GUTS Business Meeting – 08/03/2025

📝 AA GUTS Business Meeting Minutes

Date: August 3rd 2025
Chair: Lauren

Secretary: Christian

Location: Online Zoom (GUTS Room)

1. Opening & Traditions

• Meeting opened with the Serenity Prayer and AA Preamble.
• 12 Traditions read by Gabi.

2. Treasurer’s Report (Elle)

• • Beginning Balance: $3,835.16
  • Deposits: $749.25
  • Expenses: $616.74 (Website, office, Zoom, tech reserves)
  • Ending Balance: $5,003.77 (includes reserves)
  • Clarification: “GiveButter” identified as 3rd-party donation platform.
  • Decisions: 

• Increase ORC Q3 funding by $800 – Approved (23 yes)

• Allocate $275 to 7th Tradition organizations – Approved (29 yes)

• Treasurer’s report – Approved (27 yes)

3. Outreach (ORC) Report (Mary)

• • Fulfilled: 16 coins, 3 Big Books, 4 Twelve & Twelves, 2 Plain Language Big Books.
  • Clarified: Future ordering procedures and use of plain language books.

• Report Approved (31 yes)

4. ORC Leadership Term (Jason)

• • Exceeded term limits; group emphasized continuity.

• Motion passed to allow unlimited term unless new volunteer emerges (28 yes, 4 no)

5. Tech Team Report (Elle)

Updates:

• Made several updates to the Current Services page: some sibling meetings still pending verification
• Added business meeting and steering committee notes to the website
• Began development of an ethics committee e-form and description page (not yet published)
• Addressed website login and password issues for increased security
• Security hardened against brute-force attacks:
  • Updated firewall
  • Added bot/spam detection plugins
  • Improved password reset process for new members

Team Capacity:

• Recognized need for a second tech team member to assist with testing and support
• Elle submitted a motion earlier in the meeting to nominate Gabi for tech team; nomination will be covered during the nominations section

Questions & Clarifications:

• Jaymee: Asked if tech team nominations would be addressed
  • Elle confirmed a motion was submitted and seconded for Gabi

Motion & Outcome:

• • Motion to approve Tech Team report

• ✅ Motion Passed – 34 yes votes

 

6. GSR Report (Dennis)

• • Introduction: Charlie C (DCM, District 14, Area 12).
  • Charlie C Noted: District 14 as online-only; emphasized service structure involvement.
  • Upcoming Area 12 Assembly and elections previewed.
  • Dennis is seeking GSR alternate.

• Report Approved (32 yes)

7. Sponsorship Workshop (Mark)

• • Mark shared results of recent polls regarding preferred scheduling for a sponsorship workshop.
    • Total votes for date/time: 37
    • Top date/time selected: Sunday, 12–1 PM (significantly ahead of other options)
    • Other options: Sunday 2:30 PM and Monday 6–7 PM (tied)
  • Mark proposed the first workshop to be held next Sunday, 12–1 PM, with himself as moderator.
    • Format will include: 
      • ~40-minute presentation based on AA-approved sponsorship pamphlet (converted into a slide deck)
      • ~15–20 minutes of open discussion on sponsorship experience
    • Additional workshops will cover the same content, moderated by different presenters, depending on interest and availability.
  • Group discussion highlighted enthusiasm for workshop launch, with suggestions for potential future topics (e.g., Traditions workshop).

• Motion to approve report passed (33 yes votes)

8. Return to Service Votes – Jerry and Justin F

Return to Service – Jerry

• • Background was provided:
    • Jerry previously left service twice during his six-month commitment term.
    • Concerns raised regarding follow-through on commitments and adequacy of training received.
    • Members noted the scheduling role’s complexity and importance to group operations.
  • Discussion Highlights:
    • Jayna shared that Jerry left twice during prior service terms and emphasized the need to take commitments seriously.
    • Bentley expressed concern about Jerry’s reliability and questioned the need for a vote based on timing of exit.
    • Jerry responded, stating limited training and a desire to resume service in an area where he felt effective.
    • Jayna provided additional clarification disputing Jerry’s account, citing prior training efforts and a difficult interpersonal experience.
  • Outcome: Vote conducted per current group conscience.

• Vote Result: 24 no, 4 yes – Motion did not pass

• Jerry was not approved to return to service at this time.

Return to Service – Justin F

• Justin F requested to return to service following a prior group ban.
• Chair initiated open floor discussion prior to taking a vote.

Discussion Highlights:

• • Donna: Believes in second chances, but stated it felt “too soon” given prior events and lingering concerns about minimizing harm to women involved.
  • Kelly: Asked if time elapsed negated the need for a vote. Chair clarified that bans or questionable exits still require a business meeting vote.
  • Bentley: Clarified group history — Justin was previously banned, then reinstated to the regular meeting contingent on a future vote for service eligibility.
  • Jaymee: Offered support based on personal interactions; saw no red flags and believes Justin has changed.
  • Dennis: Expressed conditional openness if issues had been resolved; emphasized group need for trusted service members.
  • Justin (first statement): Questioned the need for a vote given previous dismissal of major accusations; asked for clarity on group bylaws and fairness.
  • Suzie: Reminded the group that some accusations were never disproven, stressing caution with service access and group safety.
  • Sebastian: Voiced concerns about lack of transparency in Ethics Committee processes; felt insufficient data for informed voting.
  • Rachel: Provided context on ban history; emphasized that the major accusation was proven false and other issues seemed less severe.
  • Dennis (follow-up):  Referenced upcoming conference topics on rumor vs. fact and communication breakdowns within service structures.
  • G: Noted that if reinstatement occurred due to false accusations, returning to service should logically follow — unless other valid concerns remain.
  • Kristen: Recounted group precedent of requiring proof to act; stated that the only documented evidence had been recanted and falsified.
  • Kelly (follow-up): Shared her personal experience and ownership of her part; expressed that recent interactions in other groups were positive and issue-free.
  • Suzie (follow-up): Acknowledged discomfort with inter-gender conversations in service and the lingering concerns around group safety.
  • Sebastian (follow-up): Accepted the complexity of intergender dynamics, appreciated Justin’s candor, and stated his intention to vote yes.
  • Bentley: Formally seconded the motion for Justin’s return to service.
  • Justin (final statement): 
    • Acknowledged personal misconduct involving flirtation with a newcomer, which he now recognizes as inappropriate.
    • Shared that two of the three complaints were retracted or resolved and expressed willingness to make amends with the third individual.
    • Highlighted challenges in communication and expressed hope for a fresh start through service.
    • Closed with gratitude for consideration.
  • Outcome: Vote conducted per current group conscience.

• Vote Result: 25 yes, 5 no – Motion did pass

• Justin F was approved to return to service at this time.

 

9. Nominations & Elections

The group held votes to affirm new and continuing service positions. All nominees accepted their roles and were confirmed by majority votes:

Position	Nominee	Vote Outcome
Intergroup Representative	Ian	✅ Approved (28 yes)
Website Administrator	Elle	✅ Approved (29 yes)
Steering Committee Thread Admin	Momma Christie	✅ Approved (29 yes)
Ethics Committee Coordinator (Male)	Dennis	✅ Approved (21 yes)
Ethics Committee Member (Female)	Mary	✅ Approved (25 yes)
Web Assistant	Gabi	✅ Approved (30 yes)
Web Assistant	Leona	✅ Approved (25 yes)
Alternate General Service Rep	Turtle Trish	✅ Approved (28 yes)

All positions passed with strong support and are now filled for the upcoming term.

10. Proposal: Seven-Minute Share Limit

• A proposal was introduced to implement a seven-minute timer for individual shares, prompted by feedback from the Steering Committee. The chair opened the floor for extended discussion.

Discussion Highlights:

• Bentley: Opposed. Emphasized GUTS’ founding values and long-standing format. Asserted that timers may encourage filler, diminish authenticity, and intimidate newcomers. Advocated reinforcing redirection under existing GC.
• Jaymee: Opposed. Shared concern that timer’s pressure vulnerable members and limit spontaneity. Supported hosts using discretion through prompts instead of new policy.
• Kathy: Passionate opposition. Shared that freeform sharing was lifesaving during COVID. Advocated compassion and patience as vital to GUTS culture.
• Donna: Qualified support. Acknowledged Kevin’s intentions but anticipated lack of group consensus.
• Kevin: Supported. Argued seven minutes is ample and equitable. Cited repetitive shares by long-time members overshadowing others. Suggested consistency across hours.
• Mary: Neutral. Clarified host redirection options and historical reasons for late-hour share timers. Encouraged better use of existing GC.
• Dennis: Stressed importance of share redirection language already in place. Recounted the history and necessity behind timer cards during overflow hours.
• Justin: Opposed. Cited GUTS, founding principles and pride in its open format. Believe timers would dilute group identity.
• Dustin: Opposed. Highlighted GUTS’ uniqueness in offering unrestricted shares and its appeal to members who feel constrained elsewhere.
• Kelly: Mixed support. Suggested trialing seven-minute limits as middle ground. Raised concerns about intimidating new members and long-time members dominating time.
• Sebastian: Nuanced support. Proposed more assertive redirection instead of rigid timing. Pointed to repeat 15+ minute shares and need to balance access and equity.
• Bethany: Opposed. Urged consistent application of GC redirection instead of new limits. Warned that timers could inhibit first-time sharers.
• Rachel: Opposed. Reiterated host flexibility and discretion. Described real-world example of excessive share managed gently under current GC.
• Kathy (follow-up): Reaffirmed strong emotional connection to GUTS’ no-limit policy. Urged room for emotional healing and personal journeys.
• Kevin (follow-up): Voiced continued support for timer, citing member behavior patterns.
• Sebastian (follow-up): Argued that compassion, not format, is GUTS’ hallmark. Suggested raising hands multiple times could still allow extended sharing when needed.
• Ziggy: Opposed. Shared concerns about timer intimidating newcomers. Pointed to lack of host intervention as the true issue, rather than member behavior.
• Zach: Neutral. New member perspective. Raised concern that unchecked rambling may alienate others but supported group founders’ intent. Suggested tabling the issue and improving host awareness.
• Kristen: Opposed. Described prior attempts at time limits which led to repetitive hand-raising and reduced space for new voices. Supported prompter use as an effective compromise.
• Dennis (follow-up): Suggested tabling further discussion or bringing issue to next business meeting.
• Gabi: Proposed formal motion to maintain unlimited share format (with prompts only in the final hour) and encourage hosts to apply redirection GC more proactively.
• Don: Supported motion. Recommended clarifying group script to reflect actual share guidelines. Suggested time limits, if considered, apply to long-timers rather than newcomers.
• Jaymee (follow-up): Formally motioned to vote.

Outcome:

• Proposal debated; consensus to retain current format.
• Hosts are encouraged to use redirection guidelines.

• Motion: Preserve unlimited shares except during final hour; reinforce host redirection using current GC language.
• Vote Result: 30 yes, 5 no – Motion passed
• Action Item: Chair to post redirection guidance document for service team review.

 

11. Ethics Committee Guidelines

• Updated ethics committee guidelines were posted to service threads prior to the meeting.
• Elle provided a visual decision tree outlining response options for disputes; the chair offered to screen share but opted not to review it live.

Discussion Highlights:

• Mary: Raised concerns about the ethics committee being perceived as governing, especially around thread moderation. Expressed desire for committee’s role to be clarifying and restorative—not arbitrative. Emphasized need for expanded group clarity.
• Dennis: Suggested a “civil censure” or formal reprimand as a proportional response for minor issues before escalating penalties.
• Chair Clarification: Ethics Committee already authorized to issue up to three warnings before a matter escalates to a business meeting.
• Sebastian: Inquired about whether decision tree allows for keeping minor, personal disputes contained rather than escalating unnecessarily.

Motions & Outcomes:

1. Motion to remove “thread monitoring” from ethics committee duties
   • Rationale: Avoid perception of governance
   • ✅ Motion Passed – Removed from guidelines
2. Motion to formally approve the decision tree
   • ✅ Motion Passed – Approved with 15 yes votes

12. Fellowship Thread & Document Access

• Agenda Item: Clarification and realignment of the “fellowship thread” to avoid formal association with the GUTS service structure.
• Concern raised about the GUTS name appearing in references to the thread, potentially causing confusion about affiliation or authority.

Discussion Highlights:

• Kelly: Shared concern about service-centric visibility, lack of transparency for non-service members, and ambiguity surrounding the thread’s relationship to GUTS. Proposed creating a shared thread for updates accessible to all members.
• Chair: Proposed a new document thread with restricted posting permissions but universal visibility, paired with removal of “GUTS” name from the fellowship thread to preserve neutrality.
• Suzie: Affirmed proposal had merit but was previously overlooked. Appreciated clarity brought forward by Chair.
• Sebastian: Recounted historical context of GUTS threads and stressed inclusivity for all verified members, not just those in service roles. Emphasized accessibility as key to group unity.
• Gabi: Clarified distinction between official service threads and the “fellowship (unofficial)” thread. Endorsed a shared posting-only document thread for meeting agendas, notes, and service positions.

Motions & Outcomes:

1. 1. Motion to remove the word “GUTS” and all affiliated language from the fellowship thread and website references

• ✅ Motion Passed – 19 yes / 3 no

1. 2. Motion to approve creation of a new document thread for service team members to post meeting materials with view access for all members

• ✅ Motion Passed – 17 yes / 2 no

• Chair will create the thread and share link in the fellowship thread

13. Training Document Review

• Agenda Item: Updated training document presented for discussion
• Chair did not receive a copy and invited members to comment on its readiness

Discussion Highlights:

• Gabi: Document contains valuable content but includes outdated or incorrect references to existing GC materials. Recommended further revision before any vote. Emphasized the need to ensure consistency and accuracy with other guiding documents.
• Jaymee: Confirmed the document had been shared with select members for feedback. Expressed intent to circulate it within the Steering Committee thread for input and refinement.

Motion & Outcome:

• • Motion to table the training document until the next business meeting to allow time for review and edits 

• ✅ Motion Passed – 17 yes / 2 no

14. Deletion of Thread Posts in Service Threads

• Agenda Item: Whether schedulers and thread admins should retain discretion to delete posts within service team threads
• Concern raised about perceived over-deletion and whether it impacts transparency and group unity

Discussion Highlights:

• Jayna: Supported maintaining current practice. Acknowledged the risk of mob mentality and emphasized discernment by schedulers as necessary to uphold unity and emotional safety. Affirmed members still have avenues for feedback or ethics review.
• Kathy: Requested clarity on guidelines for deletions. Expressed need for respectful dialogue, free from gossip or targeting individuals.
• Suzie: Felt deletions were appropriately handled and aligned with preserving unity.
• Kristen: Shared personal experience navigating thread overwhelm when new to service. Advocated for admins’ ability to redirect or delete off-topic or harmful posts, citing historical loss of service members due to thread drama.
• Kevin: Asked whether people quit sobriety or simply service threads; Chair clarified it relates to withdrawal from service roles.

Motion & Outcome:

• • Motion to retain current group conscience allowing schedulers and thread admins to delete posts at their discretion 

• ✅ Motion Passed – 14 yes / 2 no

15. Certainly, Christian — here’s the formal adjournment portion formatted for AA GUTS Business Meeting minutes:
16. Adjournment

• • Motion to close the business meeting 

• ✅ Motion Passed

Post-Meeting Notes:

• Chair will: 
  • Create and share a document thread for service materials
  • Post redirection updates
  • Share group announcements for those who did not attend
• Members are encouraged to check the threads for upcoming documents and announcements.

Meeting Adjourned — Thank you to all participants for your service and thoughtful contributions.

🛑 Meeting Closure