GUTS Business Meeting – 09/06/2026

GUTS Business Meeting Minutes

Business Meeting Chair: Lauren

Business Meeting Co-Chair: Bently

Secretary: Christian
Meeting: September 6^th 2026 11:00am PST

Opening

The meeting opened with a moment of silence followed by the Serenity Prayer, the AA Preamble, and a reading of the Twelve Traditions.

SERVICE & COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Outreach Committee (ORC)

Report presented by: Diana, on behalf of Jason/ORC

August Activity

• 9 medallions were requested and shipped.
• 10 books were requested and shipped.

No additional ORC issues were raised.

2. Treasurer’s Report

Elle was unable to attend due to a power/internet outage.

The Treasurer’s Report was tabled.

Motion: Table the item.
Vote: 12 Yes
Result: PASSED

3. Technology Team Report

Report presented by: Gabi

Update

• The sibling-meeting verification link appears to have been corrected.
• The website has otherwise been operating well.
• Members were asked to notify the Technology Team of any technical issues that arise.

Motion: Approve the Technology Team Report.
Vote: 12 Yes
Result: PASSED

4. GSR Report

Report presented by: Dennis in Jamie’s absence

Dennis provided several updates from the General Service structure.

Updates

• Information was shared concerning upcoming AA material/publication activity and pricing.
• Discussion continues regarding online districts and the broader service structure for online groups.
• Further discussion of the proposed district workshop has been postponed until the applicable guidelines are completed.
• The next Area Assembly was reported as being scheduled for the 26th.

Motion: Approve the GSR Report.
Vote: 13 Yes
Result: PASSED

5. Intergroup Representative Report

Report presented by: Shawna

Update

• The transition identifying Shawna as the new Intergroup Representative is underway.
• Shawna has been communicating with Intergroup regarding the transition.
• GUTS currently has approximately 56 Intergroup listings, including sibling meetings.
• Shawna plans to obtain the identifying codes for all listings and create a master document that can be transferred easily to future Intergroup Representatives.
• Existing listings need to be reviewed for:
  • Meetings that should be removed.
  • Outdated meeting descriptions.
  • Changes to sibling-meeting formats and schedules.
• Shawna will continue following up with Intergroup and report back as the listings are updated.

Motion: Approve the Intergroup Representative Report.
Vote: 12 Yes, 1 No
Result: PASSED

6. Boundaries & Relationships Workshop

Presented by: Kristen / Lauren

The group discussed whether the upcoming Boundaries & Relationships Workshop should be permitted to use literature outside of AA.

Discussion

Members generally supported the use of outside material when it provides useful information concerning boundaries and relationships.

Several members emphasized that:

• AA literature and principles should remain the foundation of the workshop.
• Outside material should supplement rather than replace AA principles.
• Material should not cross into clinical advice or otherwise conflict with the Twelve Traditions.
• Outside literature may be useful when it reinforces or provides additional context for principles already consistent with AA.

Motion: Allow outside literature to be used in the Boundaries & Relationships Workshop.

Vote: 14 Yes, 2 No
Result: PASSED

NOMINATIONS & ELECTIONS

Steering Committee Member — Gabi

Gabi accepted the nomination.

Vote: 16 Yes, 1 No
Result: ELECTED

Steering Committee Member — Diana

Diana accepted the nomination.

Vote: 13 Yes, 1 No
Result: ELECTED

Topics Coordinator — Mike D.

Mike D. accepted a second term as Topics Coordinator.

Vote: 17 Yes
Result: ELECTED

LGBTQIA+ Ethics Committee Member — Bentley

Bentley accepted the position.

Vote: 13 Yes, 2 No
Result: ELECTED

Newcomers Meeting Host — Glenn

Glenn accepted the position.

Vote: 14 Yes
Result: ELECTED

NEW BUSINESS

1. Non-Active Co-Hosts During Service Shifts

Issue

Bentley raised an ongoing concern regarding service members who:

• Check in for their scheduled service commitment.
• Receive co-host permissions.
• Accept an assigned responsibility.
• Subsequently become unavailable or unresponsive for extended periods.
• Fail to respond to messages in the live service thread.

This has resulted in situations where other service members must cover unattended duties, including the waiting room/door and other meeting responsibilities.

The discussion distinguished this issue from a traditional no-call/no-show. The concern involves members who technically report for service but then effectively leave their service position without communicating.

Discussion

Members emphasized:

• Service members are expected to remain available during their commitment.
• Breaks are understandable, but the live thread should be used to communicate when stepping away.
• Other service members should step in when necessary to keep the meeting functioning.
• Service responsibilities should not become territorial; except for functions such as Host and Prompt, service members should assist where needed.
• The underlying issue is communication and availability rather than simply additional training.

Motion

If a scheduled service member cannot be reached through the live thread for more than 15 minutes:

1. The Host may revoke the member’s co-host permissions.
2. The incident will be recorded as a no-call/no-show.
3. Co-host permissions may be restored when the member returns, communicates with the service team, and is again available to perform service.

Vote: 15 Yes
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

2. Ethics Committee Guidelines & Procedures

The group held an extended discussion concerning the operation of the Ethics Committee and clarified several areas of its authority and procedures.

 

1. 1. EC Discretion to Remove Someone From Service During an Investigation

Issue

The existing practice had been understood by some members to require that a person automatically be removed from the service schedule whenever a complaint was filed.

Concern was raised that this could allow:

• Personality conflicts to affect service.
• Minor complaints to trigger unnecessary removal.
• Disgruntled individuals to intentionally cause another member to be removed simply by filing a complaint.

Members emphasized that the Ethics Committee is a trusted service body and should be permitted to evaluate the seriousness of each complaint.

Motion

The Ethics Committee will determine case-by-case whether a complaint warrants temporarily removing the subject of the complaint from service while the matter is being investigated.

Vote: 14 Yes, 2 No
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

1. 1. Maximum Time for Resolving Ethics Committee Matters

Issue

The group discussed how long a person may remain off the service schedule while an Ethics Committee complaint is being investigated.

Members expressed concern that individuals should not remain indefinitely removed from service while a complaint remains unresolved.

Motion

From the point at which the Ethics Committee reviews the complaint and begins notifying/contacting the involved parties:

• The matter must be resolved within a maximum of three weeks.
• The Ethics Committee retains discretion to return someone to service earlier when circumstances warrant.

Vote: 13 Yes, 2 No
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

Related Timeliness Issue

A separate agenda item concerning the general timeliness of Ethics Committee investigations was determined to have been resolved by the three-week rule above.

Motion: Consider the separate timeliness issue resolved by the preceding motion.

Vote: 15 Yes
Result: PASSED

1. 1. Ethics Committee Confidentiality & Anonymity

The group discussed confidentiality after concerns were raised regarding Ethics Committee communications being shared outside the committee.

Members emphasized that confidentiality is fundamental to the Ethics Committee because individuals must be able to raise sensitive concerns without fearing that their identities, statements, or private communications will circulate throughout the group.

EC Member Confidentiality Requirement

Motion: Add a guideline requiring Ethics Committee members to maintain confidentiality regarding Ethics Committee complaints. If an Ethics Committee member breaches that confidentiality/anonymity, the member will be removed from the Ethics Committee.

Vote: 16 Yes
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

Additional Service Consequence for EC Member

A further motion was made that an Ethics Committee member who breaches EC confidentiality should also receive the equivalent of a second strike, resulting in 30 days off service.

Vote: 12 Yes, 2 No
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

1. 1. Anonymity Responsibilities of Individuals Involved in EC Complaints

The group distinguished between:

• A person choosing to disclose their own involvement in a complaint.
• A person revealing the identity or confidential information of another person involved in the complaint.

Discussion emphasized that AA members may choose to break their own anonymity, but should not disclose another person’s identity or confidential participation in an Ethics Committee matter.

Motion

A member involved in an Ethics Committee complaint who breaches another participant’s anonymity/confidentiality will receive a warning for the first offense.

Vote: 15 Yes, no dissent
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

1. 1. Continuation of the Business Meeting

Because the scheduled meeting time was ending while significant business remained unfinished, a motion was made to continue.

Motion: Continue the Business Meeting beyond its scheduled ending time.

Vote: 15 Yes, 2 No
Result: PASSED

1. 3. Ethics Committee Appeal Process

Issue

The Ethics Committee was originally created in part to separate ethics-related complaints from the Steering Committee.

Concern was raised that allowing every dissatisfied complainant to simply appeal an EC decision to the Steering Committee would effectively recreate the system the Ethics Committee was designed to replace.

At the same time, members expressed concern about providing appropriate checks and balances.

Discussion

Several principles emerged:

• The EC should retain substantial autonomy over individual complaints.
• Simply disagreeing with an EC decision should not automatically result in Steering Committee review.
• A member dissatisfied with a decision should first return to the Ethics Committee and seek clarification or reconsideration.
• Complaints alleging that the EC itself violated a guideline, Tradition, or established process are different from simply disagreeing with its decision.
• The Steering Committee should not become a second Ethics Committee.
• If a significant unresolved concern remains, the Business Meeting Chair can determine whether the matter warrants presentation to the full group.

Appeal Process Adopted

The agreed process is:

1. A member dissatisfied with an Ethics Committee decision should first return to the Ethics Committee for clarification/reconsideration.
2. If the matter remains unresolved and the member believes there has been a significant procedural, guideline, or Tradition-related concern, the member may approach the Business Meeting Chair.
3. The Business Meeting Chair will determine whether the matter warrants placement on the Business Meeting agenda for consideration by the group.
4. The Steering Committee is not intended to function as a routine appellate body for Ethics Committee decisions.

Vote: 13 Yes
Result: PASSED — NEW GROUP CONSCIENCE

1. 4. Diana’s Request for Review of Ethics Committee Decision

Background

Diana requested review of the Ethics Committee’s handling of a complaint concerning Joan’s conduct while serving as a co-host.

Diana stated that:

• Joan behaved combatively before, during, and after a marathon-meeting service hour.
• During the meeting, Joan became distressed and indicated that she wanted to drink/go out.
• Diana viewed the behavior as disruptive to the meeting and as a service-related concern rather than merely a personal disagreement.
• Similar incidents had occurred previously.
• Diana was seeking assistance in addressing repeated disruptive behavior rather than specifically seeking a strike against Joan.
• Diana reported that she had not been interviewed by the Ethics Committee before its decision was reached.

Discussion

Members expressed differing views.

Some believed:

• The situation reflected a member experiencing significant distress or a burning desire.
• The appropriate response during the meeting may have been redirection, support, or temporarily relieving the member of service responsibilities.
• The Ethics Committee reasonably determined that the matter did not warrant additional disciplinary action.

Others expressed concern that:

• Conduct occurring while a person is actively serving may legitimately constitute a service issue.
• All parties should be interviewed before an Ethics Committee reaches a determination.
• The complainant should have an opportunity to explain the concern directly rather than having the complaint characterized without that conversation.

The discussion reinforced the need for the Ethics Committee to contact the involved parties during its investigation.

Motion

Uphold the Ethics Committee’s determination and consider the matter resolved.

Vote: 11 Yes
Result: PASSED

The Ethics Committee’s original determination therefore stands.

Going forward, the newly clarified EC procedures and appeal process will govern similar complaints.

1. 5. Sharing GUTS Conflict-Resolution Guidelines With Another AA Group

Lauren reported assisting another AA group with a group inventory. That group is experiencing difficulties with conflict resolution and does not currently have comparable guidelines.

Lauren had offered to share GUTS guidelines but requested permission from the GUTS group before doing so.

Members supported helping another AA group and viewed sharing the material as consistent with AA’s primary purpose.

Motion

Authorize GUTS conflict-resolution/service guidelines to be shared with the other AA group.

Vote: 15 Yes
Result: PASSED

1. 6. Formal Nominations Coordinator Position

Lauren proposed establishing a formal Nominations Coordinator service position for GUTS.

The proposal was intended to formalize responsibility for coordinating nominations and elections rather than continuing to handle the function informally.

GROUP CONSCIENCE — ACTION ITEMS & DECISIONS

The following significant decisions were adopted during this meeting:

1. Inactive Co-Hosts: A service member who is unreachable in the live thread for more than 15 minutes may have co-host permissions revoked and the occurrence recorded as a no-call/no-show.
2. EC Removal From Service: The Ethics Committee has discretion to determine case-by-case whether someone should be temporarily removed from service while a complaint is investigated.
3. Three-Week EC Limit: Ethics Committee matters involving removal from service must be resolved within a maximum of three weeks, with discretion to return someone to service earlier.
4. EC Confidentiality: Ethics Committee members must maintain confidentiality. A breach results in removal from the Ethics Committee.
5. Additional EC Confidentiality Consequence: An EC member who breaches confidentiality receives the equivalent of a second strike/30 days off service.
6. Complaint Participant Anonymity: A member involved in an EC matter who breaches another participant’s anonymity/confidentiality receives a warning for the first offense.
7. EC Appeals: Members should first seek reconsideration/clarification directly from the Ethics Committee. Significant unresolved procedural or Tradition-related concerns may then be brought to the Business Meeting Chair for a determination regarding placement before the group.
8. Diana/Joan Matter: The Ethics Committee’s original determination was upheld and the matter considered resolved.
9. Outside Literature: Outside literature may be used in the Boundaries & Relationships Workshop, provided its use remains consistent with AA principles and the Traditions.
10. Sharing GUTS Guidelines: The group authorized sharing GUTS conflict-resolution/service guidelines with another AA group.
11. Nominations Coordinator: Formalize responsibility for coordinating nominations and elections rather than continuing to handle the function informally.

ELECTION RESULTS

Position	Member	Result
Steering Committee	Gabi	Elected — 16 Yes, 1 No
Steering Committee	Diana	Elected — 13 Yes, 1 No
Topics Coordinator	Mike D.	Elected — 17 Yes
LGBTQIA+ Ethics Committee	Bentley	Elected — 13 Yes, 2 No
Newcomers Meeting Host	Glenn	Elected — 14 Yes

🛑