Guts Business Meeting – 11/05/2023

11/05/2023 Business Meeting Notes

BM Chair: Lauren

BM Co-Chair: Lisa

Secretary: Lauren

SC Members Present: Mark M, Dennis, Kristen, Mark P, Barbara, Lisa, Christian, and Jeremy

1. Treasurer’s Report-Elle

1. Elle was unable to attend. The report for October and November will be covered in the December BM.

2. ORC Report-Del

1. Gave a straightforward report on how many books and coins were given out. 

3. Committee Reports

1. Host Feedback Workshop-Lisa
2. BM Response to Host Workshop

1. Lisa: Two Motions

• Depending on how many people don’t show up, maybe we can hold a 5^th meeting. She reiterated that people can’t Host unless they attend. They will be scheduled as cohosts only. (Seconded and passed, 19 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
• If a sibling meeting host hasn’t attended the workshop, they can’t host the regular meeting, but they can still host during their respective sibling meetings.  (Seconded and passed, 16 Yes Votes/4 No Votes) 

2. Jeremy: Why aren’t Sister Meeting Hosts required to attend? These Hosts give feedback during the meetings, and it is important for them to attend too. 
3. Lisa explained that we never explicitly stated that Sister Meeting Hosts have to attend. It’s already difficult to get Hosts to chair the Sister Meetings. Lisa talked about how the missing spots will be hard to fill in the schedule and wants to be accommodating as possible while considering the accountability for people to show up. Lisa, Mary, Kristen, and Kelly are doing their end of the work. It’s up to the Hosts to respect their time and effort by showing up. 
4. Kristen-Sister Meetings are struggling. There’s a balance between accountability and being inclusive. The second motion was a way to avoid blank spots for the Sister Meetings. This is a necessary Workshop for Hosts. These Workshops are relevant to Hosting; so, Hosts have a responsibility to show up. The group saw a “need” for these Workshops by voting for them, and we are ensuring the follow-through on that need. 
5. Susan-Wanted to know if people who have not attended yet were individually contacted.

• Lisa: She contacted them individually. At some point, we have to recognize that members of this meeting are adults, and we need to respect the time of those who put the work into making these Workshops happen. Not holding 1 meeting per each individual member who didn’t attend. It can become excessive for those who are hosting these workshops. We aren’t people’s parents. She wasn’t saying this to be mean or harsh, but she was expressing the reality of what it means to be accountable. 

6. Mary-We have to get this done. The idea of taking people off the schedule makes her stomach hurt. She tried to encourage people by saying that the Workshops are short and sweet. Mary reiterated the GC that Hosts need to attend one of these Workshops.
7. Jeremy-Agreed with adding one more Workshop. He suggested posting a list of the members who had not shown up. Lisa responded and said that the list could be perceived as putting people on blast or could be construed as hurtful. Jeremy-The list would just be a reminder for people to show up for the sake of accountability, not to be hurtful or accusatory. We don’t want to cause major problems with the meeting by removing people from hosting. He wanted the list to be helpful and to remind those members to show up so that they don’t get removed. Lisa-Understands Jeremy’s reasoning and doesn’t seem to disagree necessarily, but people are people. Even if it’s well-intended, people still get hurt. For the group, she clarified that people are not removed entirely from the schedule, but they won’t be scheduled for hosting. 
8. Mark M-These members have been contacted directly. Lisa has done her due diligence by messaging everyone. He agrees with having 1 more Workshop, but he does not agree with posting the list of members who have not attended.
9. Lynda-What’s the plan going forward? What is the gap period for those who do not attend to await another Workshop?

• Lisa-Wanted to get through the first round of Workshops first. We want to make sure that there will be a need for more Workshops before creating a new batch. If they aren’t effective, then there will be no reason to make more. No contingency plan or back-up plan was created. She said that maybe they could develop some kind of back-up plan based on how many Hosts do not show up. 
• Lisa-11 Hosts did not attend so far. She heard from 7 of them, and they plan to go to the workshop that happens later today. She did not hear from 2 Hosts, but they are not actively hosting anyways. The other two explained that they could not attend due to illness or otherwise. 1 more Workshop would allow those members to attend.

10. Dennis-Does not agree with posting a list because we don’t want to shame people into attending. 
11. Mary-Appealed to the group about LNG and said that they are struggling to fill in positions for the schedule. Having an additional Workshop will help the others who can’t attend today. 
12. Garrett-Wondered if the Hosts that do not attend the Workshop can Host the Sister Meetings while we wait for the next batch of Workshops. He also wondered if they can still fill in the late-night hosting positions too. 
13. Mary-Keep close ties with training. We lost some people on the training, and there was concern because there’s no coordinator. We can send the info from the Workshops to the trainers.

• Lisa-Posted the document for training. Hosts are trained to cover this material. Training can take up to 1 hour- 1 hour and 30 minutes There’s a lot of information that trainers give to the Hosts. These Workshops specifically focus on feedback which is a core aspect of Hosting. Dedicates more time towards this issue.

3. Ban Guidelines-Lauren

1. I forgot to include that Joan’s Ban is over 11/07/2023 in the notes. I apologize for missing that. She is free to come back in two days.
2. We are going to wrap up the rest of the Guidelines and motion to approve them in their entirety. The previous sections of the guidelines were voted on piecemeal because they were specific and more decisive. Each of those sections were discussed and approved.
3. Lauren: I screenshared the Guidelines. I emphasized that the sections that we haven’t voted on were merely, like word states, “guidelines”. These remaining sections are not meant to be taken as strict rules. They are mostly designed to help future Chairpersons deal with challenging situations and show group discussion regarding those issues. They were topics that took place in the BM setting and were built based on the shares during those meetings. They give an overview of the hot button topics that can be extremely divisive for the group. The guidelines give perspective based on members’ shares during Business Meetings. The sections I am referring to are the 13 Stepping VS Predatory Behavior, Gossip VS Private Discussions, and “Safety and the Traditions.” Would we like to discuss the remaining sections or move to vote on establishing the Ban Guidelines in their entirety?
4. Mary and Mark M-Take it to a vote!
5. Motion to approve Guidelines in their entirety. 

• Seconded and Passed (20 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

4. 4th Step Workshop

1. Lauren-I will be taking a more active role in getting this accomplished and asking people to build this committee. 
2. Side Note: The group agreed to hold these workshops semiannually. We are past the due date for one of these workshops. They are not mandatory-No GC was created to require them. They help with the emotionally taxing problems that we face in service work. They help people vent and release pent-up frustrations within reason (Safety Guidelines still apply.) To give people background on it for those who weren’t doing service yet: The first one was back in March. Instead of holding an emergency BM, this was an experimental meeting, and I only had a few days to create it. It was inspired by the fourth step and a way to collectively instill recovery into our service work. I had help from my James (who was my previous Co-Chair), and Elle. It was surprisingly successful. This meeting had acute pain and anger that had been hovering over us for 2 years; it deeply affected people’s service work in the meeting. Once people were able to be honest and vent without judgment, infighting decreased exponentially. I don’t have any numbers for it, but the effects were felt by everyone. Like night and day. Arguing happens from time to time between members, but it is nowhere as bad as it used to be. It used to be, almost, a daily occurrence. We kept having to shut down the chat because members could not get along (Bombers played a role in that, but the infighting was really bad too). People would pointedly share at each other which detracts from the primary purpose. It made the background work and threads very stressful, tense, and the work felt more like hardcore drudgery rather than a reprieve. Instead of feeling spiritually fit after a meeting, many of us felt drained and hurt. Conflict will pop up between people, but how the group recovers, adapts, and grows is what truly matters. So, the group decided that having a 4^th step workshop semiannually could be a productive way to help with the taxing nature of our positions and strengthen the group’s unity through vulnerable emotional bonding. We learned to establish boundaries with people’s behavior and brought ideas from the Workshop to the Business Meeting. This Workshop is incredibly raw and honest. I encourage everyone to attend when this Workshop is established. This Workshop is not easy, but the emotional maturity/growth of our group is worth the effort. 

4. Fellowship Links

1. Kristen suggested adding the Fellowship links to the cohost blurb section of the Website.

1. Susan-Yes, add them to the cohost links. Doing so will expedite everything. 
2. Dennis-Wanted to post the hangout room, but he couldn’t find it. Add the links to the Website. It’s good to let people know that Fellowship is available and how to get there.

2. Motion to add Fellowship material to the Cohost Links.

1. Seconded and Passed (19 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

5. 6-Month Ban 

1. Complaint

1. Kara: Bart needs to go. He makes people feel uncomfortable by making negative comments in the chat and harassing members of our group — in particular, me. There have been several meetings where Bart has targeted things I’ve typed in chat and things I’ve shared in the meeting, and numerous service members can vouch for this. From now on — I will say something to Bart when he says something to me until he is finally banned from meetings. I’m sick of it. (October SC Feedback)

2. SC Response (October SC Meeting)

1. Mark M: Has firsthand experience with this situation. He stated that Bart is a very opinionated guy and a chat meister. He reached out to him personally and talked to him about his behavior multiple times. Bart specifically targets certain women and makes passive aggressive comments towards their shares. He has made comments towards Kara repeatedly. Bart has been booted numerous times. He is aware of the behavior that caused the booting and knows that he has crossed the line many times. Mark suggested placing a ban with an “x” amount of time onto the BM agenda.
2. Jeremy: Wanted to expand on Mark M’s share. Jeremy also spoke to Bart one on one and had to block him because he would not stop. He also saw that Bart would target people and make passive aggressive comments during people’s shares. Jeremy did not post feedback regarding this issue, but he would like to second Mark M’s suggestion to put a ban onto the BM agenda.
3. Christian: He referred to the Ban Guidelines and said that the behavior was exactly like the “6-month” ban section of the guidelines. The guidelines cover passive aggressive commentary, name-calling, bullying, etc. Sounds like this section describes the guy to a “T.”
4. Dennis: Inquired about the process for bans. He wanted to know if they were approved by the group. If they were approved, then we will need a 2/3 majority vote to approve the ban.
5. Lauren (Side Note): After hearing more contextual information about this topic, I observed that male members have reached out to Bart, and they were also mistreated/harassed in the process. I was listening for that, specifically, because part of our Ban Guidelines state, “Bans are issued when all previous efforts failed.” Bart was given numerous chances within the regular meeting, and he was booted for repeated instances of negative crosstalk, passive aggressive commentary, and specifically targeting women. Our common welfare comes first, and our safety guidelines were broken repeatedly, according to the first-hand experience of Kara, Mark M, and Jeremy. I also observed the female members in the chat who spoke to this behavior as well. Their input is recognized too. Section “C” shows the relevant ban length that will be placed onto the agenda.

3. BM Response

1. Susan-Last night, Bart said that he found a new group, and he will be leaving GUTS. As he was sharing, he launched a racist slur towards one of the members of the room. He was cutoff and the host handled the situation beautifully. She referred to a specific incident where she encountered Bart and attempted to redirect the way he was speaking to Kara. She kept the conversation and transparently recited what happened, word for word.
2. Kara-Said that she stated what she needed to say in the complaint. However, she wanted to add that this is a pattern that will not go away. If anything, it’s an issue that keeps accelerating. A Host will chastise Bart, he makes a half-hearted apology, and then he starts ranting about his day. His behavior has extended towards other members. His behavior is not conducive to recovery. He makes her feel uncomfortable. She puts her hand down because Bart will share right after her and state mean comments about her share. She feels that his comments are predatory and targeted.
3. Jeremy-We have had multiple complaints since the SC Meeting. In light of the shares from Susan and Kara, he motioned to indefinitely ban Bart from the meeting.
4. Christian-Seconded Jeremy’s motion. He referred to the Ban Guidelines and discussed the “Indefinite Ban” section. We can skip to an immediate, indefinite ban due to the severity of a person’s behavior. 
5. Glenn-Brought up the third tradition. Felt that GC did not cover permanent/indefinite bans. We have tried doing this in the past, and it did not go over well. He just wants to make sure that we are following our group conscience and the traditions. Group Conscience can change; so, we need to make sure to establish that in the meeting.

• Lauren-We approved the Ban Guidelines in their entirety earlier. Last month, we covered ban lengths, the process for bans, and what behavior constitutes a ban. They were approved at the last BM. So, the group is within their right to indefinitely ban. We had a 6-month ban on the table, but in lieu of the new information of this BM, members want to extend it to an indefinite ban.

6. Dennis-Indefinite bans can be issued immediately. We can do that. The Ban Guidelines passed. He explained that people can appeal if they do not feel the ban is warranted. We have a process for appeals now. 
7. Maya-Thank you to the people who complained and to those speaking up about this behavior. She suggested having a 1-year indefinite ban. This has been going on for awhile now, and she’s grateful that we are putting a stop to it.

• Lauren-Tried to explain, but poorly worded, that the 1-year ban is only given when the group decides to utilize the gradual process. After a 6-month ban, we would issue a 1-year ban. The indefinite ban is issued immediately, and it just means a prolonged length of time. It could be longer than a year, and this person would need to make some serious amends before returning. They wouldn’t be able to come back without a group vote. So, they can’t just simply come back after two months with an apology. There has to be a good chunk of time prior to returning.

8. Garrett-Felt that we should stick to the indefinite ban. 
9. Lauren went back to the initial ban that was seconded. Motion to ban Bart from GUTS indefinitely. He cannot return without a group vote.

• Seconded and Passed (23 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

4. Indefinite Ban (Ban Guidelines)

1. An indefinite ban means that a member can return to the meeting only after a prolonged length of time has passed, proper amends were made, or changed behavior caused the group to reconsider the ban. A group vote can be held for the member to return.

• Extreme cases of infighting, ongoing combative behavior, or divisive tactics will not cease despite the efforts of people in the meeting.
• Hate Speech-this includes slurs, prejudice, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, etc. 
• The member’s behavior affected the primary purpose of the group and harmed newcomers or group attendees in a drastic way. An indefinite ban can be given for persistent bullying and vicious verbal attacks.
• If service members use their position to 13th step newcomers, they will be given an indefinite ban.

2. If the person’s behavior has not improved after the gradual ban process, this ban can be issued. 
3. Indefinite bans can also be issued immediately in extreme cases.

5. The group determined that the combative behavior that Bart exhibited towards Kara and multiple members of the group warranted the immediate indefinite ban and to skip the gradual ban process. He persistently bullied Kara, targeted women in the group in a sexist manner, did not make proper amends to people after his comments, he was talked to by several members including Mark M, Jeremy, and Susan, lodged a racist slur towards a member, and his behavior extremely impacted the people in the group. I am deeply sorry for those who had to tolerate Bart’s behavior. I have no firsthand experience with this matter, but I trust that the right actions have been taken.

6. Mandatory Business Meeting Attendance for Service Leadership (July SC Meeting)

1. Kristen proposed this topic at the July SC meeting. 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.
2. 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.

3. BM Response

1. Lauren-This topic has been on the agenda for a very long time; so, I moved it forward in priority. Would we like to discuss this or put something to a vote?
2. Lynda-Wanted the “Service Leadership” clarified. She wanted to know what that entails. Does it mean hosts/cohosts?

• Lauren: Means they were elected to a position. That could mean any service position where we held a poll like trainers, coordinators, and schedulers. This would not include Hosts/Cohosts. I agree with the principles of Kristen’s argument such as the accountability aspect and responsibility to stay current with GC. My main concern was being able to keep track of people’s attendance. I keep track of SC attendance because they are required to attend SC Meetings/Business Meetings. We make allowances for that too. SC members just have to simply communicate their absences. 

3. Dennis-Clarified that Hosts and Cohosts are still allowed to attend the Business Meetings, and they are encouraged to do so. His concern for mandatory attendance was that some people cannot make it due to their schedules.
4. Mary-Very hard to attend on Sundays for her schedule. She keeps herself updated with the group’s business by reading the notes. That’s how she stays current. She proposes not having mandatory BM attendance.
5. Lisa-Great idea in theory, but the logistics are daunting. Maybe we could let people know to read the notes. Requiring attendance might scare people off. Try to stay program-oriented to encourage people’s attendance.
6. Kristen-Sounds mean and harsh, but that is not intentional. Definitely doesn’t want to deter anyone from attending the meetings. There is a basic foundation and principles for meetings and accountability. She felt that maybe a middle ground can be found. She said to respect people’s time by reading the notes and/or attending meetings. There might be a way to do that through an acknowledgement that notes were read in the threads. Kind of like when we issue polls, people say that they voted. Maybe people can do the same thing with the BM Notes. 
7. Lisa-Add the issue of attendance and reading notes in the training. If you can’t make it, make a reasonable effort to read the notes. If you have been elected to a leadership position within the group, you are encouraged to attend Business Meetings. 
8. Kelly-Can’t always make the Business Meetings. She also reads the notes to keep herself aware of changes in GC. She proposed posting a poll attached to the BM notes in one of the threads. Having people indicate that they read the notes through the poll. 
9. Sarah S-In the descriptions for the various service positions, include that either reading the BM Notes or attending the BM is required. 
10. Lauren motioned for 7, 8, and 9 to go into effect. 

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

7. Sister Meeting SOS/Alternate Sister Meetings (October SC Meeting)

1. SC Response

1. Jeremy: The Sister Meetings are seriously struggling to get Hosts. Getting Hosts to cover the 12 Trad/12 Steps Meetings has been a challenging endeavor. People have limited availability to cover these meetings. He wants to bring this to the BM and see what the group can do to help.
2. Lauren:  This has been an ongoing struggle for a year. We have implemented measures to aid the Sister Meetings such as keeping nominations for Sister Meetings continuously open or the fast-tracking GC. I will bring this to the next BM to update the group and see if they have any ideas that could help.
3. Mark P: While the Traditions are incredibly important, many members do not perceive them as “exciting.” The Steps/Traditions Meetings both come from the 12&12. He proposed combining those two meetings and creating a 12&12 Meeting on either Tuesday or Thursday. Doing so would free up space for the LGBTQIA+ meeting.
4. Dennis: Can only Host one day out of the week. He has to work and has limited availability. The Sister Meetings need help, and people need to step up.
5. Kristen: This has been a problem all over Zoom. A lot of meetings are struggling to receive service help (not just this meeting.) She explained that many people have returned to in-person meetings. She’s hoping that the excitement for in-person attendance is occurring and not that fewer people are attending AA. She seemed to agree with Mark P and suggested combining/redispersing the Sister Meetings. She is saddened because hosting the Sister Meetings used to be a highly sought form of service in the group. She worked those meetings herself. The group will need to evaluate the greatest need for the Sister Meetings and decide how to proceed. She also reiterated that people could join service simply to Host one of those meetings once a week.
6. Lauren (Side Note): Combining the two meetings might be a practical solution for people’s availability and preventing burn-out. The notes below are still applicable and remain feasible options for the group.

• Nominations for sister meetings are always open. Any Host-trained member can be included whenever they show the interest. We simply hold a poll and vote them into the position. 
• Fast-tracking GC: “I propose fast-tracking cohosts to Hosting ONLY if they agree to one of these options. If they do not follow through on this agreement, they revert back to cohosting until they meet their required hours for Hosting: 1 night of Hosting LNG per week for the first 2 months OR become a Host for one of the Sister Meetings. Lauren’s Proposal-Seconded and Passed (10 Yes Votes/No Dissent)” (September 3rd BM Notes)

2. LGBTQIA+ Sister Meeting (October SC Meeting)

1. Mona: Would like to open a discussion on starting a LGBTQIA+ meeting for Sundays…I am aware of the last Sunday of the month we have chip meeting… So, I thought maybe we can have it at 430PST? I would help start this…and host until we are able to build a team as per GC.

3. Speaker Meeting (October SC Meeting)

1. Mark P: Proposing Speaker Meetings either at the Chip Meeting, or maybe more. I truly think Speaker Meetings help newcomers identify.
2. SC Response
3. Mark P: Speaker meetings are a vehicle to help newcomers identify, and they are especially powerful. He suggested having a speaker at the Chip Meeting. Perhaps, the Host can call on those who are hitting milestones to be a speaker for the meeting. If not, he proposed that we could have a separate meeting for speakers too.
4. Lauren (Side Note): The Chip Meeting has rotating Hosts monthly. Any Host can chair the Chip Meeting. Perhaps, Hosts can keep Mark P’s idea in mind. Asking for speakers is a perfectly acceptable action to take for this meeting too. All sister meetings have the option of bringing in a speaker for their respective meetings too.
5. Jeremy: The Newcomer’s Meeting basically evolved into a Speaker Meeting. A speaker is procured each week for this meeting. Perhaps, we can specifically identify that the Newcomer’s Meeting is a Speaker Meeting too. That way, everyone knows that a Speaker Meeting is available. 
6. Dennis: He liked the Speaker Meeting idea, but he is unsure when we would hold the meeting.

4. BM Response to Combining 12S/12T Meetings

1. Dennis-Would not oppose combining the two meetings as long as it happens on Tuesday because that’s when he’s available to host. We have more Hosts now so we might not need to combine them.
2. Mary-She and Glenn are returning to those meetings because she saw the struggle. Her work schedule allows for that timeframe. 
3. Glenn-Emphasized the value of having the separation between the steps/traditions meetings. We want to give each tradition and step the attention they deserve. They get an entire month to focus on them. 
4. Jeremy-People come to the traditions and steps meetings who love them. The focus on each one is very important. He suggested help for the Sister Meetings and not to combine the meetings.
5. Mark P-Had initially suggested the idea of combining the meetings because he was under the impression that attendance was low. We don’t want to trick anyone to a 12&12 meeting and have it be an undercover traditions meeting. He didn’t mean to step on anyone’s toes and thought we could free up some space for other meetings. If there’s more help for the meetings, then there should be no reason to combine them.

• Lauren-I saw the practicality in your proposition. I can see how combining the meetings can prevent burnout and offer more Host availability. Hosting only one day can be less overwhelming. 

6. Mary-Vehemently against combining the Sister Meetings. 
7. Dennis-Having Mary and Glenn added to the team should solve this issue. Said we won’t need to vote on anything since we aren’t making any changes.

• Lauren-I think we should vote just to cement the issue. Shows an understanding that the group agrees with keeping the two meetings separated. Even if we aren’t changing anything, it’s always good to have a refresher with GC, and the vote keeps us current and unified. 

8. Motion to not combine the Sister Meetings.

• Seconded and Passed (19 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

5. BM Response to Speaker Meeting

1. Jeremy-To LGBTQIA+ Meeting: if it works and doesn’t interfere with any other meetings, then he doesn’t see an issue with it. For the Speaker meeting: Highly recommended that we call it a Newcomer’s Speaker Meeting. Definitely should rename the meeting. He reiterated his statement at the SC Meeting and told the group that the Newcomer’s Meeting has evolved into a Speaker Meeting. Let’s just call it what it is.
2. Jayna-Just call it a Speaker Meeting. As a newcomer, understanding lingo for AA can be overwhelming. So, a “Newcomer’s Meeting” might not resonate, but she absolutely loves Speaker Meetings. She thought that “Newcomer Speaker’s Meeting” might imply that newcomers will automatically be called on to speak at the meeting.
3. Kristen-Suggested that the Newcomer’s Meeting gives the ability for sponsors to connect with potential sponsees. She felt that this meeting would be a great opportunity for newcomers to have meetups and gain sponsorship.

• Lauren-I personally think that’s a great idea. I am currently in the running for Intergroup Rep. I wouldn’t mind updating the Intergroup description for this meeting to include that statement.

4. Sarah S-Perhaps the Intergroup description can include something like, “This is a speaker meeting geared towards newcomers.”
5. Some members felt that the Newcomer/Speaker Meeting should be inclusive to all members regardless of time. This can be specified in the description for Intergroup. The Speaker Meeting would apply to members with any amount of sobriety time, but we want to encourage newcomer participation as much as possible. Having some measures that cater to them just makes sense.
6. Garrett-Stated that he has a grandiose personality and likes to reflect that in wording. Likes when the wording is a little more exciting. He suggested the title “AA Guts Famous Speaker Meeting” Lauren-I, too, like when wording is spiced up. Having the wording be a little more fun can be appealing. Jazz hands.

• Seconded and Passed (13 Yes Votes/3 No Votes)

7. Suzie-Proposed for the “Need a Sponsor?” Cohost Blurb to be updated. Add a sentence that refers to the Speaker Meeting so that they can meet up with a sponsor.

• Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

8. Lauren motioned to bring an updated version of the Intergroup description to the next BM for approval. She wants to include Kristen’s idea, keep the BM discussion in mind, and make sure to encourage people with any amount of time to attend the Speaker (aka Newcomer) Meeting.

• Seconded and Passed (16 Yes Votes/No Dissent)

6. LGBTQIA BM Response

1. Dennis-Just take it to a vote. If Mona is willing to run the meeting at that timeframe, then there shouldn’t be a problem.
2. Glenn-Wanted to amend the time to 4:00PM PST to leave openings for Fellowship.
3. Sarah S-That might be a lot of work and pressure for one person to handle. Might be good to build a team before embarking on this endeavor.
4. Garrett-Suggested combining the Speaker Meeting with the Chip Meeting.

• Lauren-The Chip Meeting is only once a month and is specifically in place to celebrate milestones. The Speaker Meeting can still celebrate milestones in their meeting if they want to.

5. Lauren-Maybe we want to table the LGBTQIA+ meeting to await a team to work on this. Just so one person isn’t left with all the work. 
6. Kelly-People have offered to help with the LGBTQIA+ Meeting. Suzie also offered to help out with the meeting. There are members who really want this meeting to happen and will do the work for it. There is excitement for this meeting. They will figure out the logistics for the meeting together.
7. Lauren-Since there are members who are willing to help Mona out with this project, I see no reason to delay. Motion to approve the LGBTQIA+ Sister Meeting Sundays at 4:00PM PST (added Glenn’s amendment).

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

Tabled

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