Guts Business Meeting – 07/14/2024

7/14/2024 Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair:    Mary Mc

BM Co-Chair: Mark BM

Secretary: Noelle

SC Members Present: Mary Mc, John E, Don M, Jason W, Ian, Suzie M, Elle 

I.                  Treasurer’s Report (Elle)

$4,077.81 June beginning balance 

+1,224.89 total deposits

-534.08 total expenses

-30.99 Pending ORC expense

+ 1,100.67 7th Tradition donations

$5,838.30 ending cash balance

 

Elle – We should talk about an Area 12 (DE) Online District 14 representative for our group

 

Dennis – I’d be willing to be GSR

 

Mary Mc – Motion to create a GSO Representative (GSR) for GUTS will be addressed next Business Meeting.

 

Motion to approve Treasurer’s Report – Seconded and passed (14 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

II.                 ORC Report (Jason W)

 

Suzie J – I can’t speak on funds, but orders are coming in and going out.  Not in excess, very modest.  Otherwise, nothing to report. I see a little slowing down in Big Book orders since we’ve been announcing it in meetings but hard for me to know for sure since I’ve only been doing this job for a short while.  We’ll go 2-3 days without a request. 

 

Jason W – We’ve provided books and coins to many people and they’ve been very grateful. We spent the budget we had for last quarter. The change in the blurb has significantly slowed down the requests for free books which is great because it keeps us within our budget. 

 

Motion to accept ORC Report – Seconded and passed (17 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

III.               Committee Reports

Host Feedback Workshop (Kristen) – Group inventory went really well.  Great participation, completed it in one day, everyone was prepared, Jack was a great moderator and I applaud everyone on their efforts. Still figuring out how to address issues that were raised in the Group Inventory at Business Meetings. 

Intergroup Representative (Lauren) – Nothing to report

Motion to accept Committee Reports – Seconded and passed (16 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

IV.                Website Report (Donald M.)

 

Timeframe for submitting verification requests was an issue for one individual so we extended it for them but not as a rule.  Things are smooth with the website!

 

Motion to accept Website Report – Seconded and passed (15 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

V.                 Polls/Voting (Lauren)

Nominations are open for the following positions:

GREEN FONT indicates candidates was voted in.  

SC Member

Suzie – Volunteered (12 Yes/2 Dissent) 

 

BM Co-Chair 

Mark M – Nominated and Accepted (12 Yes/4 Dissent)

 

SC Thread Admin

Suzie – Volunteered (14 Yes/2 Dissent)

 

Female Contact List Coordinator (2)

Kimberly P – Volunteered (17 Yes/0 Dissent)

Kelly H – Volunteered (17 Yes/0 Dissent) 

 

Big Book Meeting

Britt Britt – Volunteered (17 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

Women’s Meeting

                                  Britt Britt – Volunteered (15 Yes/0 Dissent)                            

 

Non-Steering Committee Board Members Kim G – Volunteered (18 Yes/0 Dissent)

Jeannine – Volunteered (18 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

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

 

*SEE JUNE BUSINESS MEETING NOTES FOR DETAILS *

 

Dennis – Sebas an has made unilateral decisions on other things.  Hosts do not govern. The boss is s ll GC.

 

Thomas – It may be healthy for the group, when these issues occur, to not overreact. Although I love Sebas an, he tends to get a li le off the subject/overstep and I think it would be healthy if he were corrected in some way, not necessarily taking him out of service. He’s a reasonable guy, someone should just talk to him.  Every month we have a complaint that’s the same flavor, different person. I don’t want to be of service for fear of being singled out by the SC.

 

Ian – I’ve had problems with Sebas an in the past and we’ve made amends but this incident happened over 15mins and took away from the mee ng.  We pride ourselves on having no me limit during shares but I was interrupted during my hos ng and called out in front of the en re mee ng.  I see GC broken in other instances and this is a great example of how we can start enforcing these viola ons. I actually wanted to rescind this complaint because when Sebas an came back a er his 3 week break he was really cool but then it happened again. 

 

Sebas an – I wasn’t able to find the SC notes on the website so not familiar with the document we’re reading.  If I were to report every viola on I witness by hosts and cohosts, I’d have to spend all my me on the feedback page but I don’t. I will accept whatever viola on the group chooses. 

 

Thomas – I suggest we don’t take puni ve ac on by removing him from service. I don’t see what the big deal is.

 

Ian – I hear you guys but if we have ethical viola ons and their consequences on our website and don’t adhere to them, we should just scrap them and let people run wild. This is a start on figuring out how we address all viola ons. I’m for the first one which is a 7-day break.  He’s consistent and very good at late-night GUTS but I feel we have to follow GC. 

 

Kristen – GC needs to be enforced.  There are many instances of it being broken lately and it causes confusion and disrupts the mee ng.  Why have the GC if we’re not going to follow it?  We can’t use “love and tolerance” as a cop-out to not follow GC.  Accountability is important in recovery. There has been a pa ern of folks viola ng GC and it falling by the wayside. GC is the Higher Power leading the group and we’re ac ng out of ego when we break it. 

 

Jason W – I think we need to follow through with GC.

 

Mo on to vote on a first-strike viola on for Sebas an.  Seconded and Approved (23 Yes/0 Dissent)

 

VII.              ImplemenƟng Zoom Report Feature (Ian)

 

Pros

-Enhanced Security and Safety

– Facilitates quick response to disrup ve or inappropriate behavior, helping maintain a safe environment.

-Knowing that misbehavior can be reported may stop poten al bombers from ac ng inappropriately.

-Par cipants have a means to address issues directly, making them feel more in control of the mee ng.

-Hosts, co-hosts, and par cipants are held accountable for their behavior.

-The ability to include wri en details and a achments makes it easier to provide detailed reports, aiding in the swi resolu on of issues.

-Reports are evaluated by Zoom’s Trust and Safety team, ensuring that professionals handle the situa on appropriately.

 

Cons

-Potential for Misuse

-False Reports: Participants may submit false or malicious reports, which could lead to unwarranted investigations and potential disruptions for innocent users.

-Frequent, possibly unnecessary reports could overwhelm the Trust and Safety team, leading to slower response times for genuine cases.

-Privacy Concerns

-Data Handling: Reporting participants with written details and attachments involves handling potentially sensitive information, raising privacy and confidentiality concerns. -Participant Anxiety: The knowledge that they can be reported might make participants anxious or overly cautious, potentially stifling open and productive discussions.

-Resource Intensive

-Managing and reviewing reports requires significant resources, which could strain Zoom’s Trust and Safety team.

-The reporting process during a meeting might cause distractions or delays, impacting the overall flow and productivity of the meeting.

-Personal biases might influence reports, leading to unfair treatment of certain participants based on subjective interpretations of behavior.

 

In summary, while the ability for hosts, co-hosts, and participants to report inappropriate behavior during Zoom meetings can significantly enhance security and participant empowerment, it also introduces challenges related to potential misuse, privacy concerns, resource demands, and subjective bias.

 

SC Meeting Notes:

• The ques on was asked about who sees the report – just our internal group or does Zoom have access to the report?
• The report goes directly to the safety tech who works for Zoom. There is a possibility that generated reports would cause Zoom employees to enter our mee ng and assess the situa on.
• This is NOT just an internal report. An outside party will have the ability to view. 
• Downside of an outside party (i.e.: Zoom) viewing these reports is they may decide to ban or disable accounts in ways that would not be in line with how GUTS polices our mee ngs.
• The GUTS Zoom admin would be interac ng with the Zoom team to fact check reports in order to inves gate the level of the viola ons. o We can as a group explore possible group controls around the repor ng feature so we can limit who has access to enter and/or edit reports.
• It was men oned that we would not need new guidelines to apply to the report criteria, we could just use exis ng guidelines and the exis ng ban guideline document.
• A concern with the poten al me it may take for hosts and co-hosts to enter reports during a mee ng was raised. This may be an added burden to service members during the mee ngs.
• Entering a report is very simple and intui ve, however more inves ga on need to determine how long it would take a host.
• Comment was made that it may take more than a minute to enter a report, so this will take a en on from the mee ng away from the co-host.

 

 

Thomas – Being exposed to sexual content by bombers makes me feel unsafe. I blew up one night because it really hurts me and it keeps me away from the people I love.  I just want it to stop!

 

Jayna – In a women’s mee ng I a end, if a service member removes someone they don’t have to report them too unless it’s gross.

 

Dennis – Is there a way to have guidelines to know who makes reports?

 

Ian – Repor ng goes into depth on what the bomber did (lewd behavior, underage, etc) and is more for the repeat offenders and would be up to the Zoom safety team to decide.  I wish there were an op on to remove and permanently ban someone. If we keep it hosts and cohosts only I don’t see the poten al for misuse.

 

Jason W – I think hosts and co-hosts only is a deal-breaker and a requirement. I don’t think it will resolve in an insta-ban but I think Zoom will look for a pa ern. It’s also easy to change your IP address to get around a ban anyway. I think we should give it a trial period and see what the mechanics are then come back and discuss at next Biz Mtg.

 

Mark M – I think it’s a great idea but it’s a me thing. I enjoy boo ng bombers from the mee ng! God bless Ian if he’s willing to do it. 

 

Thomas – I think some of us are naïve about what this involves. Human trafficking vic ms are being shown and the bombers aren’t being arrested, they just wander into any zoom mee ng they want to. There are laws about this and Zoom has a responsibility.  I make a mo on of crea ng a liaison with Zoom.

 

Suzie M – I agree with it being me-consuming.  If it were scaled back to be effec ve maybe but I fear it’s labor-intensive during the mee ng. I agree with a trial run but I wonder how it will play out. It would have to go into the training too. 

 

Kristen – We vote on GCs that make the mee ng be er/safer and to protect the newcomer.  I’d love to get rid of all the bombers but that’s impossible.  If this is another level of security then great. It’s easy for me to say “ignore the bombers” a er 4yrs on Zoom but it’s not that easy for a newcomer. This could be triggering to them and is a safety issue. Anything that protects the s ll-suffering alcoholic, I’m on board with.

 

Ian – It is going to be me-consuming.  To stop the videos from happening, GC could say no video for anyone to eliminate porn. Most bombers don’t have the pa ence to wait to speak so they go straight to visual bombing.  As Zoom Admin, I have access to a list of everyone who joins the mee ng.  If there was a thread to inform me of bomber names/ mes I could go through the web report and report said individuals. 

 

Chris an – Ques on for Ian: when you say you have a list of IP addresses can you pinpoint when they come, go or are forcibly removed?

 

Ian – Yes, via the Zoom Admin Report. If you removed and reported them they’d go to a whole other queue specific to reported individuals. 

 

Jason W – As Thomas expressed, we need to do something.  It’s been constant and I’d like to give it a try.  

 

Noelle – We could also ins tute a very strict wai ng room where people have to show their video and speak to the cohost to ensure they’re real people.

 

Jason A – I agree with Noelle and would like to set that to a mo on.

 

Dennis – We can have folks show their face temporarily to show they’re a real person. 

 

                          Mary Mc – We’re ge    ng off track from Ian’s original proposal so let’s stay on track.

 

Donald M – Like Thomas said, something has to be done.  This is the first step. People harassing hosts and co-hosts is unacceptable and I’m going to boot them if they a ack me personally in DMs. 

 

Ian – I will need all host/co-host email addresses to add them to the Zoom acct so they can make reports.

 

Mo on to give Zoom repor ng capabili es to hosts/co-hosts un l next Business Mee ng –

Seconded and passed (13 Yes/3 Dissent)

 

VIII.             Topic for Business MeeƟng Agenda (Lauren S)

Leadership vs Governance

Author: Lauren S

 

What is a good leader? That’s a big question to answer. A leader leads by example and not through commands, dictations, or power-driven statements. Those of us who choose leadership have an individual journey and unique assets that play a factor in “good” leadership. There are qualities that are exemplified in others that can be emulated. Having strong emotional sobriety is often a good start when taking on the heftier and more taxing roles within a group. Learning the appropriate conduct of a trusted servant can come from studying the traditions in depth, observing the elder statesmen in one’s group, and adhering to group conscience.

 

Does that mean that a leader is a doormat? Absolutely not. Leaders can set personal boundaries with themselves and others. If anything, a sign of good leadership is the ability to establish healthy boundaries. Effective leaders manage their roles without overstepping or neglecting their own needs. This balance is essential for maintaining personal well-being and ensuring they can serve effectively without burnout.

 

What does “trusted servant” mean”? In AA, a leader is referred to as a “trusted servant.” The idea that leaders in AA are “trusted servants” aligns with the principle that leadership should primarily be about serving others, not wielding power. This redefinition shifts the focus from authority to responsibility. Above all else, the leader is trusted to adhere to the group’s decision making.

 

Why follow group conscience? The primary purpose and aiding the next struggling alcoholic depend on the continuation of a group. Group conscience is created to enact the spirit of the primary purpose and guide a group towards a unified front. When individuals contribute to the overall unity of the group, this fosters a healing space for alcoholics to recover.

 

Is group conscience a “law” or a “rule?” Not exactly. All group conscience can be subject to change. GC is almost Darwinian. What works for the group stays in effect. Some GC changes and others die out. This might seem wishy washy, but we remain relevant, useful, and cater to the needs of a group through the adaptability in AA. Healthy groups tend to revisit GC (even core GC), every so often, to ensure that the GC reflects the current group.

 

Elder Statesman VS Bleeding Deacon: The 12&12 describes the qualities of an “elder statesman” which include, “the one who sees the wisdom of the group’s decision, who holds no resentment over his reduced status, whose judgment, fortified by considerable experience, is sound, and who is willing to sit quietly on the sidelines patiently awaiting developments.” The elder statesman is depicted as wise, patient, and respectful of the group’s decisions, which are traits that support long-term health of the group. This is a model of leadership that is inclusive, democratic, and deeply respectful of the principles that guide AA. The dichotomous characteristics are exhibited by the “bleeding deacon,” which include, “one who is just as surely convinced that the group cannot get along without him, who constantly connives for reelection to office, and who continues to be consumed with self-pity.” The bleeding deacon represents a cautionary tale of what can go wrong when leaders cling to power and self-importance. Reviewing the Tradition 2 section of the 12&12 gives insight into what good leadership looks like in AA.

 

Transparency: Even in AA, leaders must make difficult calls, but that does not necessarily mean governance. As long as all decisions are made by the group, a leader is within their bounds to create solutions for problems that may arise. Asking the group’s permission before deciding is a common action to take. This ensures transparency and maintains trust between the members and those in leadership roles. Trusted servants are allowed to facilitate group decisions and do the work necessary to make the groups will happen.

 

Governance: Signs of governance include unilateral decisions, excluding others, nitpicking others, refusing to follow group conscience, and clinging to power. If this kind of behavior is witnessed, individuals might want to have a respectful conversation and offer counsel to the person. Removal may happen at the group level if this behavior remains unchecked because it undermines the group’s trust and creates disunity. In AA, taking responsibility and accountability for one’s behavior is crucial to recovery.

Neutrality: Remaining neutral within leadership roles can be quite difficult. Staying neutral means setting aside personal opinions, keeping one’s ego right sized, and looking for the balance or compromise when faced with a split decision. Being inclusive of the dissenting voices can provide a middle ground. Paying attention to the principles over personalities can be a guide for neutrality along with practicing fairness, tolerance, and an others-centered way of thinking. Putting the group’s needs and wishes above one’s individualistic perception can be necessary. Neutrality helps leaders to remain impartial and make decisions that are best for the group as a whole rather than being swayed by personal biases or relationships.

 

I am hoping that this information can be added to the ban guidelines. I posted this document in the threads for review.

 

SC Meeting Notes:

• The group discussed different a ributes that cons tute a good AA leader, including se ng a solid consistent example, selfless acts, knowing the difference between posi ve leadership and governing as well as many other points covered in the ini al feedback.
• It was noted that further BM discussion may be needed on what can be done in instances of a member blatantly going against GC. Poten ally, we may need a more immediate solu on when GC is being violated.
• All in the group agreed that this a well thought out proposal that would be a highly beneficial addi on to our Ban Guidelines.

 

Suzie M – This is beau fully wri en and there isn’t one thing I disagree with but I’m curious as to how it translates to the ban guidelines.  Are we going to condense it or pull out certain behaviors or incidents? How do you enforce it? How does it translate into behavior we can address?

 

Lauren – The reason I wrote this up is because we get a lot of newcomers in service who aren’t familiar with GC and this is meant to be informa onal. 

 

Thomas – I agree with everything in this document and think it was really well done. I don’t see how anyone’s going to have the a en on span to read all this though.  I think some edi ng should be involved.  A couple addi onal things about leadership: a leader is willing to take a hit for the group and sacrifice their own ego/honor and that’s hard to do. They’re also someone who’s interest is for the most good. 

 

Jason W – I think the website would be a great place for this. 

 

Mo on to post this on our website as wri en with nota on to author – Seconded and Approved (17 Yes/0 Dissent)

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

     

Kristen – Mo on to extend mee ng me to address this issue (11 Yes/0 Dissent)

          IX.        Topic for business meeting agenda  (Mark)

Is there an issue with a number of people having the claim code to open and start hosting the meeting? I had a group member call me tonight during dinner and ask if anyone was going to open the meeting before 7 PST. Is there a GC procedure for limiting the number of people who know the claim code? 

 

SC Meeting Notes:

Downside of this may be that a bad actor or bomber may get the code.  Just because a person has the claim host code does not mean they can make themselves the host a er host has already been claimed.  This would prevent anyone from hijacking the mee ng.  Only the GUTS Zoom coordinator has admin privileges We need to have more than one GUTS Zoom Admin in case the Zoom Admin is unavailable.  Currently Ian holds the posi on, but we need to have addi onal Admins for back-up and security purposes.  Zoom Admin privileges and having the Claim Host code are not the same.  Only the Admin security permissions allow for grabbing the host power.It was noted that we should have a common place where the Claim Host claim is stored so service members can access if needed.

SC Action:  A motion was made and seconded to make sure we have at least two GUTS Zoom Room Admins that have the ability to grab the Host keys as well as deciding which service members have Claim Host code. Motion Passed 8 to 1.

Ian – Only 5 people can be granted Admin status.  

Mark – Most of the time the issue is the opening of the 7pm PST meeting.

Thomas – It might be a good idea to appoint someone to manage this and make sure we address this next Business Mtg.  I make a motion to appoint someone to be the person to field phone calls this month. 

Jason W – We already have that and it’s Ian but he’s not available all the time so we need at least 4 people, maybe one per time zone? Motion to add people. 

Kristen – The training people used to have access to Host Claim and we divided it up between early, middle and late-night GUTS folks.  Opening it up to all hosts could have potential issues. Cumbersome to reach out to a list of people while cohosting to find a person to claim host. Why not make it available to all hosts?  There was only an issue with two people abusing it in the past. 

Ian – I like that idea. I can give you the owner log-in then they’d have that automatic “reclaim host”. 

Jason – Is claiming host and opening the room the same thing?

Ian – Yes but if someone fails to pass host then a Zoom Admin has to come in to reclaim host to pass it.

Christian – It’s two different issues: 1) If you have host issues you can bypass waiting room and enter Host Key to take Host role and 2) Currently Ian and Britt are the only people who have Zoom Admin privileges to take Host role at any time.  We need to elect a 3^rd person with this privilege.

Kristen – I’m almost always around so I nominate myself to be that person.  Seconded.

Motion to give all trained hosts the Host Code to claim host – Seconded and Approved (14 Yes/0 Dissent)

Motion to nominate Kristen to have Zoom Admin privileges (to take Host at any time) – Seconded and Approved (15 Yes/0 No)

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

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

          X.         (Tabled at July BM) Topic for business meeting agenda (Lauren)

I propose giving leeway to thread admins to delete unhealthy messages from the threads. This was discussed at the Group Inventory, and I am hoping the group can give permission to implement this.

 

SC Meeting Notes:

All in the group agreed that empowering the Thread Admins to police negative comments would be a good addition to GC. A motion was put forth and seconded to send this to the BM as written for approval. Motion Passed 9 to 0.

 

          XI.        (Tabled at July BM) Topic for business meeting agenda (Amy Anon)

I have a member who wishes to add her name as a potential sponsor to the LGBTQIA+ support list. But the website form to add names to a support list does not have an option for the LGBTQIA+ support list. The only options are Male/Female in the dropdown. If I remember correctly, this webform dates from before we had set up the LGBTQIA+ support list. I respectfully propose amending the data field on the sign-up form. Perhaps re-title the data field as “Which List(s) Do You Want to Join?” or something similar. And for the options to be a checklist that permits up to 2 selections if possible. And the options in the checklist should be something like this to show what lists are available and who can join them:

 

Women’s List (women only)

Men’s List (men only)

LGBTQIA+ (LGBTQIA+ and allies only)

 

SC Meeting Notes:

It was agreed that this would need to be sent to the Tech team in order to add an option for members to specify they want to be added to the LGBTQIA+ sober contact list.  We can address during the BM Tech report. A motion was put forth and seconded to send this to the BM as for approval. Motion Passed 9 to 0.

 

          XII.       (Tabled at July BM) Topic for business meeting agenda (Leona)

Presently, the Business Meeting notes are found behind closed doors on the website for service people only to see. Yet non-service people are encouraged to have voices, vote and participate in the Business Meetings. Shouldn’t those people have the right to see the Business Meeting notes? Shouldn’t the notes be made available for all to see?

 

SC Meeting Notes:

It was agreed among members that it would be appropriate to have all who visit our website to have access to our business meeting minutes. A motion was put forth and seconded to send this to the BM as written for approval. Motion Passed 9 to 0.

 

          XIII.      (Tabled at July BM) Topic for business meeting agenda (Mary Mc)

I would like to suggest that we add to the opening announcements the importance of sponsorship and let people know that there are potential sponsors in the room. Perhaps we could encourage people who are willing to sponsor to raise their virtual hand or use the green check mark to allow newcomers the opportunity to see potential sponsors. Ron (Rad Biz) does a wonderful job of talking about the importance of sponsorship. I think as hosts we have an opportunity to link people together. I have sponsees in Belgium and New Zealand just by reaching out and connecting with them. This was identified in the Group Inventory as a weakness of the group and I would like to see it addressed. 

 

SC Meeting Notes:

There are details that will need to be worked out in the business meeting. Does this require a change to the Host script? Should it be posted to chat only? Where in the meeting should this be announced? It was mentioned that changes to the host script have always been a big deal and it may be best to use this as a reason to have a larger overhaul of the host script. All SC members agreed that this is a wonderful idea and has been needed for some time. A motion was put forth and seconded to send this to the BM as written for further discussion. Motion Passed 9 to 0.

 

          XIV.      (Tabled at July BM) Topic for business meeting agenda (Anonymous)

There is a dire need for hosts and cohosts during the Late Nite GUTS hours. Recently, Klaartje volunteered to host, despite not being host-trained. It is proposed that Klaartje to be fast-tracked.

 

SC Meeting Notes:

The question has been raised as whether a service members must be a host or cohosts prior to fulfilling other roles. This was not placed before the entire steering committee. A motion was put forth and seconded to send this to the BM as written for further discussion. Motion Passed 7 to 2.

 

          XV.       (Tabled at June BM) Feedback on service team (Holly)

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 shi so there is con nuity in the mee ng announcement, training process and for the scheduling team. As far as we understand, up un l this point the specifics of the hours have not been voted on in a business mee ng. During the service announcement its now o en stated that one-hour shi s are available. This is confusing as the standard expecta on communicated during training is that cohost shi s are two hours, going back at least as far as 2022, likely longer. Even though the last me it was brought to SC it was tabled, we feel things have changed since then and the ambiguity does need to be cleared up.
• Addi onally, since it’s not possible to maintain the schedule without the occasional excep on ( me zone impossibili es or health reasons) we are asking that the group conscience includes allowing us discre on 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 Meeting Notes: 

Motion put forth to bring to BM to come up with definitive decision on the length of so-hosting shifts. Motion Passed 9 to 0.

 

XVI.              (Tabled at May BM) Topic for business meeting agenda (3 submissions)

 

Lack of Coverage and Attendance for Sister Meetings:

• 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 Mee ng Notes:

• 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.

 

Mo on put forth to bring to BM for a discussion on how we can be er resource all our Sister Mee ngs. Mo on Passed 9 to 0.

 

XVII.            (Tabled at May BM) GC Manual (Lauren)

I am proposing a voluntary commi ee to work on cataloguing all group conscience and crea ng 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.

 

XVIII.           (Tabled at May BM) Non-Facilitated Topics (Lauren)

Any group-approved BM topic/proposal that has not been facilitated for 3 months will be tabled un l a concrete proposal is brought to the group. Inves ga on and background work for accomplishing those topics can s ll be done. Bring the completed project to the group when it is ready for group approval and implementa on. My main concern is the followthrough on projects that have been le undone for months. The group has amazing ideas, but keep in mind that work must be done for these ideas to be accomplished.