Join us! Meetings daily 7pm-2am Pacific

June 4th Business Meeting

BM Chair: Lauren

BM CoChair: Lisa

Secretaries: Elle and Lauren

SC Members Present: Lisa, Kristen, Donna, Dennis, Barbara, and Lauren.

Timer: Kristen

I. Treasurer’s Report-Elle

A. Lauren filled in. Elle was unable to attend. Lauren simply went over the numbers in the document that Elle shared with her.

1. Motion to approve Elle’s report.

– Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

B. H&I (May SC Meeting)

1. The group still needs to determine an H&I. SC also felt that it would be helpful to discuss the method for giving out a donation to H&I. Group voted for a rotation to occur, but it could be beneficial to discuss how we do that going forward (Lottery?).

C. BM Response

1. Lauren: Group voted to donate to each area/district through a lottery per Jan and Feb BM (Side note).

– Jan BM: Danielle motioned that we make a list of ideas for an H&I and do a lottery each quarter.

– Feb BM: Al would like to motion to contribute to the WA area(AREA 72) for H&I for this quarter since nothing is decided for the lottery yet. Side Note: We voted to do this temporarily until we could decide on a new area for donations.

2. Kristen: Are we voting in multiple donations?

3. Dennis: What do we want to donate to specifically? Literature? Support?

4. Lisa: motion to put someone in ‘charge’ of researching a district/area where we can offer donations and how we want to do this. She encouraged members who do not have a leadership commitment to look into this.

– Lauren (side note): This follows the January GC vote to come up with a list of ideas for donations that can be brought to the group.

– Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

II. Revisiting LNG Ending Time

A. There has been some pushback regarding this GC. Members who disagree with the cutoff time are encouraged to offer their own perspectives.

1. The reason behind the pushback: Members stated that the previous GC allowed Hosts to end the meeting by 2am, if they chose to do so. The previous GC was Host Discretion to allow more hands, and some felt that cutting off the hands at 1:30am took away that option. They felt that Hosts who want the meeting end by 2am should have the courage to set that boundary.

2. The reason for the cutoff at 1:30 is to ensure consistency between the hosts, prevent burnout, prioritize newcomers, encourage more service members to participate in LNG, and ending at a reasonable time.

3. If there is a majority vote that approves 1:30 cutoff time a second time, this topic cannot be revisited for 6 months.

4. Mark P: Here’s my 2 cents on the new LNG guidelines: I think the :30 Cut-Off is working well, a healthy boundary. I think the 5-minute limit after 2am could be discontinued, though. Once in, you’re in. Just an observation. (May SC Feedback)

B. SC Response

1. SC members seemed to agree that removing the 5-minute limit would work out with the new GC. Most LNG hosts are content with the new cutoff time. The 5-minute limit is not necessary because the meeting is ending in a timely way.

2. Lauren proposed for last call for hands to be at 1:30 and the cutoff for hands at 1:45. She experienced a few nights where there weren’t enough shares to fill the hour.

3. Make sure to call for burning desires and give struggling members the chance to share. This gives priority to the newcomers in the room.

4. Lisa proposed going back to Host discretion while adding the emphasis that cohosts can leave at 2am and are not obligated to stay.

5. Kristen expressed that the cutoff should be consistent for all Hosts because Host Discretion can pose certain issues that she has witnessed in her previous experiences.

– Members might put pressure on Hosts to stay.

– Some might get carried away and let members share past the 3am hour.

C. BM Response

1. Mona: What happened to host discretion?

– Lauren responded by saying that the current GC establishes consistency between Hosts. Discretion was removed so that all Hosts would end the meeting with uniformity. I originally would have wanted Host Discretion because I felt that having all Hosts abide by a cutoff felt like governance, but I re-evaluated this thought when I saw that the cutoff was working out well. The meeting is ending at a decent time. Not staying super late every night eases the feeling of burnout.

2. Dennis: Likes the cut off, it’s easier to make commitments. When there aren’t a lot of hands host discretion makes sense. If we change the times to 1:30/1:45 we’ll still need boundaries.

3. Adriana: She likes the last call @1:45; it gives people a little extra time to raise their hands. She said that the cutoff at 1:30 doesn’t give a lot of time between announcements and the cutoff for shares. Limiting the shares to 5 minutes can feel jarring as we don’t limit the shares during any other hour.

– Lauren: I had nights where I could not fill in the hour, and the cutoff at 1:30 does feel rushed. I agree with Adriana that we could allow some time for a smoother transition. All LNG Hosts seem to agree that the 5-minute limit is not necessary.

4. Kristen: Pressure gets placed on others when there isn’t consistency, and the burn out is very real for the LNG folks. Kristen was hosting Late Nights non-stop for months. She experienced the flaws with Host Discretion, and there were angry members when there were attempts to end the meeting at 2am. When there isn’t uniformity with the ending time, this creates favoritism between hosts. There are other meetings that happen later on Intergroup along with 24-hour meetings.

– Lauren agrees with Kristen: Many of us who start LNG service work feel like we can take on the extra shares, but it starts to wear us down over time. Having the cutoff gives ourselves and others reasonable and consistent expectations. Not having the cutoff puts the pressure on us to continually fill in the LNG slots when others don’t work the later shifts.

5. Lisa: motion for 1:30 last call for hands and 1:45 cutoff time; we’ll review at 6 months.

– Lauren amended to remove the 5-minute limit. We (LNG Hosts) also need to make sure to allow struggling members to share and call for Burning Desires. We still have a responsibility to the newcomer, and this GC gives them priority.

– Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

6. Dennis: We can revisit it if we want to, the group can vote to change the current GC for the 6-month waiting period for revisitation.

7. Lauren’s response: I emphatically urge the group to remain consistent on the 6-month review. We can revisit this GC, but I was BM Chair when this was not a GC. Not having consistency with this waiting period can create loopholes to get topics revisited multiple times (even with a strong or unanimous majority vote). The 6-month review allows us to honor the group’s decision making and creates equality/uniformity when handling topics being discussed at a BM. This GC still allows for group conscience to evolve, be inclusive of dissent, and establishes a boundary to not revisit topics numerous times.

III. Revisiting Joan’s Ban

A. Due to the high volume of dissent (8-6) vote, Lauren proposes to revisit this topic. The perspectives that were expressed were divided-No ban/Ban for a year.

1. Lauren proposes to revisit this topic for the sake of finding a middle ground. Perhaps, the decision was rushed, and more thought could be given to this decision.

2. Another vote (one that reflects the group’s conscience in a balanced way) might remedy this situation. The goal of this revaluation is to mend and strengthen the unity of the group with a solution that is more inclusive.

3. This topic cannot be revisited for 6 months.

B. BM Response

1. Dennis: He originally voted for a 1-year ban. After some thought, he felt that 6 months is a better idea. An entire year seems excessive-unless there is more bad behavior.

2. Adriana: The 1-year ban seems long. She thinks that Joan needs someone to reach out and remind her that the behavior that we exhibit when talking to a newcomer is important. A 3-month ban makes more sense.

3. Kristen: Joan has been spoken to several times. Suggests that we focus more on the banning guidelines and making sure that we follow the traditions as closely as possible. She emphasized the importance of boundaries and making sure that we treat everyone equally when creating the guidelines for bans. She suggested that we work on the guidelines first and then revisit Joan’s ban.

4. Mona: Agrees with Kristen. Mona seconded Adriana’s 3-month suggestion.

5. Dennis: He wanted to clarify that he isn’t extending any kind of special exceptions for Joan or looking at this as a special case. He still maintained that one year is too harsh for the situation itself.

6. Suzie: At first Joan was abrasive, but she grew to love her. However, she emphasized that we can’t show favoritism.

7. Barbara: She suggested for the ban guidelines to be progressive (3/6/9 months etc.) and conditionally based on the situation.

8. Lauren: We should lower the conditions of Joan’s ban to 3 or 6 months. In the original complaint, Joan’s words were being taken out of context which is a big flaw. If we are looking at the situation itself, a 1-year ban is too harsh, and the high amount of dissent reflects that. There wasn’t a unified group decision regarding this matter. Members can be treated equally based on this when the ban guidelines are created.

9. Members seemed to agree, personalities aside, the ban needs to stay in place and adhere to the majority decision. Also, most agreed that the situation did not call for a 1-year ban. Members also seemed to agree that treating members equally and being consistent when issuing bans is important.

10. Barbara: Motion to shorten Joan’s ban to 6 months.

– Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

– This cannot be revisited for 6 months. There are currently 5 months left for the ban.

11. Lisa: Has anyone talked to Joan and actually communicated the ban?

– Al may have communicated with Joan.

– Mona offered to reach out and talk to Joan.

IV. Ban Guidelines

A. Based on ideas that were offered by another member, Lauren is proposing to set limitations on bans as a preventive measure for over-exuberance or a reliance on bans for resolving conflicts. Bans are relatively new for the group, and this could be worthy of discussion.

1. These guidelines could be a group-approved way to handle issues regarding bans. For example: set timeframes for bans and instances that do or do not warrant bans. Using AA approved sources as guiding material. (AA Safety Card, Safety and A.A.: Our Common Welfare, etc.).

2. Lisa suggested that GUTS could use some ideas, suggestions, and wisdom from other groups who have experience with bans (319, etc.). We could ask our Intergroup Rep to investigate this.

3. Al: https://takethe12.org/c5/ https://aaoklahoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Informed-Group-Conscience.pdf The sources above discuss informed group conscience on controversial topics, the value of considering minority opinion on heated topics, and substantial unanimity on those topics to preserve group unity. I believe if there are going to be motions to remove members for a year, in the absence of any sort of gradual system (which should be the rule, after all we do afford service members gradual service removals – with exceptions to imminent threats to the group) those removals should require 75% majority AND a period of adjournment for deliberation before the group moves to vote. See concept 5 – though it is for world service, it considers an important principle. (May SC Feedback)

B. SC Response

1. SC members seemed to agree that some sort of guidelines should be in place.

2. Barbara suggested that a committee or group of service individuals work on this.

3. Barbara and Donna proposed a strike policy that looks similar to the service strike policy.

4. Lisa and Kristen urged caution regarding giving strikes because there was some tomfoolery in the past. They both recommended focusing more on the guidelines themselves rather than giving out strikes. The strike system was viewed as a form of governance and strikes were alcoholically spewed on others.

5. Kristen offered that the guidelines should be consistent with the behavior that is exhibited and treat members equally with no exceptions. Making sure to look at principles of situations over personalities. She also reiterated the usage of AA approved lit and following the guidelines AA has in place for member removal when making these guidelines. There needs to be a unified approach to this.

6. Dennis emphasized Kristen’s perspective and that the guidelines should, for example, have set timeframes in place and make sure that repeated or extremity of behavior be kept in mind.

C. BM Response

1. Dennis says: Put together of 3-4 members committee.

2. Lauren: Agrees with Dennis. Put together a committee of 3-4 to do research for the next month and report back to the group at the next BM.

– Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

V. Intergroup

A. Anonymous Member: Meeting description on online intergroup mentions hours of OPS twice – redundant! Email is provided for password – unnecessary! Let’s update the description and K.I.S.S.! Also maybe provide a link on how to log in? (April SC Meeting)

B. Sarah S was called on to get her perspective because she’s the Intergroup Representative. She requests the ability to update the description for the regular meeting to look for any inconsistencies or redundancies. (April SC Meeting)

C. Daren suggested an update to include the new meetings on Intergroup. (April SC Meeting)

D. Lauren: Motion to allow the Intergroup Representative to make necessary changes and update Intergroup description.

1. Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

VI. Adding “Additional Resources” to the Cohost Blurb

A. Derek: Adding SLAA as an additional resource (Sex & Love Addicts Anonymous) as only SAA (Sex Addicts Anonymous) is provided as another resource. (March SC Feedback)

B. Lauren proposes adding the Gambler’s Anonymous website to the list of Additional Resources. (March SC Meeting)

C. Al: Just wanted to have this added to list of links: https://www.aa.org/aa-alcoholics-mental-health-issues-and-their-sponsors (April SC Feedback)

D. Dennis wondered if there was a need to go through the group to update cohost blurbs.

E. Kristen and Lauren both agreed that getting group approval for content on the website is important. Having a GC vote to update the website is a way to avoid unilateral decisions on the content that is designed for the group. It can seem tedious to have this extra hoop, but it is necessary.

F. Motion to approve adding these resources to our Cohost Blurb.

1. Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

VII. Dissent

A. If there are dissenting views, current GC allows for inclusion and revaluation. GC can go through the BM process twice, which gives the group a chance to make an informed decision. This process is limited to two Business Meetings due to the importance of honoring group decisions. Group Conscience evolves over time, and a 6-month waiting period gives the topic a chance for revisitation. This GC provides a fair balance between adapting to changes in GC and respecting the group’s decision-making.

1. There have been concerns raised about the way the group handles disagreeing perspectives. This is a reminder to offer one’s point of view with respect and compassion. We play our own part in creating a positive atmosphere for others to do their service work and protecting the unity of the group.

2. There has been an influx of infighting this past month which has negatively impacted group members. Members can give SC feedback, topics can be discussed twice in a BM setting, try to attend the SC Meetings/Business Meetings, and concerns are heard/discussed. The individuals in the group are valued, and their feedback creates the BM agenda and the group’s conscience.

3. Offering dissent helps the group grow, and members are not discouraged from using their voices to create changes in a meeting. However, the approach matters. Having civil discussions on situations with differing perspectives is important.

B. BM Response

1. Lauren: Reminder-be excellent to each other. Our current GC allows topics with a lot of dissent to be revisited already. Topics can be discussed twice in a BM which gives two months (or sometimes longer) of group deliberation. The principle behind Concept 5 is still applicable with our revisitation GC. Our GC just gives a little boundary so that members aren’t discussing the same topics at every single BM and to follow Tradition 1 too.

– (Side Note) April BM: Dennis proposed that we require 2/3 for readmittance to service. For most, it would not be an issue. But for cases like this, it would solve the problem. (SC Thread 3/37/2023)

– Members had various opinions on this topic. Ultimately, many pulled together and believed that most of these polls have a vast majority “Yes” vote and adding this GC might add further confusion. Keeping it simple by abiding by majority vote. (April BM)

– This was pulled from the April BM Notes. This has gone through the BM process once, and it can be re-discussed if the group decides to do that. The reason we have this current GC was to be inclusive of this idea while also staying within the group’s decision to stick to Majority Votes. Keep it simple.

2. Dennis: Concept 5. When there’s dissenting votes, we can revisit. He talked about unanimity and having a 75% majority vote on decisions. (See Al’s feedback for sourcing material)

3. SarahSky: Substantial unanimity is important. Work slowly, table things and reflect on topics when there’s lack of unanimity.

– Lauren responded that substantial unanimity can be included in the ban guidelines, the group can discuss it, and then vote for it.

4. Maya: Service has a lot of infighting. She said that it discourages people from wanting to be in service. No matter how much time you have, we’re all equal, and no one is the president of AA. Suggests if there is conflict that we have a rule that you resolve them outside of the service threads.

VIII. 4th Step Workshop

A. Kelly: Maybe we could offer the 4th step workshop as a normal thing, like quarterly or something to help keep the group resentments and outbursts to a minimum.

1. Lauren supports this solution-based approach. This might allow for conflict resolutions prior to a Business Meeting.

2. Lisa suggested that we ask for volunteers to spearhead/facilitate this every few months.

B. BM Response

1. Maya: Believed that putting GC in place when the service threads get out of hand might be more effective than a workshop.

2. Kristen: When we try to put people in charge, it can feel like governing. 4th step workshop will give people an opportunity to hash out the issues. It’s a way for the group to be the authority and not individual members.

3. Lisa: I use these moments to work on my program. Even when it’s painful and hurtful. The problem is where do we draw the line, and who draws it.

4. Dennis: He liked the 4th Step Workshop, and there were good results. He suggested that members reach out to one another directly to resolve their differences.

5. Amy L.: There’s always drama, and others get involved. She suggested that we focus on our own programs. We are all here, we all want to get better. 4th Step Workshop sounds great.

6. Adriana: 4th Step Workshop is a great idea. We are not feeling united, and it’s important to focus on our own recovery too. Is there a way we can speak to specific members?

7. Lauren motioned to move forward with semiannual 4th Workshop. Based on the ideas and concerns raised by the folks during the BM, she moved to get volunteers to lead, organize, and reach out to those involved.

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

C. Service Complaint

1. 6 members issued complaints regarding Sebastian. The group will decide what to do next. SC looked over all the feedback that was placed.

2. Context: Sebastian wanted to nominate Leona for the non-SC WhatsApp Thread Admin and Non-SC Board Member, but this nomination was given after the 72-hour nomination period. There was a disagreement involving this issue. These nominations were tabled by the SC for further discussion.

3. The other complaints revolved around a disagreement that occurred over Sebastian using his own name in his language. This is a world-wide meeting, and there are times members have names in different languages. He was mistakenly removed, and there were no unkind intentions. Respectful communication in the Live Thread can be used in these situations to prevent misunderstandings. Also, there needs to be an understanding that mistakes happen, and it’s not personal.

D. SC Response

1. Lisa-the SC feedback is not meant to be a venting space. Applying recovery solutions like taking a pause should be used before posting. Taking a little time before posting allows for constructive feedback to the group. Keeps the focus on solutions rather than resentments.

2. Kristen expressed that we have GC in place for dealing with infighting. It’s important that we stay transparent when there are formal complaints issued. It gives the group the option of what to do moving forward- group discussion, offering reminders, issuing strikes, etc. Sebastian is taking a break from service, and a strike may not be necessary. There have been other issues of infighting that have happened too.

E. BM Response

1. Mona: Discussed the situation that happened in the service threads. She talked about name changing. The name needs to be legible because it can create confusion.

2. Lisa: Let’s focus on the thing that caused the problem, not the disagreement after.

3. Dennis: Sebastian removed himself from service for a minute; maybe we need guidelines?

– The ethical guidelines for the group were posted in the chat. The group has service and ethical guidelines on the website.

4. Group decided for inaction on this topic. No vote was held since we voted for other solutions to help resolve these kinds of conflicts.

IX. Nominations/Volunteers

A. Nominations

1. Terms are ending for Holly and Patricia(Can be renominated). We need nominations for 2 schedulers.

2. We need nominations for another Newcomer Host. All Sister Meetings (especially, the Big Book Meeting) need more hosts. We need people to step up. If you are Host-trained, you can Host, at least, one of the sister meetings. You don’t have to be there every week and fill in according to your availability. The Sister meetings desperately need help in order to function.

3. Jocelyne’s term is ending(Can be renominated), and Daren resigned from service. We need nominations for 2 SC Members.

4. Leona for the non-SC WhatsApp Thread Admin and Non-SC Board Member, but this nomination was given after the 72-hour nomination period. The group will need to decide if we include this nomination in the poll.

B. Volunteers

1. VOLUNTEERS: Lisa suggested that we call for volunteers to help Danielle test out the scheduling software.

2. VOLUNTEERS: Lisa suggested calling for some volunteers for the Host Feedback Workshop. We will need, at least, two experienced Hosts to facilitate this group decision. Maybe a couple of other service members to help organize the workshop.

C. BM Response

1. Lauren: motioned to open nominations for 2 schedulers, 2 women’s meetings host (Kara and Holly), and 2 SC members

– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

2. Holly: Her concern was that Leona had not accepted the position. We want to make sure that those who are nominated accept the position per GC.

3. Lisa motions to open up WhatsApp Thread Admin nominations again, and volunteers to reach out to Leona to see if she accepts.

– Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/1 No Vote)

X. ZPolls

A. A member messaged Lauren regarding some concerns about the timing for the ZPolls.

1. They felt that the polls should be run for two days instead of one. Their reasoning had to do with fairness towards people’s schedules along with the understanding that this is a global meeting.

2. They also felt that 4 hours was not long enough.

B. BM Response

1. Dennis was concerned that 4 hours wasn’t long enough.

2. Lauren responded by letting him know that Lisa and Sarah S have been extending the polls until 1am. They are using their own manpower to run these polls.

3. Holly and Kristen liked the simplicity and efficiency of the ZPolls because it’s very easy to go into the room, vote, and then leave. It keeps us from using outside polling.

4. A few members felt that these polls don’t allot enough time for members to vote, and that it happens too quickly. They also felt that there wasn’t enough of a heads up given.

5. Lauren responded: Lisa gives multiple notices in the threads when the polls will be issued, nominations are an indication that voting will occur, and all service members should be reading the service threads for group announcements, meeting info, and alerts. That’s part of the commitment in service work.

6. Holly motioned to keep the ZPolls.

– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/2 No Votes)

XI. Topics on the Website

A. Ross: there used to be a link to an extensive list of topics on the webpage. Does that still exist?

1. Jocelyne said that non-service members need to subscribe to the mailing list to receive topics. They do not have the same access as service folk to see the topics on the website.

B. BM Response

1. Mona: Motioned to put them on the website and stop emailing them because they tend to flood the email.

2. Kristen: Just make sure that the Topics Coordinators know what to do. They have a list of instructions they follow to make sure the topics are emailed and posted with the cohost blurbs.

3. Lauren: Maybe we could table it until our tech people can let us know if this is feasible for the website.

4. Jeremy motioned to put the topics on the website. He said they used to go where the Daily Reflection is posted on the Website. He knows how to remedy the tech situation and allow the topics coordinators to get them on the website in a simplistic way.

– Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

Tabled

I. Lifting Zoom Requirements

II. Anniversary Committee

III. SC Thread