committee.

Christian – It seems like the SC is handling a lot of back-and-forth between individual members. It’s human nature that factions arise. How can we get this out of the feedback and into a more productive conversation? The SC can be voted to be disbanded.

Kristen – SC was designed to format the agendas for BMs. Us going transparent shows all these issues that used to be behind closed doors. We’re accused of governing but the irony is everyone goes to us for disciplinary issues! How do we handle issues and not “govern” at the same time?

Jess – As someone with no idea what’s going on, it seems SC has become more of a problem than a solution. If I were part of the SC and someone came to me with a problem I would tell them to take it to the group, not the SC.

Suzie – I need specifics. I’ve been accused of harassment, bullying, asking too many questions. We can’t address things based on generalizations.

Noelle – Knock this sh*t off. It seems to primarily be issues between certain ladies. If you have a problem with another member go to them directly, ignore them and/or take your inventory. If someone is TRULY harassing you (racism, threats to your person, homophobia, etc.) then that is reportable. Anything else knock it off.

Ian – The back-and-forth accusations and the veiled accusations are obnoxious.

Mary – The purpose of SC is to set agendas for BMs. SC is not an authority but a responsibility to the group to be the bottom of the pyramid, not the top. Most of the back and forth happens outside the meetings! Folks need to use restraint of pen and tongue!

Glenn – The SC is appointed to do the BM agenda for the meeting that takes place between 7pm-2am. What happens outside the meeting doesn’t concern the SC’s efforts. We can’t police behavior in the real world. I’d like to motion that the SC sticks to AA business only and personal behavior only gets addressed if the authorities be involved

Donna – I want to remind us all to do better. Don’t just come forth with issues but with solutions as well.

Mary – Motion to readdress training of SC Members. GI is coming.

Kristen – GI to address format only, not a complaint-fest. Think of it as an audit. Nothing is going to be resolved there. Moderator will keep us on track. If issues do arise they will be brought to BM to be voted on.

Amy – I think there’s an issue with calling this a “girl issue”. This isn’t about hurt feelings or about not going directly to the person. I had an SC member who harassed me during my host hour, said “things are going to get worse for me” then shared my private feedback to a non-SC committee member within 20mins. This is a legitimate concern about an SC member.

Lauren – We can’t get rid of the ban issues brought to the SC. There are guidelines for this. I want to make sure ban guidelines stay intact.

John – I will share screenshots showing that Amy is not telling the truth. To come into a BM with this when we’re not addressing that specific issue is pathetic.

Suzie – Is there an issue here for a ban? Any motion, proposal, suggestion, solution?

Christian – I don’t think we should get rid of the ban guidelines. They are critical in issues like Trish who was destroying our meeting. Where we’re going wrong is how we define what a “serious issue” is. We need to all have receipts when we go to a meeting.

Mark – I have the ban guidelines in front of me. Nothing on agenda is worthy of a ban.

Motion to table until after group inventory – Seconded and Accepted (17 Yes/1 Dissent)

*****************************************************************

Motion to close Business Meeting – Seconded and Accepted (14 Yes/0 1 Dissent)

*****************************************************************

1. (Tabled from June BM) Feedback on service team (Holly, Scheduler)

Issue: Recently there have been a higher than usual number of service members requesting one-hour shifts. This has been an evolving discussion and since the last time the topic was tabled we have come to a clearer understanding on this question and feel it warrants speedy attention.

Schedulers are requesting that:

• The group determines exactly what the group conscience is on the standard cohost shift so there is continuity in the meeting announcement, training process and for the scheduling team. As far as we understand, up until this point the specifics of the hours have not been voted on in a business meeting. During the service announcement its now often stated that one-hour shifts are available. This is confusing as the standard expectation communicated during training is that cohost shifts are two hours, going back at least as far as 2022, likely longer. Even though the last time it was brought to SC it was tabled, we feel things have changed since then and the ambiguity does need to be cleared up.
• Additionally, since it’s not possible to maintain the schedule without the occasional exception (time zone impossibilities or health reasons) we are asking that the group conscience includes allowing us discretion when necessary. Gentle reminder that we are a team of three (odd number for consensus) and do not make decisions unilaterally. Thank you, SC and GUTS team, for your service.

SC Response/Action: Motion to bring to BM to come up with definitive decision on the length of so-hosting shifts seconded and passed 9-0.

1. (Tabled from June BM) Feedback on service team (Ian M)

Issue: Sebastian has overridden the no-time-limit rule by cutting off a participant. And the live thread went kind of crazy. Sebastian texted at 3:30 “this guy” Don M texted “Did we have a change in GC? is there now a time limit on shares?” [KEEP IN MIND THIS IS THE SECOND TO LAST MEETING] Sebastian texted “Not you, I mean the one who shared” then texted in response to Don M first text {Did we have a change in GC?} “no: Don M commented, “It seemed like he was being pushed to end his share” (co-host live thread, Tuesday, May 7th at 3:40am EST). Sebastian responded at 3:42am EST, saying, “Your perception.” Dennis J interjected at 3:42am EST, asking, “Then why did you cut him off?” Sebastian replied with two up arrows, “Your perception.”

Don M retorted, “B.S. Sebastian, Dennis, and I both noticed it. A reminder: there is no time limit on shares.” Sebastian responded, “Donald, the number of hands notwithstanding… please, would you be kind enough to remind me who the host is this hour?” (Tuesday, May 7th, 3:46am EST). Don M insisted, “The number of hands does not matter. Quit trying to control the shares.

You have host discretion to re-direct, not to time out shares. If you keep up the B.S., I will post SC feedback on it.”

Sebastian replied, “Donald, be so kind and stop trying to control the host. It will be truly appreciated. Please go ahead and write SC feedback.” Dennis J added, “There is no time limit, regardless of how many hands are up, except for the last hour.” Don M reiterated, “No one is trying to control you, Sebastian, and I think I will go ahead and post SC feedback.” Sebastian said, “Any feedback is greatly appreciated.” Don M responded, “If you truly appreciated it, stop arguing and take constructive criticism.” Sebastian replied, “Read what was written and tell me I was arguing, LOL.” Don M stated, “Once again, Group Conscience is that there is no time limit on shares. Once again, not going to argue with you. Do your job correctly, and there will be no

issue.”

Sebastian said, “Happy to let you have the last word. Now let me do what I am supposed to do,” and then texted, “You are making an issue.” Don M replied, “It’s not about the last word. It’s about you breaking GC to govern.” Responding to a previous text, Don M said, “B.S. Like I said, Dennis and I both noticed it.” Sebastian texted, “I implore you to stop trying to abuse me and distract me.” Dennis J texted, “Hosts do not have the right to unilaterally go against GC.” Don M texted, “No one is abusing you. I’m trying to get you to see that you broke GC, and I am not the only one who noticed it.” Sebastian texted, “B.S. – it is an abusive utterance. Please, refrain from using it. Guys, if you want me to stop serving, I can do it right away. Otherwise, just stop interfering.” Don M texted, “You seem very sensitive. I don’t know what’s going on, but if you break GC, it will be pointed out. No one is interfering; we are pointing things out to you.” Glenn M texted, “Love and tolerance is our code, etc.”

Sebastian then put in a 3-week service break. This all happened in a 15-minute span.

I also had an issue with this situation but chose to stay out of it due to concerns about how I might respond. However, when I hosted previously, Sebastian was not hesitant to call me out. On one occasion, he unmuted himself and told me to keep my feedback brief. I had indeed promised to keep my feedback short, so I acknowledge that I was wrong for not keeping my word. Nonetheless, I believe that unmuting himself as a co-host to address this was inappropriate.

Ethics guidelines say Unilateral Decisions (Decisions made either by one person or a group of people which fall short of what is required by group conscience approval – i.e., majority vote) are NOT official GUTS policy

Summary of the Incident

Violation of Rules: Sebastian cut off a participant, violating the no-time-limit rule. Disruptive Communication: The incident led to a chaotic live thread, with multiple members expressing their concerns and frustrations.

Responses and Accusations: Sebastian and other members, including Don M and Dennis J, exchanged messages, some of which were accusatory and confrontational.

Previous Behavior: Sebastian has previously called out other hosts publicly, which has also been seen as inappropriate.

Violations of guidelines 1-4:

First Violation = 7-day break from service

Second Violation = 21-day break from service

Third Violation = Indefinite break from service, pending Group Conscience*

SC Discussion Points:

• Sebastian broke group conscience by cutting off a member’s share. When the co-hosts for this hour addressed it with him, he began an argument and did not take the co-host’s suggestions.
• Violation of the no-time limit GC.

SC Response/Action: Motion to send to this item as it was submitted to BM in order to address this conduct was seconded and passed 9-0.

• (Tabled from May BM) Topic for business meeting agenda: Combined three separate submissions. Lack of Coverage and Attendance for Sister Meetings

Issue/Background: Lack of Coverage and Attendance for Sister Meetings (LGBTQIA+ & Allies and Traditions).

• Requesting we add “on hold” for the LGBTQIA+ & Allies meeting in our script. I advocate for continuing to work to obtain hosts and cohosts. This is a valuable resource and was cut short before it could fully develop.
• There seems to be a problem keeping hosts for the sister meetings. At least two meetings do not have hosts and I am the only one on the traditions meeting
• The past few weeks there have been no hosts for the Sister Meetings on Sunday nights I’m suggesting we not have the Sunday meetings anymore and just have a regular AA meeting at 6pm PST

SC Discussion Points:

• There is a general lack of host / co-host support for all Sister Meetings. This problem is beginning to compound across all the meetings. We may need to start combining some meetings in order to maximize the hosts / co-hosts that are currently covering the meetings.
• The LGBTQIA+ and Allies may need to be put on hold, so we don’t have people going into the meeting and finding no one there to chair. It would be a shame to eliminate the meeting, but resources are a problem. New ideas need to be put forth since this meeting is a real value. Maybe put the meeting on hold for 30 days.
• During the announcements in the marathon meeting, it seems the sister meeting announcements are getting glossed over to more quickly get to the hands. A little more promotion may get additional people to step up. If the hosts are able to stress our need for help in this area we may get more people willing to serve. This is an instance where nothing gets wasted if people show up when there is no host. This might incentivize members to join our service team.
• Service cannot be mandated. But it would be bad if any of our meetings went dark because of a lack of service members. It looks bad for our group and very bad for any newcomers looking for one of these meetings. Different ways of encouraging members to step up for our Sister meetings need to be explored.
• It was noted that during summertime AA meeting attendance tends to decrease. Can we figure out if can limit or combine certain meetings to reduce the strain on the service team. Perhaps we can have Traditions or Big Book workshops instead of weekly meetings.
• There seems to be a larger issue of a lack of service commitments with all the Sister Meetings that will need to be addressed.

SC Response/Action: Motion to bring to BM for a discussion on how we can better resource all our Sister Meetings passed unanimously 9-0. We need more service members to step up and cover these meetings.

• (Tabled from May BM) GC Manual (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.

• (Tabled from May BM) Non-Facilitated Topics (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. 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 must be done for these ideas to be accomplished.