August 6th BM Notes
BM Chair: Lauren
BM Co-Chair: Lisa/Donna
Secretaries: Elle and Lauren
SC Members Present: Lisa, Donna, Amy, Kristen, Elle, Maya, Barbara, Jeremy, and Dennis
I. Treasurer’s Report-Elle
A. Lots of new ideas were presented for having prudent reserves to pay the room fees which are due in November. The literature sourcing for ORC was discussed too. Dennis also proposed a H&I committee. Those ideas can be placed in the SC feedback for the next BM.
B. Motion to approve Elle’s organized and wonderful report.
1. Seconded and Passed (18 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
II. Committees (July SC Meeting)
A. Lauren: Maybe the group can get an update from the committees that are currently facilitating group votes from the June BM.
B. SC Response
C. Jeremy proposed that committees need to give the group an update each month at the Business Meeting. That way, the group can be informed about the progress that the committees have been making. We can check in with them to see if they need any group votes for their ideas. Additionally, we can see if these committees need more time.
1. Having a spokesperson from each committee to give a monthly update was suggested.
2. Motion to approve this proposal.
– Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
D. Ban Guidelines Committee Update-Lauren
1. There haven’t been any revisions on the rough draft of the guidelines so far. I brought an idea to the committee that would need a group vote. I think outside perspective could be beneficial. Maybe a trusted leader from a different group with experience issuing bans could look over the rough draft and give suggestions/offer insights. Dennis said he might have someone who could do this. Sarah S also said she might have someone too. I am hoping that other committee members can investigate how other groups issue bans and see if there’s anything we can use.
2. I motioned to allow someone from outside the group (a trusted leader) who has experience with bans to look over the ban guidelines rough draft.
– Seconded and Approved (20 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
3. Joan has been admitted into the room lately, and I was advised to give a brief update about that. She can be allowed to come into the room starting 11/07/2023. Anyone who is banned can’t be admitted into the room, or they need to be removed immediately. I would suggest communicating that the ban is still intact to the person being removed. We are supposed to have a ban list on the Website and that should help resolve any future issues.
E. Host Feedback Committee Update-Lisa
1. Lisa gave the best Committee update ever, and it was super detailed. Donna screenshared a Google document that covered all the work that the Host Feedback Workshop has done so far. Some of the ideas will need to be synthesized and then group votes will be held. They are considering having the workshop every 4-8 weeks, there is a 2-minimum workshop per GC, having an Attendance Sheet/Google form to ensure Hosts’ attendance, and they are still pondering the consequences for a lack of attendance. She encouraged that cohosts attend the workshops too because people might want to Host at some point. The workshop will have a plethora of suggestions and insights that can be useful for all service members. Regarding the feedback, there were some suggestions the committee created such as speaking in “I” statements, using only AA approved literature, and having a gratitude waterfall. She posted a feedback form that anyone can fill out to offer suggestions for the Committee.
F. 4th Step Workshop Committee Update
1. Kristen said that she’s a member of that Committee, but she hasn’t seen a separate WhatsApp Thread for it. She’s not sure if any work has been done for this committee.
III. July 9th Mini BM Content (Condensed)
A. We are revisiting the proposal/content from the July 9th BM. I included the proposal along with the solutions that were voted on by the attendees. We are reviewing the content for further discussion to cement this GC and include any necessary changes prior to implementation. We still need to honor what the group decided at the July 9th BM because there was a group conscience for those who attended. However, we need to allow changes to happen for the sake of efficiency and inclusion of members’ ideas. This is an important topic, and I want to make sure that group members have a chance to offer their perspectives and give this topic the deliberation that it deserves.
1. Maya’s Proposal: She proposed that we have a Google document outlining various complaints that happen during the regular/sister meetings. These complaints can include anything that broke the Traditions/Primary Purpose and can encompass any form of discrimination that occurred. The type of complaint being issued will be specified in the document. These complaints can be brought to the Business Meeting.
2. Proposal (continued): Any incidents can be directed to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Resource Coordinator. Maya will be the coordinator for this endeavor. These incidents will be logged into the Google document. She wants to offer newcomers alternate resources that offer inclusion for our members. Also, she wants newcomers to know that they are heard, and these matters are taken seriously by the group.
B. Proposal in Action
1. These solutions were offered and voted upon collectively by the group to keep it simple. The attendees voted to put these solutions in place.
2. The Cultural Resource Coordinator title has been changed to “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Resource Coordinator.” Within the month, the group will be adding a couple of members to help Maya with the workload.
3. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Resource Coordinator will be an Honorary Steering Committee Member position. Maya and any future Coordinators will need the ability to communicate with the SC during meetings and SC Thread. The Google document with complaints will be given to the SC periodically. We will work with each other to ensure that these complaints are facilitated and addressed by the group.
4. A separate email will be created by Maya. This email will be used to submit these complaints. The SC and Maya’s helpers will have access to this email. All decisions are made through the group.
5. A cohost blurb will be written out for the group to post throughout the meeting. Lauren will bring this cohost blurb to the next SC/BM meeting for group approval. It will include the email and necessary information.
– GUTS takes harassment and discriminatory behavior seriously. For the sake of creating a safe and equal environment for all attendees, please direct any issues to this email [insert email]. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Resource Coordinator or a helper will reach out to you. This resource is available for members to receive empathetic and personal interaction alongside addressing matters that are harmful to attendees. Resources and additional help will be provided to help members on their journey towards sobriety.
6. We will be using these solutions as a trial run for a month. This will be revisited for the sake of adjustments. The logistics of this proposal can be altered based on what works and incorporating simplistic methods for meeting functionality.
7. July 30th SC Meeting: Kristen wondered if we could announce the changes that have been made within the regular meeting to inform the group that the resource is available.
8. Lauren motioned to cement this proposal and the listed solutions.
– This topic cannot be revisited for 6 months.
– Seconded and Approved (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IV. Lifting Zoom Account Requirements (July BM)
A. The “Lifting Zoom Requirements” Topic was discussed at the Business Meeting. Given the absence of a clear group conscience on this topic, this topic was tabled and will be revisited during the next Business Meeting. The topic will be further discussed to gather more insights and reach a consensus. The group was split between 2 different perspectives. Both offered strong and valid arguments.
B. Members suggested conducting a trial run to temporarily lift requirements due to low attendance. This trial run would last for a couple of weeks to evaluate attendance numbers and collect necessary information. They acknowledged the potential for bombers but expressed confidence in the service team’s ability to handle such disruptions. Zoom requirements do not provide 100% protection against bombers. A trial run can shed new light on what adaptations the group can apply to this GC. Concerns were raised about newcomers or individuals unfamiliar with Zoom, who may require a meeting and are unable to gain entry. Members perceived a decrease in the number of newcomers since the requirements were implemented. They argued that this meeting is centered around newcomers. A trial run could allow us to figure out what kind of communication is needed for those who can’t get into the room.
C. Other members emphasized that the requirements make it more challenging for bombers to gain access and filter out potential disruptors. They explained that lifting the requirements could lead to an increase in attendance; however, there could be an influx of trolls causing disruptions. These members reiterated the importance of prioritizing the safety of meeting attendees. They discussed the positive impact of the Zoom requirements in reducing disruptions caused by bombers, allowing the focus to remain on the primary purpose. The service team can provide more support to attendees without the distractions that bombers cause. Members expressed the importance of protecting meeting attendees from explicit content that bombers typically display. Their presence could potentially drive away existing participants. The need to protect the peaceful environment of the meeting is paramount. Bombers tend to sow chaos and, at times, display foul content that can’t be unseen.
D. BM Response
1. Danielle-She made the argument that removing the requirements for a month might not accurately portray how many bombers come into the room because they would not find our meeting immediately. However, over time, bombers would start coming back if the requirements are lifted long term. She conveyed that attendance could be down because members are returning to in-person meetings, and there are a lot more Zoom meetings available now, including other marathon meetings.
2. Sarah-Reiterated Danielle’s point about people returning to in-person meetings. Bombers can chase off newcomers that we get into the room already. Safety is part of the traditions and protecting the primary purpose by keeping bomber filth out of the room.
3. Jocelyne-Don’t lift requirements. The people who need to get in, get in. It’s very simple to sign up for a Zoom account.
4. Kristen-The “numbers” aspect that she brought up had to do with newcomer numbers. Not bomber numbers. She completely agrees with having a safe environment for newcomers. She also wants to make sure that they have access to the room and that they aren’t being kept out. She doesn’t mean that the meeting isn’t good enough because of the amount of people. Her focus is having a welcoming meeting for newcomers that allows them into the room. Some people might not know how to create a Zoom account, and it might be exclusionary to assume that everyone can easily create one.
5. Susan-Likes that she sees fewer bombers and increased security. She was able to sign up for a Zoom account. She suggested for the Website to include instructions on how to get into the room.
6. Danielle-Having these requirements in place gives the group the ability to implement future security measures. Zoom gives updates and new ways of creating a safer environment. She used the language monitor thing as an example of a useful safety tool for the meeting. It blocks nasty racial slurs and other derogatory words that don’t belong in a meeting.
7. Mona-Also reiterated that creating a Zoom account is simplistic and easy. The requirements keep the room safe. Attendance has nothing to do with security measures.
8. Maya-The language that bombers use can be traumatic especially when used in a discriminatory way. She thanked the tech team for the requirements because there are way fewer racial slurs in the room.
9. Sarah-The language monitor thing is used as one of the group’s security measures, and it doesn’t block derogatory words 100% because Zoom can glitch sometimes. However, most of the time, those words are rejected, which is a relief to all.
10. Jeremy and Kristen both suggested a link that provides instructions for creating a Zoom account should be placed in the Intergroup description.
11. Lauren motioned to keep the requirements in place.
– Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
12. Lauren motioned to have a link to instructions for setting up a Zoom account in the Intergroup description for the meeting. Also, post instructions for getting into the meeting on the Website too.
– This topic cannot be revisited for 6 months.
– Seconded and Passed (22 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
V. Hosts Picking Topics (July SC Thread)
A. Kristen: I don’t know if it goes against group conscience, but some hosts make up their own topic for their hour. When we have topics, we post everyday. Not sure if this is an issue to address. I’ve gotten complaints of people being confused as to why the host is coming up with a topic when there’s topics posted in chat. I bring it up because the topics people are voted into the position by the group. So, if it’s not needed and hosts come up with topics, then we need to readdress and take a group conscience to eliminate that position.
B. SC members agreed that group clarification and discussion will be needed in this situation. One host picks their own topic for the hour which contradicts the Topics Coordinator’s service position. This creates confusion with meeting attendees. Many members come in prepared to speak on the topics because they are emailed out every day. Currently, Hosts are not disallowed from picking their own topics, and there is no previous GC on this issue. The Topics Coordinators work hard to select topics every single day. Also, the topics that the coordinators create are loved, valued, and a core aspect of the group.
1. Some SC members offered the perspective that some Host autonomy should be allowed, and other meetings give Chair-people the option to pick their own topic.
2. If the group decides to keep our daily topics, we will be opening nominations for Topics Coordinator(s). Samantha and Kristen can be renominated.
C. BM Response
1. Kristen-There is no clear GC on having the listed topics. The listed topics have been part of GUTS since the beginning. We have an assigned service position for members to select topics for the group. There’s work that is done to accomplish this task. Having Hosts pick their own topic can be a disruption. She suggested having 3 topics that the coordinators create and include one topic whereby Hosts can pick their own topic. There would need to be prior communication for this to happen. She said that she has been working towards creating topics that are varied and encourage people to get their hands up.
2. Lisa-Wants to keep the topics in place. She suggested that a 5th topic could be added, but there would need to be prior communication that a 5th topic is being added.
3. Susan-Certain Hosts have self-corrected after learning that there has been member confusion. Members were told that they could share on the topics or the topic that the Host selects. She offered that this BM topic can be given to the Host Feedback Committee for further deliberation. This is something that can be addressed during the workshop.
4. Danielle-Adding an additional Host topic should not be necessary. Topics Coordinators work hard to create the topics. People can already share on whatever they want. Members don’t have to discuss the topics. She urged caution because this is not the Host’s show or meeting. It can be important to stay consistent and stick to the structure of the meeting.
5. Kristen-Discussed the reasoning for this discussion. She reached out to a Host who picks their own topic, and this person felt like disallowing Hosts from picking their own topics could be interpreted as controlling or governance. There were varied opinions about this topic in the SC Thread. There’s no previous GC on topics; so, it seemed like group discussion would be a good idea.
6. Kristen motioned for the topics to stay in place and keep the Topics Coordinator position intact.
– Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
– With the Topics service position being cemented as a clear GC, Hosts for the regular meeting can no longer choose their own topics and must adhere to the structure of the meeting.
– Sister Meetings Hosts can still choose topics relevant to their meeting material.
VI. Complaint (July SC Feedback)
A. Rich: AA Grant Us The Serenity is UNIQUE! There is no time limit for sharing and this allows people to reveal their innermost self. If you have a problem with people sharing more than 5 minutes, this may not be the meeting for you. There are plenty of marathon meetings on Zoom that have strict time limits of 4 minutes or 5 minutes. And AA GUTS has always been the meeting where alcoholics can share their innermost secrets to help heal themselves. (We’ve even had a "shark" share here.) If an alcoholic who is sharing talks too long, it is up to the host to speak to the sharer about finishing up their share. It is not the concern of any participant to rebuke the sharer. In AA GUTS, this is considered rude. And we don’t blame any participant for causing someone else to lower their hand because they may have got tired of waiting. This is jumping to conclusions and is considered rude. That is negative crosstalk. Crosstalk is only acceptable when you want to PRAISE another participant. Crosstalk is never acceptable for criticizing another participant. People are dealing with enough rejection; they don’t need to get it HERE. AA GUTS is a SAFE place for you to express yourself.
B. SC Response
1. Kristen talked about the situation. She perceived that the Host was being rude to the member and cut off his share. The Host felt that Rich was off topic, but Rich explained how his share related to his alcoholism. Host discretion is allowed to cut off shares, but it should only be used for the common welfare of the group. There is a balance between love/tolerance and Host Discretion. Cutting members off should not come from self-will gone riot. Rich’s feelings were very hurt by this situation.
2. Dennis said that hopefully Rich and the Host will attend the Business Meeting so that a resolution can be found for this situation.
3. Lauren’s Side Note: This group has no strict time limit on shares. The reasoning for cutting off/redirecting shares is outlined in the Share Guidelines section on the Website, and they are group approved. The usage of Host discretion should also be explained in the Live Thread for group transparency. That’s how we avoid unilateral decisions.
4. Members can be cut off for time-hijacking at the top of the hour or discussing something completely unrelated like ranting about tasty tacos for 30 minutes. Time hijacking at the top of the hour can be prevented altogether through these methods:
– Hosts communicate with the person who is sharing 5-10 minutes prior to the end of the hour and inform members that their Hosting shift is ending.
– A member can be asked if they want to share during the next hour.
C. BM Response
1. Maya-We should not pick and choose who we cut off. Even if people are sharing for 25 minutes, they are allowed to do so.
2. Kristen-Went over the current GC of holding a mini-GC in the Live Thread whenever situations like this arise.
3. Danielle-There are kind ways to redirect shares, and we don’t immediately need to cut people off or mute them. Even if people get cut off or redirected, the Host can still offer feedback to the member who shared. Jamie and Danielle both reminded the group that Hosts can show compassion to the member regardless of redirection. Giving feedback is important.
4. Lauren reminded everyone that we have group approved methods for cutting off and redirecting members on the Website. Those sections of the Website are updated and current.
5. Lauren motioned to include the share redirection GC and reminders from the BM in the group announcement. This topic is also remanded to the Host Feedback committee to address at the Workshop.
– Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VII. Revisiting Old GC (July SC Meeting)
A. Lauren: A couple of old GC’s were brought to my attention. The group can decide to keep these GC’s in place, change them, or remove them.
1. Motion Passed: Service members will receive a strike if they miss 3 service commitments in 30 days (no call, no show); hosts must notify Leona with no shows. (9/12/2021)
2. The other one involved the Announcement Thread. A member informed me that the Announcement Thread used to be mandatory. People had to read what was in the thread and reply to whatever was posted to ensure everyone’s understanding and comprehension.
B. BM Response
1. Jamie-Supports the strike rule for No Shows. Communicating absences is important.
2. Lisa-It can be hard to explain the threads to everyone. Trainers do their best to explain the threads to new members. When the guidelines are fully complete and cohesive, they can be helpful to the trainers. Trainers explain the purpose of the Announcement Thread.
3. Danielle-Maybe the Announcement Thread shouldn’t be required, but there could be more reminders given to read the announcements.
4. Lauren motioned to keep the strike policy in place. If a service team member is a “No Show,” and one does not communicate one’s absence 3 times within a month, the member will be given a strike.
– The GC regarding Hosts tagging “No Shows” in the REQ Thread is still applicable along with the 7-day absence rule for regular service team members.
– Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
5. Lauren motioned to remove the mandatory responses within the Group Announcement thread. The Announcement Thread remains optional.
VIII. Service Thread Maintenance (July SC Feedback)
A. Leona: The GUTS thread is kinda like the fellowship thread for all service people. Any questions, discussions, FYI’s are posted here. It has 64 participants in it. The GUTS Announcements thread is for announcements from the Business Meeting and Polls for all service people. It has 72 participants in it. The GUTS Live Co/Host Chat is for posts during the meeting for all service people. It has 75 participants in it. The GUTS Schedule/Topics thread is for the Topics and Schedules posts for all service people. It has 74 participants in it. The Current & Daily Sched Req thread is for Schedule changes for all service people. It has 73 participants in it. When people are brought into service, the schedulers are supposed to add them to all 5 threads. They are all service threads. It was my understanding that only the schedulers and the thread admin were to be admins for the service threads. The only exception is the GUTS Schedule/Topics thread which also has the two topics people also. When people leave service, they should be removed from all of the service threads because they are no longer in service. If people do not want to be a part of one of the threads, like the GUTS thread, they can leave the thread. It appears there are people in service that are not in the GUTS thread. There are people in the threads that are no longer in service. There are admins that are no longer in service. There are admins that are no longer in those positions. I have a feeling the Thread Admin is not aware of all of this. The Thread admins are supposed to work with the schedulers to find out who needs to be removed or added. Service members for the regular meeting are required to be in the Live Thread and scheduling threads. People can leave the GUTS thread and Announcement Thread. Some of the GC differs for Sister Meeting service members, but they are allowed to be in all service threads. Thread admins can also remove members based on severe cases of harassment or infighting. I suggest guidelines be set up on what the service threads are, what each thread is for. And the guidelines should include who does what.
1. Lauren: For the sake of clarity and organization, I posted a couple of documents in the SC Thread for review. These documents include descriptions of the various WhatsApp Threads, their purposes, and the GC that goes along with Thread maintenance. I held onto the “Service Practices” document to ensure that it stayed current. It includes Scheduling GC and the functioning of the WhatsApp threads too.
B. Update
1. July SC Meeting: Lisa argued that there needs to be more communication about what these positions (thread admin/scheduling) entail. First things first, she suggested that the thread admins and schedulers work together to do an overhaul of the threads and do a little spring cleaning. After that, work on the maintenance. She also emphasized Kristen’s point in Topic III about members attending the Business Meetings and reading the notes/documents that are posted. Sometimes, members don’t know why these positions were created because of the low attendance at Business Meetings/Steering Committee Meetings. The thread admin positions were created to help the schedulers. Schedulers’ top priority is to focus on scheduling people every day, and it’s a hefty job. The group understands how much time and work goes into scheduling.
2. An overhaul is completely necessary, and maybe this could be a solution that is offered when we give an update to the group. Perhaps, we can encourage the schedulers and Thread Admins to attend the business meeting and read over the WhatsApp Document that was created. The document outlines the specific GC for the various threads and scheduling. There is a TON of GC to navigate including the Old GC that we need to revisit.
C. 5 Service Threads
1. ALL service team members are allowed to be included in these threads. Members completing service team positions under any capacity are allowed in the threads. If a member is no longer doing service in any capacity for the group, the schedulers/thread admin must remove the individual from ALL service threads per GC.
2. GUTS Thread: This is a Fellowship thread for the service team. This is the place for service team discussions, answering questions, and information pertinent to the group. Also, this thread can be used for the service team to post pictures, share a joke, send readings/poems/quotes, or any other Fellowship related content.
– This Thread is not mandatory for service team members.
3. GUTS Announcement Thread: This is not a Fellowship Thread. This thread is used to update the group on important matters and communicate group-related information. This thread is used to keep people in the loop and inform the service team of any changes in GC.
– This thread is not mandatory for service team members.
4. GUTS Live Co/Host Chat (Live Thread): This thread is used for communication purposes amongst Hosts and Cohosts during the regular meeting. This is not a Fellowship thread; however, members are allowed to joke around and have fun while doing their service work. We are not a glum lot. There is specified GC in place for the Live Thread.
– This thread is mandatory for ALL members participating in the regular meeting.
– Exceptions are allowed for Sister Meeting members or others completing alternate service positions. They can help when the need arises, but they must tag the schedulers to let them know that they are participating. If a non-regular meeting service member is consistently jumping in to help, they must start providing availability to the schedulers and follow scheduling GC.
– Only scheduled members should be posting in the Live Thread. There are a few group-approved exceptions.
· Other members can help a newer service team member if they have a question.
· There is a tech/GC issue that requires attention.
· A fellow service team spots a safety/bomber issue within the meeting.
· A member wants to jump in and help out.
· A relevant group update is given for the sake of communication.
5. Current & Daily SCHED REQ: This thread should be used for scheduling purposes ONLY. The purpose of this thread is to provide availability for the schedulers. This is where members can communicate their absences, fill in open slots, or swap shifts.
– This thread is mandatory for ALL members participating in the regular meeting.
– Exceptions are allowed for Sister Meeting members or others completing alternate service positions.
D. Overhaul
1. I have some suggestions for the overhaul. The method will belong to the Thread Admins. I am hoping that this can help.
2. Non-SC Thread Admin/SC Thread Admin: Regarding the overhaul, I would suggest starting with a list, provided by schedulers, of everyone in active service. Create a checklist for all of the threads. Make sure that each person is placed in the mandatory threads and ask each person whether or not they want to be included in the optional threads.
3. Then, ask for another list, provided by Lisa or Lauren, of all the members in service leadership/sister meetings. Create a checklist for those who are not in the regular meeting. Ask each person whether or not they want to be included in the threads. Periodically check the GC for each of the threads to ensure that every member is properly placed. If anyone has any problems regarding the thread GC, inform these members of our current GC and direct them to the SC Feedback with any concerns.
4. Check each thread and make sure that the admins reflect our current schedulers/Thread Admins. Remove anyone else’s Admin permissions.
E. SC Thread Admin
1. For the SC Thread Admin, Dennis’s term ends 8/12/2023. I forgot to include his position in the nominations. However, Dennis was not given Admin permissions, therefore, he was unable to complete the duties of a Thread Admin. I motion to allow his term to start now since he will be in the SC for the next six months, which is a full term for a Thread Admin too.
– Dennis agreed to start his term. He needs to be given Admin permissions on all service threads.
– Seconded and Passed (11 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
2. For the SC Thread Admin, work with the other Admin to do the overhaul. Specifically, SC Thread Admin can create a checklist for everyone in service who are not in the SC Thread. Invite each person to the SC Thread. This can be a great way to include more people in our meeting’s business. Non-SC Thread Admin cannot invite anyone to the SC Thread because they are not SC members; thus, they are not admins of the SC Thread.
F. Maintenance
1. After these lists are created, this should shed light on who is not on the service team under any capacity. Those people would be removed from all of the threads. If any accidental removals occur, simply add them back. Mistakes happen.
2. For maintenance, simply check in with the schedulers each week to see if any removals are necessary. For the other service positions, check in with Lauren or Lisa each month. These lists can be passed to future Thread Admins.
G. BM Response
1. Lisa-Brought up extenuating circumstances for regular service team members who can’t participate once a week. She said that she was aware of certain individuals who need longer than a week before returning to service.
2. Lauren’s Side Note- I will give an overview of the GC that we have in place.
– Our current GC is removal after 7 consecutive days of no service participation under any capacity, members are unresponsive to the scheduling team, or have not communicated that they will be absent. As long as members communicate with our scheduling team that they are going to be absent longer than the 7 days, then they should not be removed. We are still an understanding group, and we want people to participate.
– The group allows some leeway for medical issues and communicated reasoning for not participating, but any reasoning that includes an extended period of absence (Past 30 days per the July 2022 BM Notes) means removal. People might need that time to get healthy, have a break, or other purposes may play a factor, and there is nothing wrong with that. We wanted people to reacquaint themselves with the meeting, and a long-term absence can create confusion. We also agreed that extenuating circumstances that include a prolonged absence from service participation can be given through the SC feedback for group discussion and approval because we wanted to give further leeway.
– Under normal circumstances, when a member does not communicate during the 7-day period of time, or their absence is long-term (Past 30 days), then, they are removed from the service threads, and they are no longer scheduled. When they can come back on a more consistent basis, they are welcomed back through our return to service protocol. We are happy to have members come back! The reasoning for this, based on previous group discussion, is not intended to be mean, strict, or exclusionary. A prolonged absence from the meeting means that a refresher regarding the meeting functioning and updated GC might be needed when returning to service. We have this GC in place to prevent rage-quitting (which used to be a bigger problem back then), and there’s an understanding that service work is a commitment/responsibility. We started valuing consistency within the group and taking it a bit more seriously.
– There are exceptions for those who are involved in the Sister Meetings and other service positions. There are members on our service team who provide service work that does not involve Hosting/Cohosting. We value service work that gets done in any shape or form. Some service positions take hours of time and work to accomplish. (This section is referring to the Feb 2023 BM)
– Context for the GC: When I was starting out my first term as BM Chair, this is a GC that the group discussed, at length. We would go over this GC anytime we had a topic regarding scheduling. Whenever we tried to change this GC, everything became too complicated, murky, and unclear. There were too many varied opinions and different solutions that were brought to the group. We couldn’t get a unified solution. The only agreement was keeping the GC intact. Members often discussed this GC and the reasoning behind it. I backtracked to where the group went over this GC. I realized that I didn’t include it in the notes due to being extremely ill during the December BM. If the group would like to go over this GC again, we can do that and properly document this GC. It was supposed to be in the December BM Notes, and I apologize that it isn’t there.
Tabled
I. Mandatory Business Meeting Attendance for Service Leadership
A. Kristen proposed this topic as a result of the content from the feedback from Topic II. The connection she made involved the low attendance for Business Meetings and Steering Committee meetings alongside not reading the notes. The group discusses these new service positions, at length, at the Business Meetings. The notes that are posted are detailed and serve the purpose of fostering communication. Kristen made the point that the responsibility to attend the meetings and read the notes belongs to each individual. Complaints, confusion, and misunderstandings can be reduced greatly when taking the initiative to be a part of the meeting’s business. We go to great lengths to inform the group of changes, and the service position duties are outlined very clearly through the attendees of meetings and the written notes/announcements.
B. SC Response
1. Kristen proposed for the required Business Meeting attendance from members who have been elected to a service leadership position. However, circumstantial leeway could be given. She understands that people can’t attend every single business meeting. Absences should be the exception and not occur regularly. She emphasized that our leadership positions are a commitment and staying updated with meeting business is our responsibility.
2. Lisa and Amy both seemed to agree that it would be difficult for members to feel encouraged to be involved in meeting business when they are required to do so. Lisa emphasized that we are having a rough time filling empty service positions. Required Business Meeting attendance may discourage members from service leadership. Lisa suggested that more communication with members who are entering new service positions might be needed. Explaining the duties of these positions to new members hasn’t been happening.
3. Amy pointed out that we no longer require new members to cohost 3 scheduled shifts for the first two weeks per the June BM. The reason behind removing this previous GC was to allow for inclusion for our service team’s availability. For the sake of consistency, she suggested that we should not require business meeting attendance.
4. Lauren’s Side Note 1: Both sides made strong arguments and I understand both sides of the equation. I would like to emphasize that members are going to be out of the loop if they do not attend our BM’s/SC Meetings. Assumptions get made and misinformation spreads around the group due to a lack of attendance or participation which can be a problem. I strongly agree with the principles and values behind Kristen’s argument. I also agree that leniency with people’s schedules should be allowed. I want people to feel encouraged and willing rather than pressured to attend. Also, I think it will be hard to enforce or keep track of everyone’s attendance. Perhaps, the group can find a creative solution or middle ground for this topic.
5. Lauren’s Side Note 2: Furthermore, I would like to include that misunderstandings and confusion can be avoided when people ask questions. When members start new service positions, I have witnessed people staying silent on many occasions. That silence leads to inactivity. No one will be mad at anyone who asks questions. We are all here to help because that’s what we do in this group. I am happy to talk to anyone who has any concerns or questions about the meeting’s business. There have been many resolutions and insights through the very few members who have directly messaged me. It keeps me accountable, allows for mistakes to be fixed, and issues can be resolved. I am incredibly grateful to the members who have come to me regarding meeting business and will continue to be available.
II. Wording in “HIW”
A. Jason W: We need to or can we please change the "men and women" to the "people" reference in how it works to be in line with the more open and inclusive term used in the preamble as approved by AA.
B. SC Response
1. Dennis argued that HIW is directly taken from the Big Book and that we should not alter the wording. Not altering the wording of the first 164 pages of the Big Book has been discussed by GSO. He urged that this is more of an AA level issue that could be brought to them.
2. Jeremy made the point that this change should happen at the AA level. He has no issue with the principle behind changing the wording or the inclusion of the wording. The wording should be changed at the AA level and then brought to individual groups. He agreed that he would abide by the group’s decision, but he feels strongly that we should not alter the wording. Jeremy felt that altering the language for HIW in the meeting might not stop at this one phrase.
3. Maya argued that using “men and women” rather than “people” can create exclusion for our non-binary members. The language in AA can chase people off, and we want as many people to be comfortable in the meeting as possible. If we want to be consistent with our inclusion for group members, then changing the wording to “people” should not be a problem. Discrimination against non-binary people isn’t always as blatant as an offensive term. Language matters.
4. Kristen made the point that the autonomy of groups and group conscience can allow for a change like this within the meeting. Making this kind of change is not new for groups. She made the point that there are many people who read HIW change the wording while they read. We don’t stop people from reading HIW differently than the wording that is screenshared. The way people read HIW applies to one’s individual recovery because we do not govern. Also, Changes start within groups. Inclusion/progress can be made when each group chooses that option with their group’s consciences.
5. Amy pointed out that it’s one word, and it’s a simple solution for inclusivity and having a welcoming environment for all of our attendees.