GUTS Steering Committee – 11/30/2025

AA GUTS Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025
Meeting: AA GUTS Steering Committee (SC)
Platform: Online (Zoom)

1. Opening & Traditions

• Meeting opened with reading of AA’s Twelve Traditions, shared among multiple members.

2. Trainer Availability & Service Backlog

Issue: Ongoing backlog in training new service members due to limited trainer availability and coordination issues.

Key Points:

• Bentley and Gabi reported:
  • There has been a significant backlog of people needing training.
  • An emergency vote to add trainers previously helped clear the backlog quickly.
  • Host training is especially important for sibling meetings, where hosts must be able to open the Zoom room.
• Mark:
  • Noted recurring problem: new host trainees often do not know how to claim host or open the room.
  • Has screenshots and is willing to help people get technically set up but does not wish to be an official trainer.

Motion 1 (Kristen):

• To send to the Business Meeting a proposal to:
  1. Add two trainer positions to the bylaws.
  2. Require that at least one of these be a host trainer.
  3. Require that anyone elected to host a sibling meeting must:
     • Coordinate with Mark (or designated tech person) to be granted the ability to open the room (Zoom “key”) before or immediately after host training.
  4. New host trainers are not announced as approved until all required steps (including connecting with Mark) are completed.

Outcome:

• Motion seconded and amended in discussion (to explicitly include host trainer requirement and Mark coordination).
• Vote: Unanimous in favor.
• Decision: Motion will be forwarded to the Business Meeting.

3. Scheduling Request / “Comprehensive Scheduling” Proposal

Issue: Unnamed member’s proposal requesting more “comprehensive” scheduling with preferred times and open availability.

Key Discussion:

• Bentley & Gabi:
  • This has been an ongoing 2-month conversation with the member.
  • The proposal is vague and does not offer a workable, concrete process.
  • The person appears primarily to want:
    • People declare open availability (including late-night) and
    • Everyone available multiple days per week.
  • This could lead to:
    • Pressure on members to do late-night service they cannot reasonably do.
    • Loss of volunteers who would drop service if forced into late-night shifts.
  • Clarified:
    • No one is guaranteed a fixed time slot in GUTS. Preferences are considered but not promised.
• Mark:
  • Noted this member briefly worked on scheduling in the past, with significant interpersonal friction.
  • Believes proposal is more personal grievance than constructive scheduling solution.
• Kristen:
  • This person has also been sending long messages to co-hosts about how they should run meetings.
  • Concerns have already been heard and addressed multiple times.

Motion 2 (Kristen):

• Do not move this scheduling proposal to the Business Meeting.

Outcome:

• Seconded.
• Vote: Unanimous to keep the issue within Steering Committee and not advance it.
• Decision: Proposal is tabled and closed at SC level.

4. “December is Service Month” Proposal

Issue: Mary Mack requested making December a “Service Month” with extra emphasis on service announcements.

Key Points:

• Current practice:
  • There is already a service announcement in the GUTS script.
  • Service blurb exists and can be used regularly.
• Kristen:
  • Hosts sometimes shorten announcements when many hands are up.
  • Suggestions:
    • Service announcement, safety card, and primary purpose should remain priority.
    • Sibling meeting announcements can be cut or posted in chat instead.
    • Service announcement should not be skipped.
• Mark:
  • Already heavily emphasizes service in his openings (with humor).
  • Supports the idea of verbally adding:
    • “December is GUTS Service Month” and encouraging sign-ups without a full script change.
• Lauren & Gabi:
  • Periodically revise wording in the script (roughly every 3 months).
  • Could incorporate a short seasonal reminder like “December is Service Month” into the existing service announcement when appropriate.

Decision:

• No formal vote required.
• Consensus:
  • Hosts are encouraged to mention that December is Service Month during the regular service announcement.
  • No immediate formal script/bylaw change; can be handled as part of normal script wording updates.

5. Women’s Sister Meeting & Sibling Meeting Staffing

Issue (Delilah):
Chronic disorganization and understaffing at the Women’s Sister Meeting, especially Monday. Last-minute cancellations, admin inactivity, and service burnout.

Key Points:

• Delilah:
  • Often picks up last-minute hosting (even when unavailable) to keep the meeting running.
  • Feels overwhelmed; some want to leave the commitment to avoid constant scrambling.
  • Concern that thread admins of the women’s meeting are not attending SC/Business meetings or communicating.
  • Wants smoother openings, better rotation, and clarity on whether meetings are listed on online intergroup (OIAA).
• Lauren:
  • Sister meeting host positions are unlimited; anyone willing can be voted in.
  • Main barrier is lack of volunteers, not cap on positions.
• Bentley:
  • Many hosts for sibling meetings remain on the website list but are not actively serving.
  • Suggests:
    • Periodically (every 6–12 months) confirming with listed hosts if they still want and fulfill their commitments.
    • If someone is elected but consistently unavailable, group should revisit their role.
• Gabi:
  • Has repeatedly requested availability forms (for host/co-host marathon schedule) via:
    • Service threads.
    • Direct messages.
  • Many sibling meeting hosts have not responded for over a month.
  • Plans to:
    • “Purge” non-responsive people from the main GUTS service lists (not directly from sibling threads).
    • Send one more reminder requesting availability info.
  • Notes:
    • Current service positions are posted under “Current Service Positions” on the GUTS website.
• Mark:
  • Men’s meeting and some sibling meetings (e.g., Wednesday) are relatively stable.
  • Tuesday, Thursday meetings are unstable or understaffed.
  • Concern about long-term sustainability and burnout.
• Lauren (again):
  • Schedulers cannot purge sibling threads; only thread admins can.
  • If admins are inactive, new sibling threads may need to be created and old ones effectively abandoned.
• Kristen:
  • Broader issue: GUTS cannot have meetings listed on intergroup that are not reliably opened.
  • Suggests:
    • Bringing this to Business Meeting:
      • Consider temporarily closing certain sibling meetings if they lack service members.
      • Coordinate with the GSR/intergroup rep to remove non-functioning meetings from online intergroup listings.
• Delilah (follow-up):
  • Requests moving to Business Meeting for group unity and transparency.

Motion 3 (Christian / Chair):

• Bring the following to the Business Meeting:
  • Sibling meeting staffing and admin roles.
  • Creation/purging of sibling threads if admins are inactive.
  • Whether to temporarily close under-staffed sibling meetings.
  • Coordination with online intergroup to remove any meetings that cannot be reliably run.

Outcome:

• Motion seconded.
• Vote: Unanimous.
• Decision: Issue will be sent to the Business Meeting for full group discussion and strategy.

Additional Action Ideas:

• Use announcement thread polls to:
  • Quickly identify volunteers for Tuesday/Thursday and other struggling sibling meetings.
  • Prioritize volunteers already in service and/or already host trained.
• Continue promoting sibling meetings as one-hour weekly commitments.

6. Ethics Committee Issue – Inappropriate Camera Requests

Issue:
Ethics Committee submitted a complaint about a service member repeatedly asking a regular participant to turn on their camera in a way that appears personal and harassing, not safety-related.

Key Points:

• Mary (Ethics):
  • Names redacted for confidentiality.
  • Participant is a regular; service member persistently requested camera use.
  • Behavior is “bordering on harassment.”
  • Not a simple “verify identity for numbers” or “newcomer immediately sharing” situation.
• Bentley:
  • Clarified normal practice:
    • It is acceptable to ask people briefly to turn on camera:
      • When they immediately raise their hand upon entering.
      • When exchanging numbers for safety verification.
  • Needs more detail to differentiate legitimate safety practice from harassment.
• Chair’s (Christian) understanding:
  • This appears targeted and repeated, not a one-off safety verification.

Motion 4 (Chair):

• Move this Ethics Committee case to the Business Meeting for group discussion and guidance.

Outcome:

• Seconded.
• Vote: Unanimous.
• Decision: Issue goes to Business Meeting.

7. Negative Cross-Talk in Chat (Chronic Issue)

Issue:
Participant repeatedly engages in cross-talk, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. A recent incident involved chat comments implying a regular member is “white knuckling” and “not spiritually fit,” clearly directed at a specific person.

Key Points:

• Kristen:
  • Was present when the incident occurred.
  • The participant apologized after being addressed.
  • The person frequently comments on others’ shares (sometimes benign, sometimes problematic).
  • This specific comment was clearly aimed at a single, recognizable member, even though no name was used.
• Justin (as relayed by Gabi/Kristen):
  • Addressed the participant via private chat during the meeting.
  • Encountered a defensive reaction; the participant argued they had not used the person’s name.
  • Submitted the issue partly to document a pattern of behavior.
• Gabi:
  • Agrees the issue is chronic and borderline but not yet catastrophic.
  • Wants it formally documented in case it escalates.
• Lauren:
  • Reminds that co-hosts are allowed to remove members who continue negative crosstalk after being asked to stop.

Motion 5 (Lauren):

• Table the issue for now, keep it documented, and:
  • If further complaints arise, bring it to the Business Meeting.

Outcome:

• Seconded.
• Vote: Unanimous.
• Decision: Issue tabled and retained on record; co-hosts reminded they may redirect/remove if behavior continues.

8. Disruptive Late-Night Participant (Kenesha)

Issue:
Regular late-night participant displaying increasingly erratic and sometimes racist, graphic, and disruptive sharing.

Key Points:

• Chair (host that night):  Christian
  • Described pattern:
    • Starts with appropriate recovery-based share.
    • Then veers into:
      • Graphic profanity.
      • Naming family members and others.
      • Racially charged remarks.
    • Then snaps back into recovery talk.
  • Believes she may be under the influence of prescribed medications or in psychiatric distress.
  • Has:
    • Muted her.
    • Messaged her privately.
    • Told her she would not be allowed to continue when she appears intoxicated/unstable.
• Kristen:
  • Encouraged hosts/co-hosts to recognize racism is not acceptable, regardless of the source:
    • If bombers said this, they would be removed; the same standard should apply to members.
    • We must be consistent for the safety of newcomers and the group.
  • Acknowledges compassion for mental health struggles but emphasizes clear boundaries.
• Lauren:
  • Recently had to redirect the same participant after she spoke about killing someone, which directly violates GUTS’ safety guidelines.

Motion 6 (Lauren):

• Bring this disruptive-participant issue to the Business Meeting for:
  • Group guidance on how to handle recurring racist and violent content.
  • Clarity on balancing compassion with safety and AA’s singleness of purpose.

Outcome:

• Seconded.
• Vote: Unanimous.
• Decision: Issue will be discussed at the Business Meeting.

9. Natalie’s Unresolved Question

Issue:
Natalie had previously contacted leadership with questions about:

• Who can attend Business Meetings and Steering Committee meetings.
• Who can vote.

Status:

• Gabi:
  • Replied via email with full information.
  • No follow-up from Natalie.
• Chair (Christian):
  • Also emailed directions for submitting a formal issue; no response.

Decision:

• Treated as information only; no motion taken.
• Considered closed for now, unless Natalie submits a formal issue.

10. Jerry’s Withdrawal from Service-Return Issues

Issue:
Jerry had previously submitted multiple issues around returning to service and other concerns.

Update:

• Jerry has now rescinded his pending issues due to an upcoming medical procedure and is withdrawing his request to return to service for the time being.

Decision:

• Noted for the record; no further action required.

11. Old PayPal Account Contributions (Christian F.)

Issue:
Former treasurer Al reported that contributions are still being sent to the old PayPal account by a member named Christian F.

Key Points:

• Al transfers those funds into the current 7th Tradition basket but would like the member to stop using the outdated link.
• Lauren:
  • Does not know who Christian F is.
• Chair (Christian):
  • Requests that anyone who knows Christian F. privately inform him that:
    • The old PayPal link should not be used.
    • Updated contribution information is available through GUTS’ current channels.

Action Item:

• Any SC member who recognizes “Christian F.” will reach out privately to redirect him to the correct PayPal or contribution method.

12. Sibling Meeting Coverage & Emergency Polls / Nominations

Issue:
Continuing need for coverage at Tuesday/Thursday sibling meetings and limitations in nominations due to technical issues.

Key Points:

• Bentley:
  • Suggests using emergency polls in the announcement thread to:
    • Fill urgent sibling meeting host needs (as done recently with Patty).
    • Prioritize existing service members and host-trained members for quick coverage.
• Lauren:
  • Sister meetings often get emergency votes between Business Meetings due to chronic need.
  • Currently experiencing a computer failure and may not have access to the full nominations/term tracking document.
  • May only be able to hold nominations for sister meeting hosts this cycle.
• Gabi:
  • Believes most term data is updated on the website’s “Current Service Positions” page, but acknowledges constant change.
• Interim Plan:
  • If technical issues prevent full nominations:
    • Many current service positions may simply continue for another term by default.
    • Focus nominations on urgently needed positions (especially sibling/sister meetings).

Decision:

• No formal motion; operational consensus:
  • Use announcement-thread polls and emergency votes where bylaws allow.
  • Assume current service members continue if nominations cannot be processed this month.
  • Address any structural changes or term clarifications at a future Business Meeting once technical access is restored.

13. Closing

• Several issues were formally moved to the Business Meeting:
  1. Adding two trainer positions and Mark coordination requirement.
  2. Sibling meetings’ staffing, admin control of threads, and intergroup listing strategy.
  3. Camera-related harassment complaint.
  4. Repeated racist/disruptive late-night sharing (Kenesha).
• One behavior issue (negative cross-talk) was documented and tabled, pending any further incidents.
• Scheduling overhaul requests were unanimously stopped at Steering Committee level.

1. Meeting Closure

   • Motion passed to close the meeting

The meeting closed with the Serenity Prayer and a motion to adjourn.