April 30, 2023 SC Notes
SC Chair (Unofficial): Lauren
Secretaries: Elle/Lauren
SC Members Present: Jocelyne, Elle, Kristen, Dennis, Daren, Lisa, Donna, Lauren
Old Business
I. Self-Regulating Host Feedback
II. LNG Ending/Sharing Time
III. Removing Sister Meeting Service Members from "Current & Daily SCHED Request"
A. Donna requested to remove this BM topic and withdraw the SC feedback that was placed. Motion to remove this topic.
1. Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
IV. Lifting Zoom Account Requirements
V. Adding “Additional Resources” (Adding Gambler’s Anonymous & SLAA)
A. Al: Just wanted to have this added to list of links: https://www.aa.org/aa-alcoholics-mental-health-issues-and-their-sponsors (April SC Feedback)
VI. Placing SC Notes on the Website
VII. Motion to take all old business topics (except number 3) to the BM.
A. Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
New Business
I. Training Prerequisites (April SC Feedback)
A. Lisa: Hi, we need to vote on concrete guidelines for trainers. They just haven’t ever been discussed/voted on. Here’s my suggestions (only suggestions):
1. 6 months sobriety
2. At least 30 co/host shifts already served. This suggestion is to piggyback but applies to the trainer group, not the individuals. I don’t think it’s necessary that ALL trainers have host experience, but I do think AT LEAST 2 trainers with host experience should be on the team at all times. I am not sure of what the best and most simple way to go about that is though. Thank you!
B. Motion to take this to the BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
II. Treasurer Topics (April SC Meeting)
A. ORC
1. Elle proposed a couple of options for splitting the money for ORC. We can ensure enough money for them or continue at 25%. Continuing at 25% might not allow them to get through the 3rd quarter.
2. Elle suggested giving the ORC 60% and then splitting the other 40% between the other organizations.
3. Motion to take this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
B. Switching Registered Agents
1. Elle suggested that the group takes action to switch Registered Agents for the sake of cost and practicality.
2. This is the resource she shared. https://www.delawareregisteredagent.com/
3. Motion to take this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
C. Give Butter
1. Elle suggests that we start using this to manage passwords because there’s a lot of passwords. Using this will take away personal responsibility from Treasurer to Treasurer. Basically, it’s just texting a codeword to get the link to the various payment options that are available. She said that she could pull together a demo for the next BM.
2. Motion to bring this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
III. SC Thread (4/28/2023) (April SC Meeting)
A. SC members wanted to discuss the GC of Hosts being scheduled as cohosts. Balancing the Host/Cohost responsibilities interchangeably.
1. Donna made the point that Hosts are subject to Cohosting per GC. Schedulers follow this group conscience.
2. Lisa made the point that there are those who do have preferences regarding Hosting/Cohosting. This could be worthy of discussion at the BM. Group Conscience can evolve based on how the group feels about it.
3. Motion to bring this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
A. Anonymous member: The Steering Committee and the Board serve two different purposes and should be separated. Conflating them was an accident, and the idea was not well-formed. Separating the two entities would eliminate any concerns regarding the Steering Committee and GC on run offs and rotation.
1. The steering committee facilitates group conscience.
2. The Board is a necessity, but it is nominal only – members on the board don’t do service. The Board is simply a group of service members elected to maintain incorporation. We need to maintain incorporation to keep our business bank account open for 7th Tradition, so that the account belongs to GUTS and not to any individual service member within GUTS.
B. Anonymous member: Here is the rest of the proposal after separating the two: – We could keep the personnel who serve on the SC and the Board as is it is.
1. Terms for SC members who were voted to serve on the Board would be changed to reflect 6-month terms retroactively. Therefore, those terms end in May.
2. Terms for their Board commitments would remain the same – i.e., continue for the 2022-2023 year. Those terms end November 2, 2023.
3. Those SC members eligible to serve for another term may do so if they wish. If they do not wish to serve on the SC, their respective terms on the Board would continue for the 2022-2023 year.
C. Lauren proposes that those who currently hold the Treasurer and Secretary Positions fulfill their terms the way they are (Lauren’s and Elle’s term dates would stay the same). When they are fulfilled or relinquished, those positions become separate from the Board. After that, those SC positions would reflect the 6-month term limit and would have no further board entanglement. Positions for the Board would become open to members who are not on the SC, but the same requirements for the Board would remain in effect (1 Year Sobriety, 1 Year Term, Active in Service).
1. For the upcoming SC Chair Position, she would like for it to reflect 6-month term limit and to allow nominations for a Board President. Board President will no longer be tied with the SC. It could be any member with 1 year sobriety and active in service.
2. Voting in two Non-SC members to be on the Board since Lisa and Kristen were both voted into the SC.
3. Lauren will be simplifying this proposal further with the understanding that Board GC can be quite confusing.
D. Or…We can keep it how it is:
1. SC Chair/Board President (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service)
2. SC Secretary/Board (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service)
3. Treasurer/Board (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service)
4. 2 Non-SC Members (1 Year Term, 1 Year Sobriety, Active in Service) Currently, our two “Non-Steering Committee” Board members were voted into SC (Kristen and Lisa). We would just open up nominations for non-SC members to fill those positions.
E. SC Response
A. SC members felt that maybe keeping the GC how it is might be the best way to go. If it already works, there might not be a reason to make any changes.
B. Lauren made the point that the current entanglement with the board and SC has been an ordeal regarding keeping track of terms. Having the two intermingled poses problems with the spirit of rotation. It keeps certain members on the SC for a long time. The functioning of these two entities does not require entanglement. The different term dates for the Board and SC positions creates a clash, and it’s majorly confusing. Separating the two would be a simple solution to solve term issues.
C. Motion to bring this to the next BM.
1. Seconded and Passed (6 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
A. A member messaged Lauren regarding some concerns about the timing for the ZPolls.
B. They felt that the polls should be run for two days instead of one. Their reasoning had to do with fairness towards people’s schedules along with the understanding that this is a global meeting.
C. They also felt that 4 hours was not long enough.
D. Motion to bring this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VI. Complaint (April SC Feedback)
A. James L: am a regular member of this group. I have been coming nightly for several years. I was on the meeting tonight and Joan came on to share and told the previous sharing member to STFU. The guy was venting about a resentment. Joan then started sharing about how she lived in New York and her neighbors are gangsters and mafia types who can hurt people for her. I mentioned in chat that no one ever tells women to STFU when they are sharing/venting. She saw my chat and said that she was going to hunt me down and have people cut my balls off. Her tone and demeanor and previous statement about having mafia friends and the fact that she has mentioned she works for Google and is in a high position there and can probably get anyone’s information if she really wanted, makes me think this is a genuine threat. She was not kidding. Kelly was the Host and Mark M. was the cohost. I plan to go to the next business meeting to bring this up. I’m not putting my email address in as I’m not going to give anyone any information about me.
B. Jason W: Hello steering committee, A quick incident report regarding Joan. She shared on screen last night and gave direct feedback to a share that ask for feedback she included "if you don’t have a sponsor then shut the fuck up" She continued and proceeded to share. The chat progressed with reactions to that and then she responded to a chat with quotes I will find you and cut your balls off " at that point I posted in the live thread that I have to boot her. Got an okay from the host and then did just that. There were minimum repercussions in the meeting and chat. I’m available for any further questions. I think I would do it all again. Kelly handled it beautifully as did everybody else. Thank you for your time.
1. Jason W: To add. She (Joan) did all of the offensive behavior live on voice and camera. In hindsight, I wish I had saved a screenshot of the transcript. And there should probably be public repercussions, consequences, or punishment because the behavior is unacceptable. I suggest a temporary ban.
C. SC Response
1. SC members were conflicted over this complaint. Members want the understanding made that there could be other factors such as mental illness and/or other sicknesses could be applicable. However, the SC members do not see this as an excuse for the inappropriate conduct of this situation. SC members understand the need to put principles before personalities and that some sort of action will need to be taken per group agreement. SC members also seemed to reiterate the need for empathy, love, and tolerance too.
2. A few members proposed a temporary ban. A few members suggested that following the current GC of booting for 24 hours when this behavior is exhibited is a sufficient response.
3. Motion to bring this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VII. Intergroup (April SC Feedback)
A. Anonymous Member: Meeting description on online intergroup mentions hours of OPS twice – redundant! Email is provided for password – unnecessary! Let’s update the description and K.I.S.S.! Also maybe provide a link on how to log in?
B. Sarah S was called on to get her perspective because she’s the Intergroup Representative. She requests the ability to update the description for the regular meeting to look for any inconsistencies or redundancies.
C. Daren also suggests that the new meetings get updated on Intergroup.
D. Motion to bring this to the next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
VIII. Topics on the Website (April SC Feedback)
A. Ross: there used to be a link to an extensive list of topics on the webpage. does that still exist?
B. Jocelyne said that non-service members need to subscribe to the mailing list to receive topics. They do not have the same access as service folk to see the topics on the website.
C. Lisa and Lauren suggested reaching out to Danielle to see what can be done in this situation.
D. SC could not reach a definitive consensus regarding taking this the next BM. More info will need to be gathered.
E. Motion to table this topic for the next SC meeting.
– Seconded and Passed (7 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
A. SC members seemed to agree that it was a good idea to start forming a committee for the anniversary.
B. Motion to bring to next BM.
– Seconded and Passed (8 Yes Votes/No Dissent)
X. Touch Base with Schedulers and ORC (April SC Meeting)
A. SC Members agreed that it might be a good idea to ask the Schedulers and ORC for an update or any input that they would suggest at the BM. Lauren will give an option for Schedulers or ORC to speak at the BM.
B. Lisa brought up the scheduling software that was tabled from the last BM. She offered to reach out to Danielle regarding this.