Guts Business Meeting – 10/01/2023

October 1st Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair: Lauren

BM Co-Chair: Lisa

Secretary: Lauren

1. Treasurer’s Report-Elle

1. Zoom fees are due in November. Elle has been storing $250 each month to prepare for the upcoming payment. She went over the screenshared document and took questions.

1. Thomas-What is the leanest month of the year? The summer looks like it dropped off a bit. There’s not quite enough data to say.  Elle told him that July was probably the lowest month.
2. Dennis-Are we going to determine an H&I? Elle told him that we are currently on a waiting list to become an official group. We might want to consider an H&I in District 4 Area 12. She also said that we can open an account with GSO and buy books through them.
3. Mark P-He inquired about GiveButter and wondered if we have seen an increase or decrease in contributions. He was confused by it, at first, but he figured out a way to make a reoccurring payment. He wondered if GiveButter has made contributions easier for people. Elle-There was an initial drop because there tends to be a learning curve when we introduce something new to the group. There has been a steady increase since then. Would love it if Hosts could mention that there are many forms of payment through GiveButter. Having the accounts through this link simplifies some of the work for the Treasurer.

2. Motion to approve Treasurer’s Report.

• Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

2. ORC Report-Del

1. 3 Big Books, 5 12&12’s, and 6 coins. ORC was able to provide an English speaker the literature in English as they were struggling to find it in Germany. We approved international orders; so, we provided a text to someone who really appreciated the service. There is a section on Hazelden for tax exemption status.  Can Elle possibly look into how we can make that happen. 
2. The original budget for the third quarter was $245.75. The group voted to allocate more funds for coverage purposes. They only went over $25.58. We needed to pull the ORC announcement last month, but it can go back now.
3. Elle said that she would look into the tax exemption status situation on Hazelden.

3. Committee Reports

1. Host Feedback Workshop

1. Lisa wants to motion to have these dates for the Workshop.

• 10/22 11amPST-Lisa
• 10/25 9pmPST Training room-Kristen
• 10/28 3:30pmPST-Mary Mc
• 11/5 3pmPST-Mary Mc

2. Motion to approve the dates.

• Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

2. 4^th Step Workshop-No one

1. Lauren (Side Note): I will spearhead this committee when my terms are over and take an active role in getting this accomplished for the group.

3. Anniversary Committee-Amy

1. Needs to get some input from others to get this done. Inquired about the previous people who helped with the anniversary last year. She said that she would ask the members what they did and then go from there. 
2. Lauren-Al, Mary Mac, and I worked on the committee. I have lots of info from last anniversary still saved on my phone.

4. Ban Guidelines

1. Lauren: Hoped that the group could give a group conscience vote for the guidelines in sections. We won’t be able to get through them all because they are long. We will go through some sections and then save the rest for next month. Lauren went over the purpose of bans, the reasoning for bans, and gradual ban sections. Dennis went over the appeal process for bans and how they are handled during a Business Meeting setting. Then, Lauren opened up for questions/suggestions.

1. Thomas-Have we clarified the boundaries for bans; are they outlined in the Guidelines? He wanted to make sure that we aren’t issuing bans lightly. 

• Lauren-Yes, there’s a section on limitations for bans and the complaints being issued. That will be the next section that we go over. Lauren went over a couple of points that were in the Purpose of Bans section. Bans are not Band-Aids and are not to be given out lightly. Some of these bans are necessary in cases in which someone has a restraining order against another member. That is an issue this group has faced in the past.

2. Jaymee-Referred to the guidelines, “Bans are not for those who cause minor conflict intermittently.” When all previous methods have failed, that’s when a ban can be issued. 

• Jaymee(Chat): For the bans, it is to assist the meeting in creating a healthy environment for recovery. If someone endangers that, that is why we have the guidelines.

3. Dennis: Reiterated that we do not ban anyone from AA.  But groups can ban folks in the interest of the group safety and self-preservation.  If we ban someone, we can always give them a link to other meetings.

• Lauren-Agreed with Dennis and emphasized the section in the Purpose of Bans that states that we do not have the right or power to ban anyone from AA as a whole. We can, per the Safety Card, ask someone to leave our meeting. Having timeframes for bans means that they are not permanent excepting the most severe cases. 

4. AnaMaria: Are we doing it with love and compassion and without harshness or anger.  We must make sure that we are doing it compassionately. Even if people show up to a meeting, that means that they must have some type of self-awareness and want to improve their behavior. Doesn’t know how many we have banned so far.

• Lauren-Yes, all bans go through the group. The group has banned 4 people, and it was done through the group. So, the group sort of handles everything collectively. We don’t issue bans privately because we have to make sure that the group has approved the ban. Private bans have been discussed but can be a safety problem and construed as a unilateral decision. The limitations for bans are there to ensure the group doesn’t just ban others out of resentment. The same idea applies to service strikes as well. They have to be done in a Business Meeting setting.

5. Motion to approve these sections in the Ban Guidelines.

• Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

2. Limitations for Bans

1. The group seemed to get behind the limitations and felt that they were fair boundaries to set for complaints and bans. Lauren explained that the complaints were included because they are part of the ban process. Handling complaints is a challenge for those who endeavor to do service leadership in the group. These limitations can help give the leadership positions some group-approved methods for handling complaints in the group. I will highlight some of them in the notes because they address problems with complaints that arise a lot. I know it’s wordy, but it’s important to show the thought-process that went into creating these guidelines. It’s a way to understand how these guidelines were deliberated and executed. 
2. This is one of the most important sections. This is a good limitation for complaints to make sure that we are being fair and compassionate whenever conflict arises. To sum it up, this GC means that no 3^rd party complaints will be considered. This section also allows Chairpersons can protect anonymity when a complaint is made while understanding that some validity is necessary. It was a thoroughly thought-out GC that also considers that people’s complaints need to include behavior in which someone was directly affected. People have to speak for themselves, or they can have one other person to speak for them if the person complaining is unable to attend. That way, a whole group of people isn’t singling one person out. We have a GC that when people do not show up to defend their complaint, the complaint is tabled. This guideline is based on that Group Conscience vote, and the development of this guideline is an expansion on that particular GC. To make these guidelines, I used a lot of previous GC votes that are already in place. Ban Guidelines: Complaints must be made by a person who was directly affected. The complaint can’t come from a secondary person unless permission is explicitly stated and given by the primary person. The individual must place SC feedback and use their own name. 

• (Condition) The BM Chair or SC Chair do not have to use the individual’s name in the agenda to protect anonymity, but the SC feedback must have their own name attached for security purposes and validity. The person issuing a complaint can request to not have their name revealed in a Business Meeting setting. 
• (Example): If someone says, “I want my sponsor or *named person* to speak for me at the Business Meeting,” that is an appropriate request to make. The same person can request that their name is not used in the BM. 
• This is a fair balance in protecting the anonymity of those who come forward with complaints and also making sure that there is some credibility. This is an extra measure to show compassion to those who are issuing complaints and make sure that they are taken seriously too.

3. This part goes along with the current GC about service members not making unilateral decisions. Service leadership positions are expected to follow the group’s way of handling conflict and not take matters into their own hands. Service leadership positions are given the group’s trust to follow-through on what the group decides to do. Ban Guidelines: All SC members must read/facilitate these guidelines and remember that all decisions regarding banning are made by the group. Any unilateral decisions regarding bans, strikes, or complaints can result in group review. Potential removal can occur when trusted servants do not comply with group-approved methods.
4. This goes along with other guidelines that have been created for this group. Hearsay can be extremely damaging to others. One member brought this same idea up during the BM and how harmful gossip can be when people are just trying to recover and stay sober. We shouldn’t use “He said” “She said” as a reasoning to issue a ban, strike, etc. Hearsay is a fallacy. When we want to use objective reasoning, avoiding hearsay is a great way to move towards looking at principles over personalities. This is a way to prevent resentful feedback from being lodged towards others. If we were to allow anyone to use hearsay as a reasoning for bans, anyone could post feedback regarding banning people they don’t like and that could be disastrous for the unity of the group. We need more to go on than just hearsay. There are some cons to this because people may feel like they need to defend others in one way or another; ultimately, this was the more ideal route to take because there’s more consistency and fairness to everyone involved in complaints. It might mean some tough boundaries being set sometimes, but hearsay running rampant is far worse and leads to more consequences for the group to face. Chairpersons are really going to have to understand neutrality in situations. Ban Guidelines: Hearsay should play no part in the consideration of a ban.

• To give perspective on that idea, if we had allowed hearsay to determine a ban, removed bias entirely, and treated everyone consistently and equally, 3 members would have been banned/given strikes at the Business Meeting. All three issued feedback and reported problematic behavior against each other, and we would have to treat them equally. All three would have been asked to leave the meeting based on just simply going along with anyone who reports problematic behavior. Removing hearsay from the equation is the more compassionate approach even if it does not appear so. It means more objective reasoning for issuing bans. Using this method in this particular BM meant that all 3 members retained their seats in the meeting, and the 3^rd tradition was upheld. There has to be some credibility when there are complaints. Removing credibility entirely leads to more bans and less tolerance. The upside of it would mean that everyone is treated consistently, but it’s too harsh of an outcome and not an AA way of handling situations. I am not implying that we ignore or disbelieve the complaints by disallowing hearsay; I am saying that there needs to be a little bit more validity when a ban is on the table. Please try to understand that I was 100% objective when deliberating this guideline. I had to consider the implications of hearsay which can be monumentally detrimental. The cons of this means that some people are going to have resentments towards each other, and they will have to use recovery solutions. Had the group picked one side over the other or took punitive measures for conflict on either end, that would show bias and breaks neutrality. Disallowing hearsay is the most neutral decision that could have been made. It gives everyone a fair chance. I know I went on a tangent, but I want to be very clear about what this all entails and give reasoning.

5. This guideline addresses compassion to those who issue complaints while giving the group the power to have the full feedback given. Part of staying neutral in leadership means understanding how feedback can hurt people on both ends of conflict. Handling conflict means moving beyond a binary mentality. There are times when it is appropriate to reword feedback to create more solution-based discussions and to protect the anonymity of those who are involved in conflict. Sometimes, when Chairpersons reword feedback, it can come across as passive aggressive, even when it’s not intended that way. Chairpersons still have the responsibility of addressing behavior when writing out the feedback and sticking to the message of the person who is issuing a complaint regardless of how a chairperson might feel about the situation. Understanding that Chairpersons are often the harbinger of bad news can shed light on what the role entails. However, there are times when leadership positions can’t speak for others. Members need to have the ability to speak on their own behalf. It’s a hard balance and difficult decisions are made. There is no perfect way to do this. Mostly, this guideline was developed to give the Chairpersons some wiggle room while maintaining group power because Chairpersons’ roles are not to be authoritarian or controlling. This guideline addresses that gray area involved with these positions. Ban Gudelines-BM Chair/SC Chair: Divisive or controversial feedback does not need to be posted verbatim and can be facilitated with delicacy, caution, and compassion. However, the Chairperson must reveal that they did not use the exact wording, give context, and reference the SC feedback when placing it in the agenda. Chairpersons are still responsible for offering transparency.

• (Condition) The group can request the full feedback through a GC vote. The chairperson must give the group this option.
• (Condition) Chairpersons still have the option of posting feedback verbatim to avoid misrepresentation and allow people to speak for themselves too.

6. Motion to approve the limitations on Bans.

• Seconded and Passed (15 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

3. Dating Versus 13^th Stepping

1. The content from the August 20 BM was remanded to the Ban Guidelines Committee. A section in the Guidelines that addresses what was discussed at that meeting was created to show future leadership positions that this issue was discussed and the group perspective on the topics. This section serves as a guide and not a way to shut people down when bringing forward complaints. The only one that serves as a clear-cut definition and boundary would be number 2 because the group needs a consensus on this topic to prevent further disunity. 
2. The committee felt that having a definition of 13^th stepping clarified and approved by the group might be needed. This would be an established boundary to ensure that the group cannot overstep into the private lives of its attendees. Group approved definition of 13^th stepping: 13th stepping occurs when a more experienced member of AA with longer sobriety time actively pursues newcomers (less than 1 year of sobriety) in a predatory or targeted manner.

• This can include non-consensual and unwanted romantic advances from other members regardless of sobriety time.
• Service team members using their position to become inappropriately involved with attendees and newcomers.
• This does not include consensual dating. 

3. Group discussion

• Thomas: What is consensual dating?  Do we have guidelines on gossip and how to keep people from starting rumors?  This is a lot to read and it’s hard to read.
• Lauren (Side note): When two people agree to be in a relationship. Both willingly give permission to engage in romantic endeavors. I used the word “consensual” to simply mean two willing and permitting partners. I was trying to be concise and straightforward when it came to the definition and be inclusive of the discussion that took place during the August 20 BM. I went over a few sections in the guidelines that addressed gossip, hearsay, and protecting the private lives of our attendees.
• Kristen: We cannot seem to get on the same page regarding how someone’s personal life bleeds into the meeting. I assume that we’ll be moving forward we’ll be using these guidelines on a case-by-case basis. We don’t want to use these guidelines to shut people down when they are bringing up concerns. She wants to make sure that people don’t use it as a strict way to tell people they can’t make complaints or be dismissive when people are offering feedback.
• Lauren (Side Note): Hopefully, it will encompass what the word states: a guideline. That’s what this section is intended to be. It is a way for leadership positions to understand context and show that the group has experience with this issue. I agree with Kristen regarding not shutting people down when concerns are raised. I like that she pointed that out. I had a deep concern about the guidelines being mishandled that I expressed prior to creating the edited version, but I have to trust that leadership positions will handle these issues with delicacy, neutrality, and kindness. I am hoping the gossip section will also address what Kristen talked about in which people’s private business bleeds into the group. There’s a fine line between protecting people’s private business and harmful gossip hurts the service team and the group. These are difficult challenges to navigate. The group will have to be cautious when dealing with complaints that are pertinent to these sections of the guidelines. 
• After a few shares, Lauren redirected members to the discussion at hand and gave a reminder to stay constructive and solution-based when it comes to difficult conversations. I will not be disclosing that discussion in the notes to protect anonymity and to prevent further hurt.

4. Motion to approve the definition.

1. Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

4. Wording in “HIW” (July SC Feedback)

1. 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.
2. SC Response (July SC Meeting)

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. 

3. SC Response (August SC Meeting)

1. Dennis proposed that Maya or a group-appointed person can propose this change at the GSO conference. He asked that the group gives support in this endeavor.
2. Lauren-I think this is a great idea. If we decide to do this, maybe they can bring the notes to the conference to show the group’s support.
3. Elle pointed out that AA in Cleveland made a revision to the preamble, and it was approved. She read a section from Bill W’s Letter. We can change for the better, forever. The ideas and points from that letter can still apply to the “HIW” topic.
4. Jeremy-Take to the group. He thought about this topic more and wants newcomers to feel more comfortable. He understands that we are changing the way it’s read and not the literature itself.

4. September SC Meeting

1. SC Thread (9/8/2023)

• Our Intergroup Representative has been very busy the past couple of days. I have some info to bring forward that is time sensitive. This is regarding the changing of the wording in “HIW” from “men and women” to “people.” Theoretically, if we changed it on our own just for the meeting, we wouldn’t be an AA meeting because HIW is copyrighted. If we do something like this, then they can take us off the Intergroup listing online. It’s kind of a lesson in the 4th tradition. Yes, we are autonomous, but there’s the second part of the tradition…This is a good example of something that would affect other groups and AA as a whole. We can go through the procedure to get it changed like it was in the Preamble. (It’s similar to the process that SC Member 1 discussed at the August SC meeting.) If we want to facilitate this topic, we will have to submit it as a conference agenda item. The deadline for this year is in 4 days. With SC approval, I would like to submit the form to facilitate our BM topic. We will need a majority vote for something like this. If not, we can wait a year to have this topic go through the BM process. We can wait to submit this form until it can be approved at a BM. It’s up to all of you. 

2. This topic was tabled at two Business Meetings but was addressed during two Steering Committee meetings. Sarah S provided the information that I posted in the SC Thread, and the motion passed. Thank you, Sarah, for looking into this. Your service is greatly appreciated. I proceeded to submit the form due to an impending deadline. On an exciting note, I have received confirmation via email that the form was successfully submitted. If our agenda item remains undiscussed, we have the option to submit another form next year. Ideally, a group vote at a Business Meeting would be the preferred approach to keep in mind for next year. 

5. SC Response (September SC Meeting)

1. Dennis: Initially opposed the changing of “HIW” at the group level. He encouraged the group to go through the necessary outlets for the change to happen. He also hoped Maya would attend the conference to give her perspective too. Anyone can submit a form to GSO for a topic. He understood that we had a deadline for this to get done. We always have next year to submit the form again. 

• Lauren: Had there been more time, I would have preferred for this to go through the BM process and had more individual members involved in the submission. This is something we can keep in mind for next year.

2. Jeremy: Agreed with Dennis and initially opposed the changing of “HIW” too. Sending the form to GSO was the right thing to do. We still have feedback on the table that needs to be discussed by the group. The feedback itself still needs facilitation by having a group vote at the Business Meeting. We can bring all the information that we have about this topic and motion to not change the wording until it’s approved by AA.
3. October BM Response

1. Dennis-Reiterated what he said in the notes. If it doesn’t get approved this time, we can always try again next year. We can keep trying until we are satisfied with the results. Dennis made it clear that we had a limited timeframe to get the form submitted.
2. Maya-Totally agrees that it should go through AA and thanked us for doing the work to make this happen.
3. Thomas-Disagreed with the changing of the words in the Big Book because it can lead to a slippery slope. Many view the literature as divinely inspired and changing the wording can create a lot of damage. Suggested getting a GC vote from the district for this group. He also suggested making a phone call to those who work there to get insight from those who have more experience. He worried about SC making decisions like this.
4. Jeremy-Agreed with Thomas and felt that changing words in the Big Book could become a slippery slope. If we submit it to GSO and they discuss it, then it supports the primary purpose. This was done in the proper way to facilitate the feedback that was given to our group. Regardless of people’s identity-alcoholics are alcoholics. That’s the identity that we all share. Jeremy seconded the original motion.
5. Members continued to discuss the principle behind changing the wording and the inclusivity. 

6. Motion to not change the wording unless it’s a change that is enacted through AA.

1. Seconded and Passed (17 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

5. Group Review of SC Members/Response to Complaints

1. There were quite a few complaints regarding SC behavior. The SC agreed to handle these complaints with caution and delicacy when bringing the info to the BM. I will not be posting the complaints in the notes for the sake of compassion. The complaints were screenshared during the SC Meeting for transparency and to follow-through on the group process for handling complaints. 
2. Points that were made during the SC Meeting

1. Objectively looking at complaints can often be necessary when handling complicated problems within the group. Looking at the principles and behavior itself rather than individual members is important. Fairness is vital when dealing with complex problems. People’s likeability should not be a consideration when looking at situations. When anything is motioned, taking a pause, and considering the principle of the motion can be beneficial. Dissent helps the group with its decision-making and offering dissent can provide growth. Staying constructive, balanced, and thoughtful with both dissent and approval helps the group as a whole. There are many differing opinions in AA; patience, understanding, and respect with the various outlooks in the group may be needed.
2. The Ban Guidelines will be addressing how Chairpersons tackle complaints. These guidelines include a section where service leadership positions can be placed on review when they do not follow group-approved methods. Many of the concerns that were raised in the feedback are addressed in the guidelines. Based on the group’s discussion, more can be added to make sure that complaints are handled properly. They aren’t just guidelines on banning; they also encompass the ways that leadership positions face challenges that arise in the feedback. 

• We are voted into these positions because we are being given the group’s trust to enact and follow their group conscience votes. When that trust is broken, the group needs to look at our behavior and evaluate our positions.

3. Perhaps, the complaints can be remanded to the 4^th step workshop to come up with recovery-based solutions for the group. 
4. This group review encompasses ALL SC members and aims to find constructive solutions for the SC as a whole.

3. Questions for the Group Review of the Steering Committee

1. How can we improve the way the SC conducts future meetings and discussions to align with AA principles and traditions?
2. How can we ensure that the unity and common welfare of the group are maintained despite differing opinions and disagreements?
3. Are there specific actions or measures that need to be taken?
4. Any specifications for the way the SC handles complaints that can be incorporated into the Ban Guidelines?
5. How can we better uphold the value of “principles over personalities” within the group?
6. In what ways can the SC be more loving and tolerant when facing conflict?
7. What can we do to protect the anonymity of the members of the group? Are there any solutions to protect the private lives of our attendees?
8. Are there any limitations the group would like to enact for the SC?

4. Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Resource Coordinator

1. Are there expectations or guidelines that the group should establish for this role?
2. Would the group like to discuss how this position will be defined and carried out going forward? The position is currently attached to the Steering Committee. How would we like to proceed with this position?
3. Is there any kind of training or suggestions that can be offered to help integrate this position into our group?

5. BM Response

1. Thomas-Was told by a SC member that someone was uncomfortable with the flag that he had in his room. It was a symbol of the Holy Roman Empire, and he is a history buff. Thomas took the flag down, but he would like to put it back up. 
2. Lauren-Was a little lost. There should be no reason why he can’t put the flag back up. If he wants to post SC feedback regarding this, he can do so. I am not really sure why that happened. 
3. Maya-There is no reason Thomas should not have his flag up. 
4. Kristen-Looked at the principle of what Thomas was referring to. That the SC can’t overstep its bounds by micromanaging what can be placed in someone’s personal bedroom. 
5. Lisa-Brought up consistency. How can the SC be more consistent when dealing with these kinds of issues?
6. Lauren-I understand the principle behind what Thomas is saying, however, let’s try to get back to the questions that are outlined. SC members should not try to invade someone’s private life by telling people what they can or cannot have in their rooms. I am hoping that we can clarify the DEI Coordinator role because we have GC votes that are pertinent to this position. I know that Maya stated that she no longer wants to participate in the service team. I am not asking to be rude or mean, but I am hoping we can all figure this out as a team and get some clarification.
7. Sarah S: Clarification: Is Maya in service in that position? (Maya said “no” in chat) Secondary question: Can we go back to the drawing board?  It was created in a separate BM, and I’d like to see it brought through the proper channels.  It’s very unique, and it’s important for us to be careful and consider everything about the position through the proper channels. She said that this position could be ground-breaking, but she has never seen anything like this role in any other meeting. She asked if we could go back to the drawing board.
8. Lauren: I did come up with a couple of proposals that could integrate this position into our group that follows our group processes. I read those proposals.
9. Maya-Stated that she does not wish to participate in the service team. She will be doing outreach and offering resources outside of the service team. She did not believe the group was ready for this position and motioned to dissolve the position. 
10. Thomas-It sounds like this position is still in the prototype stage. This kind of role could affect other groups as well. More time and research would be needed for this along with suggestions from more experienced members.
11. Jeremy-Agreed that we need to go back to the drawing board with this position. Seconded Sarah S.
12. Kristen-Wishes we could have a position like this in our group and felt that this could have been a great way to strengthen the unity within the group. Moving forward, let’s try to remember love/tolerance and to remain unified. 

6. Motion to dissolve the DEI Coordinator and go back to the drawing board with the position.

1. Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

6. Nominations

1. Lisa-Motioned to include Mary Mac in the poll. She accepted the nomination past 72 hours. The group must have another scheduler and the open position needs to be filled.

1. Seconded and Passed (14 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

Tabled

1. Thread Overhaul
2. Mandatory Business Meeting Attendance for Service Leadership
3. Hosts/Cohosts Only in Live Thread
4. Specifying Job Roles
5. 24/7 Contact List
6. GC Manual
7. Non-Facilitated Topics