2008 Business Meetings
January
Minutes - Jan. 5 - 8, 2008
________________________________________
On January 5, 2008, Chair Laura B. opened the business meeting.
The following quarterly reports were posted: GSR Representative, OIAA Representation, Treasurer, Steering Committee Recording Secretary and Listkeeper.
Cheryl T. , Interim Secretary, announced that Sherrie W. is replacing Bronwyn as our Sponsor Listkeeper. Carol D. will replace Kim T., as Weekly Lead Listkeeper. We are still looking for a Secretary to replace Caarol, who resigned mid-term. Cheryl T. will complete the term as Interim Secretary. Bronwyn has volunteered to shadow Cheryl, in preparation for the new term which begins in July.
Laura B. posted the agenda items as follows: __________________________________
Agenda Item 1.1: Report on Speaker's Meeting
At the October 2007 business meeting, there was discussion about establishing a monthly speaker's meeting. Group members had many questions about such a meeting's format and other aspects. The Chair (as per our established process), asked that a volunteer committee prepare a report responding to the questions and make a recommendation for discussion at the January 2008 business meeting. Committee members were to be those who had expressed interest in the idea, but only one said she was willing to work on the task. She had not responded to the Chair's three requests for a progress report by the start of the January meeting. Therefore, this agenda item is closed.
This item was for information only and required no action.
Agenda Item 2.1: Group Inventory
This item was also for information only, with no action required. The Chair reported that it is part of our process as an AA group to conduct a periodic inventory, and that this has not been done for several years.
The inventory consists of a total of 12 questions posted to GROW over a four-week period. The first three questions will be posted on February 1 and members will have one week to respond. The secretary will post the questions, gather the responses, and post a summary of each week's discussion back to GROW. Members are encouraged to respond to the group.
Following is the schedule of questions we ask of ourselves:
WEEK 1 1. What is the basic purpose of the group? 2. What more can the group do to carry the message? 3. Do new members stick with us, or does the turnover seem excessive?
WEEK 2 4. Do we emphasize the importance of sponsorship? How effectively? How can we do better? 5. Are we careful to preserve the anonymity of our group members and other A.A.'s outside the meeting rooms? Do we leave the confidences they share at meetings behind? 6. Do we take the time to explain to all members the value to the group of following our guidelines of e-mail etiquette? As a member, am I familiar with and do I follow these guidelines?
WEEK 3 7. Are all members given the opportunity to speak at meetings and to participate in other group activities? 8. Are we mindful that holding office is a great responsibility not to be viewed as the outcome of a popularity contest, are we choosing our officers with care? 9. Does the group do its fair share toward participating in the purpose of A.A. - as it relates to our "Three Legacies" of Recovery, Unity and Service?
WEEK 4 10. As a group, do we remain informed about AA as a whole? Do we support, in every way we can AA as a whole or just the parts we understand and approve of? 11. Are we considerate of all our members? 12. As a group, have we done a thorough and fearless inventory, or have we missed an important element?
============== Agenda Item 3.1: GROW Treasury As reported by the Chair, by group conscience, we currently pay six months ahead on our Binhost bill, which are the fees for the Grow and Grow-Business email lists. Our treasurer recommended that we change this to paying one year in advance. This topic was open for a four-day discussion.
As it turned out, there was some confusion over this issue. The Treasurer had requested the discussion before she realized she was already authorized by group conscience to pay up to six months in advance. Before this was clarified, there was some support for the idea of paying for one year in advance. Several members felt this would be okay, but there were also some concerns expressed. One concern was that, depending on contributions, we might not always have the funds to pay for one full year in advance. The suggestion was made that we could specify "up to one year in advance." However, another concern was that paying too far in advance would limit our flexibility should we need to quickly change service providers. At that point, a member voiced the opinion that six months was sufficient. Nine members, including two who had previously spoken in favor of paying up to one year in advance, followed with support for leaving it at current group conscience of six months. No one voiced disagreement.
The Treasurer also expressed frustration over Binhost's billing procedures. It was suggested that Binhost could be confused between the names of Laura as list owner, and Lori as writer of the checks. Lori asked if Laura could pay the bill and be reimbursed, much in the same way Cheryl T. is reimbursed for payment of the web hosting service. Laura reminded us that the behind-the-scenes details of how we pay aren't part of this agenda item, and is working with Lori to resolve the issue with Binhost.
This completes the minutes for January 5 - 8, 2008 Cheryl T., Interim Secretary
Minutes - Jan. 9 - 12, 2008
________________________________________
On January 9, 2008, Chair Laura B. posted Agenda Item 3.2. She reported that many seemed to be in favor of maintaining the current payment schedule with Binhost. Laura closed the discussion and asked for headnods (yes) or head-shakes (no) to confirm consensus on the following:
"GROW authorizes the Treasurer to pay our email list service provider bill up to six months in advance, as per an earlier group conscience decision."
Twelve members (Jean, Lori, Kate, Laura G., Carol D, Annette, Sherrill, Cheryl D., Judi N., Susan G, Cheryl T. and Bronwyn nodded yes. There were no other responses.
This completes the minutes for January 9 - 12, 2008 Cheryl T., Interim Secretary
###
Minutes - Jan. 13, 2008
________________________________________
On Jan. 13, Chair, Laura B. , reported that with consensus to maintain an earlier group conscience decision to pay our email list service bill up to six months in the advance, our business was completed. Laura closed the meeting with a reminder that all members are unsubbed from GROW-BUS until the next meeting.
The next quarterly business meeting will be in April.
This completes the minutes for Jan. 13, 2008. Cheryl T., Interim Secretary
###
April
========================================
GROW BUS MINUTES FOR April 3-7 (Posted April 8, 2008)
========================================
Please note, if you are interested in joining the Business List, you are still welcome! Write to grow-owner@binhost.com and ask to be subscribed. You will then have access to the Binhost archives where all the postings are saved.
========================================
The Chair opened the meeting and announced four agenda items (see below). The Steering Committee Secretary, the Listkeeper, the Treasurer, and the OIAA/GSR representative all made reports. Three trusted servant openings have been filled.
========================================
Agenda items
========================================
1.1 2nd Signer
The current secretary is the 2nd signer for the GROW treasurer. As women from all over the world volunteer to become secretary, the issue of how we handle a backup signature has come up. The Chair presented three options:
Option 1 - A non-rotating position that included "ownership" for GROW, technical support for the Treasurer re. PayPal, and backup signature.
Option 2 - That Laura B. be approved as "a privileged person" who had access to the GROW online account and 4 previously signed checks to hold for emergency purposes
Option 3 - The Steering Committee would select someone to serve as a 2nd signer on checks; term to be concurrent with the Treasurer
~~~
10 members responded. One thought we should let anyone around the world be backup to the treasurer [Note; the Business Chair regrets that she didn't adequately explain the great difficulties that U.S. banking laws create for non-residents to become 2nd signers for bank accounts - which is why the issue arose in the first place.]
Six members supported Option 2. Most said very little., other than that they agreed with the rationale. Laura B. asked that if this option were adopted, that the records show also that GROW must designate a person as "owner" and that the treasurer has asked for technical support for the PayPal account - and that at the moment, Laura B. does both.
One member supported Option 3, stating, "I am against giving any member of AA too much power. I generally do not like nonrotating positions...." Another responded to the non-rotating concept: "In response to this being a non rotating position there are AA, conference approved directives, that in certain situations someone is appointed on a non-rotating basis...."
* One person suggested a compromise solution. "I would support the "registered owner" of the BinHost and PayPal accounts as being the permanent second signer. We might want to consider specifying the position rather than the individual so that we don't have to revisit if, for some reason, the BinHost/PayPal ownership changes." Two people expressed support for this idea, which came near the end of the discussion.
========================================
2.1 Frequency of Business Meetings
Twelve members discussed the issue of the frequency of Business Meetings. Their discussion brought up many ideas. The following three were actively discussed among the participants:
-- Number of meetings per year (with elaborations)
-- Should business meetings be on the main list instead of a separate list?
-- Complexity of business meetings
~~~~~ Number of meetings per year ~~~~~
** 2 Business Meetings per Year
Five members thought there should be only two meetings / year, and two thought either two meetings or four (see comments below). The responses were interwoven with other ideas. Some comments were:
-- "...it is my opinion that if something comes up that needs to be discussed than we call a meeting (business, group conscience) because it is a bit much the way it is now.... Possibly even having one every 6 mos."
-- "As for the frequency, I would be ok with keeping it as is at 4 per year if they were simpler. With the way they are run now, 2 per year is fine as long as there is a stipulation that if items come up that warrant a group conscience, they are resolved by the group."
-- "I've thought about having 2 per year and calling other meetings if necessary, meaning if something comes up that needs a group conscience, the Steering Committee could call
for a business meeting. I've thought about making our business meetings shorter, instead of 4 day segments, 2 day segments and keep it at 4 per year."
** Four Business Meetings per Year
Four members thought that we should stay with four meetings a year (two comments are listed under the "two per year" because they had reasons to support either number):
-- "Based on past experience with GROW business meetings, I would continue to hold 4 business meetings a year. Our recent meetings have been complex, but if you look back in the archives, you will note that their have been years when one or two of the meetings closed early, either because there was no business, or because we were very efficient. The more people involved in business meetings, the more complicated they become."
** No Number Stated
Two members didn't offer a number of meetings, although one thought that four meetings is too many.
~~~~~ Business meetings on main list ~~~~~
There was lively discussion about whether the Business Meeting should be on the main list. Four stated that the Business Meeting should be on the main list; five stated that it should remain separate. Some comments were:
-- "... to lessen the burden for many involved my opinion is that the entire group be involved instead of only those on the business list. If the whole group was involved in the business part of the meetings, someone might read something that sparks them to reply to with input."
-- "...I have to wonder why we have 2 Lists - General Membership and Business - when I think that just one would do. Subbing and un-subbing people to the Business List is extra work for the Listkeeper and, quite frankly, I don't see the value in having the 2 lists. If everyone were only on one list, perhaps more members would get involved in the Business Meetings and volunteer for group positions."
-- "... I am against conducting business on the main group list....I am against taking up meeting time to conduct business in the f2f setting and I wouldn't want it here. I don't think it will attract more interest, but I do think it will piss more than a few people off."
-- "One thing I know I am against is using our meeting list for business discussion. We'll see members drop like flies."
-- "Keeping the lists separate makes sense because many members would be turned off by "forced" participation in the Business Meeting with one list."
~~~~~ Complexity of meetings ~~~~~
Most expressed the feeling that meetings are complex. A few had some ideas about how to change things. One member detailed why she would keep things as they are. The following comments offer a flavor of the postings, but several went into detail about how they might change the meetings:
-- "I was reading the post sent out on "How we conduct Business." I get that we are trying to conduct business in order to get to a group conscience as outlined in AA literature. While this detailed process as outlined ... may work in a face to face meeting, is it really conducive for the online meeting setting? [Note, there were more details in the message.]
-- "I've thought about making our business meetings shorter, instead of 4 day segments, 2 day segments and keep it at 4 per year."
-- "If we do actually have 158 "active" members, perhaps we should split the group into three or four different groups to lessen the chaos of business meetings and duties of members involved in that process...
-- "I, too, dislike the many steps we take to reach group conscience. It's why we try so hard to reach consensus before we move to the formal process. ... Meetings were established quarterly so that little issues wouldn't have time to fester in the group. ....Four days is allowed because we are dealing with worldwide online communication. Four days was established to allow for computer glitches and time differences."
========================================
3.1 Secretary's Position
Members discussed whether or not the Secretary's position was too complex. Everyone who spoke thought that it is. Many had no ideas for a solution. One member went through the position and eliminated or shifted things to the Business Chair. Another member suggested that we might have a secretary and a co-secretary, and volunteered to suggest how that might be arranged in the next 4-day segment if there was interest. Members did express interest in seeing how that might happen.
========================================
4.1 Business Chair's Position
Members discussed whether or not the Business Chair's position was too complex. Some thought that it is too complex. Three members with Business Chair experience said that they disagree. It appears that discussion of this item is tied with the frequency and structure of our business meetings and to the Secretary's position because they work so closely together. One member re-arranged the position to separate the responsibilities from the requirements and the "good to know" information.
========================================
GROW BUS MINUTES FOR April 8-11 (Posted April 12, 2008)
========================================
Please note, if you are interested in joining the Business List, you are still welcome! Write to grow-owner@binhost.com and ask to be subscribed. You will then have access to the Binhost archives where all the postings are saved.
========================================
The Chair summarized the past four days' business and posted separate agenda items with information on what we would do during the next four days. Three topics rose out of Agenda item 2, so it was divided into three parts. The following are the minutes for this period.
========================================
Agenda items
========================================
1.2 2nd Signer
For this four day period, we discussed the suggestion:
That GROW establish a non-rotating position that includes:
+ Registered ownership for the Binhost account
+ Registered ownership for the PayPal account
+ Designated permanent second signer for the treasurer.
Six of the seven respondents voiced simple agreement. One expressed disagreement with having another rotating position and with the complexity of GROW jobs. She said, in part:
"It seems that another permanent position has been suggested for treasury. I
suggest we create non rotating positions for all those positions requiring
more effort than an average member is willing to put forth..."
========================================
2.2 Business Meetings
2a.2 How often to hold business meetings
During this four-day period, we discussed how often to hold business meetings. Eleven members responded; one responded twice, having changed her mind the second time:
*** Two times per year.
Seven members supported for this suggestion. Some of the comments were:
+ ...it is my opinion that we should hold 2 business mtgs a year unless something comes up that the steering committee feels we need one to take care of a problem as said earlier that does not fester.
+ It is my opinion that 2 meetings a year will be sufficient for the group.
+ I agree that 2 scheduled meetings would serve us well, as it coincides with the 6 month, 1 year and 2 year terms of service for our Trusted Servants. ... If we do go to 2 times a year, I think there needs to be an added stipulation that if in the event something urgent comes up that is not covered by an existing Group Conscience decision, that the Steering Committee would call for a business meeting.
*** Three meetings per year. One other person supported this suggestion (it was originally suggested by a member, who later reported that she changed her mind. One other member agreed with the three-per-year suggestion and didn't report a change of opinion).
*** Four meetings per year. Three members supported this suggestion. Some comments were:
+ I support continuing our current schedule of four business meetings per year. If we do not have business to conduct, we do not have to have a meeting. If there is only one agenda item, we can hold a short meeting. ... believe six months is too long to allow something to fester, and I believe it could lead to more disruptions in our AA meeting.
+ As a newer member of GROW and new to the business list I believe that four meetings a year is a good idea. If there is no business, then there is no need for a meeting. Seems simple.
2b 2 Should the Business Meeting be on the main list?
During this four-day period, we discussed whether Business Meetings should be on the main list. Twelve members responded. As discussion went on, some changed their minds and by the close of the discussion period, we appear to be close to a consensus to keep the separate GROW business meeting. Some comments were:
+ ... I can see your point regarding newcomers to our meetings - they would not be able to relate to mixing group business with a regular AA meeting and wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on. In some f2f business meetings that I attended at the group level, the sparks were flying and I often wondered why we weren't practicing the AA principles at the meetings.
+ ... I looked back at how many regular members signed up for the list. There are FIVE members from the general population signed up. The rest are trusted servants. Obviously it is the same online as in f2f where the majority of the group are just not interested in participating in the workings of the group. ...
+ I have belonged to several of the early online meetings that did not hold separate business meetings. It is one of the reasons for GROW's existence. I do not support eliminating GROW-BUS.
+ ... If all we had were weekly meetings (even if one person was chairwoman for a month of Sundays), and rotation run by a Secretary, this group would function very well. Overkill is damaging to all involved. My opinion only. An on line group should not be so stressful. It negates serenity. It's hard enough to work a good program without having to worry so much about one on line group.
+ ... I haven't yet seen a business meeting in which more than 10% of people (f2f or online) participate. I just went and looked at the responses for the Group Inventory, which was held on the main list. ... What I didn't see was an overwhelming number of people participate when something "business-meeting-like" was held on the main list.
2c.2 Complexity of Business Meetings
During this four-day period, we discussed the complexity of Business Meetings. No one idea surfaced as being a focus of support. Only four members shared about this topic. Our GSR posted excerpts from the AA Conference Approved pamphlet, "The A.A. Group regarding Group Conscious Decisions."
Some comments were:
+ ... We have a Steering Committee that could (and do) handle routine questions/concerns and they could call a business meeting at any time to get group conscience on any issue that comes up. We could then conduct group business per Robert's Rules of Order. The business meetings could be 1 or 2 weeks long to allow adequate time for making motions, seconding, discussions, voting, posting the results, and adding the item(s) to our Guidelines.
+ ... Online A.A. business meetings do take longer than f2f, however, IMHO, what our group has outlined for reaching an informed group conscience is simple steps guided by A.A. principles. I am in favor of keeping our group conscience guidelines as they are. ...
+ ... It may be complicated, but it works. GROW is a solid, stable group with few disruptions. Group conscience requires time and care, and occasionally backtracking to be sure people are heard and respected. ...
+ ... The one thing I didn't see kicked in to consider is the possibility of conducting business meetings real-time using a chat-room. This would have it's own complexity, especially if there are women in the group that have not used chat rooms before. Conducting business real-time would (I think) eliminate some of the complexity we face due to email delay, responses passing in the ether, and time zone differences. However, I think all phases of how we're doing business are key. I've witnesses some business meetings in this list that have made me so proud to be a member of this group -- with minority opinions being presented, respected, and even in some cases adopted....
========================================
3.2 Secretary's position
During this four-day period, we discussed the Secretary's position. We started with a proposal to divide the job into two positions. We ended with a proposal to simplify the job listings (and some other simplifications. Six members responded, two of whom posted the proposals.
The two proposals were lengthy, so aren't quoted here. Proposal #1 divided the Secretary's job into two Co-Secretary positions. Some of the comments made after it posted were:
+ I am still of a mind that there is a lot of work behind being a secretary with our group. On the other hand from my experience with service in this group over the past ten years. - every time I printed out a job description my mind was overwhelmed. I must admit that the enormity of what I thought was the list keepers job kept me out of trying for several years. The thing that I have found from jumping in is that it is not as daunting as it looks on paper. The actual *doing* is easier than the reading.
+ In my opinion, the creation of the Co-Secretary positions is a great
idea because there is too much work involved for just one person.
Proposal #2 took out wording that is common to all positions in order to make the positions more understandable. Comments made regarding proposal 2 included:
+ ... When I read the job description, my first impression was, I'm never going to volunteer for this, it's too much work. I also like the suggestion about having general guidelines for all positions posted separately. That would lessen the length of individual postings.
+ ... Shortly after I joined this group, the Secretary's position was up for
grabs and I was considering throwing my hat in the ring for consideration until I read the Job Description. I knew then that I would never be able to thoroughly handle all of the duties involved in the job although I had served as Secretary for another online group. I certainly commend our current Secretary and those who have served in the position in the past for their willingness and stamina to tackle the job and get it done.
========================================
4.2 Business Chair's Position
This item was temporarily tabled until after Agenda items 2 and 3 are decided, as those will probably affect the Business Chair position.
========================================
Respectfully submitted,
Laura B., GROW Business Chair
========================================
GROW BUS MINUTES FOR April 12-16 (Posted April 17, 2008)
========================================
The Chair summarized the past four days' business and posted separate agenda items with information on what we would do during the next four days. Two topics rose out of Agenda item 3, so the Chair divided them. The following are the minutes for this period.
========================================
Agenda items
========================================
1.3 2nd Signer
For this four day period, we asked for head nods (yes) or head shakes (no) to see if we have consensus for the 2nd signer position:
That GROW establish a non-rotating position that includes:
+ Registered ownership for the Binhost account
+ Registered ownership for the PayPal account
+ Designated permanent second signer for the treasurer.
We had nine responses. We do *not* have consensus on this issue.
========================================
2.3 Business Meetings
=====
2a.3 How often to hold business meetings
During this four-day period, we asked for head nods (yes) or head shakes (no) to see if we have consensus for to reduce the number of business meetings from four down to 2 (with the Steering Committee calling others if needed).
Eleven members responded. We do *not* have consensus on this issue.
=====
2b.3 Should the Business Meeting be on the main list?
During this four-day period, we asked for head nods (yes) or head shakes (no) to see if we have consensus to *keep the business meeting a separate email list.* The Chair had to explain this one twice because the title made the wording of her post confusing. In spite of this, all members indicated which option they preferred.
Fourteen members responded. We *do* have consensus on this issue. The Business Meetings will *not* migrate to the main list; the business meetings will stay on a separate list.
=====
2c.3 Complexity of Business Meetings
The Chair posted the following:
Opinions on this topic continue to be quite diverse and few have shared on the proposed ideas. Therefore, the Chair believes we aren't ready for a full consideration of this topic, but it is clear that there is interest in looking at this issue.
Therefore, in keeping with the way that GROW handles such issues, the next step is for volunteers to form a small committee to look at this issue and come back to the next Business Meeting with a report and, if they wish, a proposal. Historically, these issues are addressed by committees of three; we need a volunteer to chair the committee and two other volunteers to work with them.
If no committee has formed by the close of this business meeting, it will be assumed there is not enough interest, and the matter will be tabled. According to previous group conscience guidelines, this means that the topic cannot be raised for six months.
========================================
3.3 Secretary's position
The Chair divided this into two topics:
3a.3 Secretary Position
Two possible ways of handling the secretary's position had been proposed, so the chair opened the floor for discussion about this. Three people responded.
* One person said, "I have read Items 3a and 3b over and over again. I find that I cannot discuss either until a decision has been made on the amount of business meetings. In my opinion the enormity of the secretary position is determined by the amount of time we spend in a business meeting."
* Two people responded that instead of having two Co-Secretaries, GROW should have one streamlined position.
3b.3 Common Language
It had been preposed that we take all language that is common to all positions and post them separately to make the tasks of all jobs easier to see and understand. Three people responded.
* One person made the quote above
* Two people expressed favor to pull out the common language.
========================================
Respectfully submitted,
Laura B., GROW Business Chair
October
========================================
GROW BUS MINUTES FOR October 7-12
========================================
The Chair opened the meeting and announced eight agenda items had been proposed. The Listkeeper and the Treasurer. Five trusted servant openings have been filled.
The list discussed the eight agenda items at length; the discussions are summarized below.
========================================
Agenda items
========================================
1.1 Reduction in Trusted Servant postions.
A complex proposal to reduce the number of trusted servants from 22 to 10 was made. Seven members discussed the propsal (some more than once). The reception was mixed.
Four responding agreed with the proposal. One member preferred that the Secretary counts vots. One member suggested eliminating one greeter position. Another member (who did not address the greeter position), stated that she would not support eliminating the Weekly Leader Listkeeper, the Sponsor Listkeeper, the Birthday Listkeeper, and the 12 Step Listkeeper. The original proposer was willing to reconsider and add back these four, so four responders supported this position (ok, the numbers don't add up but one member changed her mind). Some comments were:
"This just feels like too drastic of a change for me. I think in terms of our AA triangle, Unity, Recovery, Service. Service is at the base of the triangle."
"I'm all for reducing the number of service positions in the group, but I'm with Annette on this one for the very reason that she mentioned; i.e. to get newer members involved in the group."
"This proposal seems reasonable to me, and a very good idea. "
"It is my opinion that we could reduce the number of trusted servants. My only reason for doing this would be the trouble that we have getting people for these positions. That makes me sad as a member of AA as a whole and as a member of this group"
"In addition, I'd personally feel more comfortable if the Secretary counted any votes instead of the Business Chair."
A revised proposal will be listed for comments in the next 4 day section.
==============================
==============================
2.1 Secretary's Duties
The committee of Carol D, Carol T, and Laura G. proposed a revised list of Secretary duties. Five members responded. Four agreed with the proposal, one stated it might be too soon to discuss this as porposal 1.1 might change some of it.
With that in mind, this propsal will be *temporarily* tabled until we have reached some outcome for proposal 1. If we cannot reach an outcome for #1, or when #1 is finished, we will revive this proposal.
==============================
==============================
3.1 Trusted Servant Rotation timing.
The committee of Carol D, Carol T, and Laura G. proposed a revised trusted servant rotation timing.
Five members responded. All agreed with the proposal in essence; some suggestions for refinement were made: to announce the upcoming opentings weekly for 4-6 weeks before the business list opening.
* Have rotation occur on the 1st day of the month of the business meeting
* Make it explicit that it's the Secretary who coordinates this.
We will discuss a revised proposal in the next 4 days.
==============================
==============================
4.1 Trusted Servant Common Language
The committee of Carol D, Carol T, and Laura G. proposed the pulling out of the guidelines for all trusted servants into one place on the web pages.
Six respondend; one requested that each postion refer to this statement. One added that she thought it would "nice to contact the individual to be sure she is ok."
With these two additions, the proposal will be put up for headnods/shakes to see if we have a consensus.
==============================
==============================
5.1 Weekly Meeting logistics
The committee of Carol D, Carol T, and Laura G. made fourd proposals for change in logistics:
1 - that the AA readings be posted separately
2- that the WLL remind the chair 1 week in advance that she will be leading
3 - that the list of upcoming chairwomen be posted monthly
4 - that the scheduled chair should find her own replacement.
Six people responded.
========================================
GROW BUSINESS MINUTES FOR October 13-16 (Posted October 17, 2008)
========================================
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE. Each item for discussion will be listed separately.
This four-day period has been focused on discussion and head-nodding/head-shaking to see if we can move to consensus on many issues. The Business Chair would like to thank everyone who has participated; much has been discussed.
Before examining each item, I'd like to focus on what "consensus" means in the perspective of the GROW group, as defined by informed group conscience. I encourage anyone of us to re-read "How we do business" - one of the opening emails. I'm reprinting part of it here.
---------- Consensus ----------
[From "How We Do Business"]
1) The group makes every effort to reach agreement (consensus) on the issue by simply talking to each other. By consensus we mean:
a) everyone is in agreement or is willing to support the issue; or
b) everyone disagrees and is not willing to support the issue; or
c) everyone agrees to disagree.
We allow a minimum of four days for discussion, more when warranted. The Chair may call for a head nod to confirm we have reached group consensus.
``````````
When the chair thinks we seem to have a consensus, *then* the chair offers the proposal for head-nods. Head-nods may seem like voting, but it isn't our formal voting process. It's just to verify if we do have a consensus. If we do, then we don't need to go into the lengthy voting process.
==================================
Agenda items
========================================
1 -- The Chair split agenda item 1 into two parts.
1.2a Reduction in Trusted Servant positions
The Chair refined the original proposal, based on the discussion. Much more was said. Many favored the proposal as amended, "I agree with DXing positions. Simple is good."
Some offered more insights and recommended that the OIAA Representative *not* be eliminated, "Since OIAA is our connection to the AA online community, as well as serving as the liaison, on our behalf to GSO, I would like to see us continue with an OIAA rep... some good information about online AA comes out on this list."
One person was concerned that the members-at-large were suggested for elimination, "Why are we dumping at large and OIAA? The OIAA keeps us informed of Internet Intergroup. Historically this was a mixed deal but needed. And at large is a good check and balance. " Another member answered, "My thinking is trusted servants should be ... trusted servants. And part of that is for each of us who is serving to be honest and aware of the group, the 12 traditions, the 12 steps, and think of the good of the group first. I've never understood the need for members at large in an AA steering committee."
One person recommended that, if the archivists are eliminated, the webkeepers' positions should include language to preserve the group's history, "RE: Archivist. If we do in fact eliminate the Archivist, I would like to see some kind of verbiage put in the webkeepers guidelines that documents which track our history be preserved on our Web Site. "
The chair will take the suggestions that seemed to have a fair amount of support and submit one more revision for discussion.
```````
1.2b Steering Committee changes
This proposal made suggestions for changes to the Steering Committee structure (everyone whose term of service is longer than 6 months is on the Steering Committee) and for its support of the group. Everyone who responded agreed with the changes, so this proposal will be up for head-nodding/head-shaking
==============================
3.2 -- Trusted Servant Rotation timing
The proposal (despite having been introduced for a reason that may be moot) seems popular. Because there were no dissenting comments, this proposal will be up for head-nods/ head-shakes to see if we have consensus.
==============================
4.2 -- Trusted Servant Common Guidelines
This proposal was put up for head-nods/ head-shakes. There were no head-shakes (no one disagreed), so *we have a consensus - everyone who responded is willing to support the issue* (please excuse the Chair for being a bit excited to report this!
The Webkeeper will amend the website, adding links to the common guidelines for each trusted servant position, after the business meeting is over.
==============================
5 -- Weekly Meeting logistics - The Chair divided this proposal into three sections.
5.2a Weekly Meeting: readings posted separately
This part of the original proposal was discussed extensively during the first four days. The Chair pulled it out, hoping that some common ground might be found. This did not happen. Comments either favored or opposed the proposal. The Chair offers two of the comments here, as examples of how divided the opnion seems:
"When I first came to this group I volunteered to chair, not knowing what I was getting myself in to. The WLL didn't get the meeting format tome in a timely manner (not the current WLL) and I was in a panic because I could not post the topic without the holy grail preceding my topic post. If I was overwhelmed by just that, imagine how someone with little knowledge about computers but a HUGE desire to stop drinking and just wanting to be of service could potentially feel??? "
"I have never been to a face to face or online meeting that started immediately with the topic. New people need to hear (read) what is happening & regular attendees need the reminder of why they are there. Having The Preamble, How It Works (including the Steps), 12 Traditions, An excerpt from the Big Book on Pages 83-84 (The Promises), Anonymity Statement sent separately is not what an AA meeting is about. "
Because we haven't moved toward any common ground in eight days, the group appears to agree to disagree (see the 3rd example of consensus above). Therefore, this agenda item is retired, and the meeting format will continue as it is currently organized.
``````````
5.2b Weekly Meeting: reminding the chair and posting list of chairs
It appeared that we have a consensus on these two ideas, so they were linked and offered for head-nods/head-shakes. There were no head-shakes (no one disagreed), so we have a consensus - everyone who responded is willing to support these issues.
The changes will be posted on the website after the meeting, and if the Secretary comes up with any templates, those will be posted as well.
``````````
5.2c Weekly Meeting: finding replacement
This part of the original proposal was discussed during the first four days, with no agreement in sight. The Chair pulled it out, hoping that some common ground might be found. This did not happen. Comments either favored or opposed the proposal. Two examples are:
"I agree with ... in that each member who has volunteered to chair a meeting for us has the responsibility of either showing up on her Sunday to chair, or finding her own replacement. If we were to receive a regularly updated 3-month list of Chairwomen and their e-mail addresses, it shouldn't be a problem to switch with another member."
"There are a few people who are super responsible and will do this, but I believe that in the majority it will not be done and it will be left to the Weekly Topic Leader to find the replacement."
No suggestion for a compromise appeared; however the Chair has an idea that she will put forth for the next four days discussion. If opinion then still remains divided, and if there are no suggestions for compromise, this agenda item will be retired.
==============================
6.2 Monthly Step meetings
The Chair noted unwavering support for a Step meeting, so discussion continued in the hopes of finding middle ground. No middle ground arose. Some example comments are:
"I think a meeting--first one of the month is cool--should be set a side for a step. With the previous method, it got lost in meeting shuffle, like there were two topics and that can get confusing. "
"I understand that this should already be done by someone, though I'm not sure who. If we were to make this a requirement for the first meeting of the month that the chair HAS to put out a topic on a specific step, we might have trouble getting chairs for that meeting. "
"I think the format that we currently have covers both the Monthly Step and Tradition Meetings which I have copied below. I feel that if this is sent to the group every month, there would be no need for a 12 Step Monthly Volunteer. We are trying to pare down the jobs - not create new ones."
"I like the concept of keeping it simple. I believe we ended up with a Step and Tradition being part of a compromise from previous business meetings where there was an effort to bring in Steps and Traditions to our meetings. "
"This is a great idea and I would definitely support this."
```````````
Because we have not moved toward a common ground in eight days, the group appears to agree to disagree. Therefore, this agenda item is retired, and the meeting format will continue as it is currently organized.
==============================
7.2 Buddy System
We did not seem to have consensus during the first four days on this, so the chair asked if we could find common ground on this topic. None of the members who responded supported a formal buddy system. Some of those who wrote in favor the first time spoke in opposition. to summarize the conclusions:
"We, as a group, reach out to the newly sober/attempting sobriety members. A new "buddy system" is not needed. "
No one spoke to try to move it toward more consideration. Therefore, this proposal is retired.
==============================
8.2 Roll Call
This proposal drew the most response the first four days, but no compromise rose from discussion. Therefore, it remained in discussion for the second four days. We still don't seem to be near a consensus:
"Our Listkeeper stated that should we have a roll call once a year that she could announce to the group the number of people who responded, as opposed to the number of people "on the books". Personally, I'd still like to see the "members" who don't respond to a roll call let go completely if they don't respond, but if we can get a number of who did respond, I'd accept that as a compromise. "
"I would like to see a monthly member count from the Listkeeper."
"I've read the great shares about this suggestion. After considering it, I don't think we need a role call."
"I have no objection to having the List keeper provide a monthly report of the number of members, however I believe you will find that the number stays roughly the same each month with fluctuation up or down about 3-5 people. However, I am not clear on why we are seeking this information. What are we going to do with it? Also, would this information be shared only with the TS or with the group?"
"I'm still not in favor of this -- I don't think the numbers provide us any useful information. We have a 'count' of subscribed members as part of the Business List (Listkeeper's report). "
``````````
In summary, the comments ranged from (paraphrased here), "Annual roll-call; report the number who responded" to "monthly reporting of total numbers" to "reporting on the business list is enough" to "Why do we want this information and what would we do with it?"
The chair does not see a pattern here except that of people who are are (apparently) agreeing to disagree after 8 days of discussion. Therefore, this topic is retired from this business meeting.
==============================
Individual agenda items and a summary for the regular GROW list will follow.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura B., GROW Business Chair
========================================
GROW BUSINESS MINUTES FOR October 17-20 (Posted October 21, 2008)
========================================
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE. Each item for discussion will be listed separately.
This four-day period has been focused on discussion and head-nodding/head-shaking to see if we can move to consensus on our remaining issues. The Business Chair would like to thank everyone who has participated; much has been discussed.
==================================
Agenda items
========================================
1 -- The Chair split agenda item 1 into two parts.
1.3a Reduction in Trusted Servant positions
The Chair refined the proposal, based on previous discussion, adding in the OIAA position. One person stated that we have no need for two greeters (and reminded the group that she'd said this before):
" I have stated since this agenda item came up that I believe that only one (1) greeter is needed. We are not overwhelmed with people wanting to join this group and one greeter with either the list keeper or the backup listkeeper backing her up if necessary for days away from the computer during her term ."
Another person asked that we separate the positions from their descriptions, instead of considering them together:
"While I am in agreement with the reduction in the number of TSs, I don't think we have dealt with the changes in the job descriptions of the Secretary and Chair.For that reason, I think that Item 1.3a should deal only with the Reduction in the TS positions and the job descriptions should not be a part of this item. "
The chair asked if this is what people wanted, and at least one other person stated that she thought it made sense. Therefore, the chair will divide these two parts and add in the secretary's job description that was temporarily tabled.
Another person pointed out that the Webkeeper backup is not on the list; it will be added for the next time period.
``````````
1.3b Steering Committee changes
This proposal made suggestions for changes to the Steering Committeestructure (everyone whose term of service is longer than 6 months is onthe Steering Committee) and for its support of the group. This proposal was up for head-nodding/head-shaking; one person's nod was provisional - she wanted the group to consider adding in
Immediate Past Business Chair
Immediate Past Secretary
Immediate Past GSR
The chair stated that, since she had just realized her original oversight, she would do that in the next 4-day period.
With this proviso, we have consensus on the steering committee changes.
==============================
3.3 -- Trusted Servant Rotation timing
This proposal was met with consensus, but with one suggestion regarding the Business chair's rotation:
I'm almost ready to shake my head on this one .My only question on this would be, wouldn't it be wiser of us to call for the Business Chair 6 months earlier then she would actually take over?This way, she could shadow the outgoing Business Chair for one meeting, prior to her taking on this task.
Since we seem so close to agreement, the chair will amend the proposal and put it back up for head-nods.
==============================
5.3c Weekly Meeting: finding replacement
No suggestion for a compromise came up in the previous discussion, so the Chair proposed a compromise:
"The chair suggests that the weekly leader listkeeper could encourage the chair volunteers to find their own replacements, and to let her know ina timely fashion. Further, the chair suggests we offer this to the weekly leader listkeeper as a suggestion, rather than codifying it with formal language..."
This was met with a lot of discussion:
"My thought on this is that if there is no mention of it in the WLL's job description and simply just recorded in the minutes of this meeting, future WLL's will not be aware of this 'suggestion'. Also, I would like to add further that since the Topic Chairwomen 'volunteer' and are not 'selected' to chair, it is their responsibility, not the WLL's, to find a replacement. This should be easy to do if the list of Chairwomen is sent to the group on a monthly or quarterly basis."
"I'm not sure this solution is really a solution. One idea might be to include the point about finding replacements in the letters that go to the group both seeking and informing who weekly leaders are. It might also be included in reminders to weekly leaders prior to their lead. Further, all the reminders in the world are not going to eliminate the problem for weekly leaders who simply forget their commitment or have some last-minute emergency. I am in favor of making it clear that weekly leaders are responsible for finding their own replacements as long as we recognize that this is not a cure-all."
"...Let's keep this simple. I am against a formal requirement about this.I think it is sufficient that the WLL can request that the chair make arrangements if she finds she will not be able to fulfill her duty, but if that doesn't happen, it seems to me the WLL can simply let the group know that we don't have a chair for that week, and let someone volunteer."
"In my opinion, this may work with some, but won't work with all. People forget, have emergencies or just won't do it. Human nature. We have, at least in the past, people who sign up as backups to lead the meeting. What if we had the Weekly Leader Listkeeper assign one of those backups to be on watch for a month?That way if the topic doesn't come out by early evening (US time) on Sunday, the backup topic person could send in a "temporary topic".If the topic still doesn't come out, then temporary becomes topic of the week."
"...I just checked the guidelines for Weekly Leader Listkeeper and this is the reference for replacing the weekly leader, 'Replace the topic leader if necessary through general announcement to the group.' There is nothing about having a list of backups, so maybe this idea should be incorporated into the WLL description."
```````````
Two ideas seemed to arise that had a fair amount of support:
* That the letter to the leader volunteers stress that it's their responsibility to find a replacement
* That when the list is published on a group level as to who the volunteers are that we head that with a statement that makes it clear that if the leader cannot, for any reason, fulfill her commitment that she should find her own replacement to put out a topic.
A third idea wasn't directly addressed, but focused on the presence of a list of backups that the WLL maintains.
The chair will take these ideas and put forth a proposal to the group, along with some appropriate wording for the WLL's position.
==============================
==============================
Individual agenda items and a summary for the regular GROW list will follow.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura B., GROW Business Chair
========================================
GROW BUSINESS MINUTES FOR October 21-24 (Posted October 25, 2008)
========================================
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE. Each item for discussion will be listed separately.
This four-day period has been focused on discussion and head-nodding/head-shaking to see if we can move to consensus on our remaining issues. The Business Chair would like to thank everyone who has participated; much has been discussed.
==================================
Reports
==================================
During this 4-day period, we have the OIAA report. To date, we have had a report from the treasurer, the listkeeper, and the OIAA representative. We have not had a report from the secretary since the acting secretary is also the business chair and she's been concentrating on the meeting. During the next 4-day period, she will file the secretary's report.
==================================
Trusted Servants
==================================
We had off-topic discussion of changing the format of the list so as not to need a treasurer. The business chair pointed out that, since this needs a group conscience decision, it most productively could be raised at the next business meeting. The individual suggesting this pointed out that we were in need of a treasurer, and she was attempting to suggest something so that the group could continue. She also stated that the idea had been proposed once and "nixed" by group conscience.
For clarification, the business chair would like to explain that we have a 6-month moratorium around raising an issue once group conscience has spoken; any issue can be raised more than once at business meetings as long as this moratorium is respected.
We have nearly all trusted servant positions filled, with the exception of the 12-step volunteer listkeeper.
==================================
Agenda items
==================================
1a.4 Reduction in Trusted Servant positions
The Chair refined the proposal, removing the secretary's position. As it stands, it received enough support that we may have consensus, so it will be up for head-nods/head-shakes.
``````````
1b.4 Steering Committee changes revision
As per a previous request during the past head-nod period, the group was asked to show whether we have consensus on adding in these three positions to the steering committee:
Immediate Past Business Chair
Immediate Past Secretary
Immediate Past GSR
We did not have consensus. One member shook her head "no," adding:
" My reason being that after the past business meeting none of these 3 were still members of our group and it may be that way again at any time."
There is just enough time in the business meeting for us to consider a formal proposal that we vote on (if there are going to be formal proposals, they need to be made by the 17th day of the meeting because of the need for a vote, the time for those in the minority to state their opinions, one person in the majority to say that her mind is changed, and a re-vote. The process takes 12 days).
However, we haven't had the opportunity to discuss this, and the spirit of business meetings (as I understand them) is to work toward consensus - having formal proposals only as last resorts. Therefore, the chair will open this for discussion to see if we can get to consensus on this item.
``````````
1c.4 Trusted Servant responsibilities
We separated the responsibilities from the list of trusted servants. Most people supported
the responsibilities but one member said:
"I would still prefer that each month have a backup topic leader. Doing it this way just seems
more efficient to me. Finding someone on Sunday evening, even from the backup list, to post
a topic may prove to be difficult. There are times we are all away from our computer for
hours or extended lengths of time. I will go with majority on this one if need be, but would
like to hear some discussion on the idea of having a backup for each month. "
So, we will continue this item, with the request to discuss this possibility.
The chair will pull out the business chair's responsibilities, and link them with the secretary's responsibilities (see agenda item 2) because the two overlap, and require a different discussion.
==============================
2.4 -- Secretary responsibilities
This was a difficult issue. We had two conflicting proposals, but it appears that wasn't clear to many people. One proposal defined the secretary's regular responsibilities and also her responsibilities during a business meeting. The other proposal stated that the secretary wouldn't have business meeting responsibilities.
Things were so muddled that the business chair is not going to summarize discussion here, as some people said they supported both proposals (probably not realizing the contradiction) and others pointed out the contradiction and the need to consider the business chair's position.
The business chair's position also depends on how we word the secretary's responsibilities and vice versa. Therefore, during the next 4-day period, the chair will designate a 2a (secretary's responsibilities) and a 2b (business chair's responsibilities) and endeavor to make clear (a) the differences between the two proposals and (b) how the two positions affect each other.
==============================
3.4 -- Trusted Servant Rotation timing
Since we seemed close to agreement, the chair amended the proposal with the proposal that the business chair open up six months before the beginning of her term so she can shadow the current business chair. The proposal was put up for head-nods. We have consensus! The webkeeper will post the changes on the website following the business meeting.
==============================
5.3c Weekly Meeting: finding replacement
Based on previous discussion, the chair suggested that we consider:
* The letter to the leader volunteers stress that it's their responsibility to find a replacement
* When the list is published on a group level as to who the volunteers are that we head that with a statement that makes it clear that if the leader cannot, for any reason, fulfill her commitment that she should find her own replacement to put out a topic.
`````
Several people favored this proposal. One did not agree and raised the same issue as for the Weekly Leader Listkeeper's position responsibilities:
"I am in favor of the WLL maintaining a list of backup volunteers to lead. My opinion remains that 1 of the backup topic volunteers be available for each month to send out a topic if the topic does not show up by Sunday evening. We can talk this one into the ground, but no system is going to be perfect. We are all perfectly imperfect and human. "
Since we will be discussing the WLL's position, we will keep this agenda item open.
==============================
==============================
Individual agenda items and a summary for the regular GROW list will follow.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura B., GROW Business Chair
========================================
GROW BUSINESS MINUTES FOR October 25-28 (Posted October 29, 2008)
========================================
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE. Each item for discussion will be listed separately.
We are almost done! Thank you all for hanging in there and for making this such a fruitful meeting.
==================================
Trusted Servants
==================================
The 12-step volunteer listkeeper position was filled.
==================================
Agenda items
==================================
1a.5 Reduction in Trusted Servant positions
This proposal was up for head nods/shakes and we have consensus! The following are the current positions; the webkeeper will note this as a group conscience decision and change the website after the meeting adjourns:
Birthday listkeeper
Business Chair
Greeter (1)
GSR representative
Listkeeper
Listkeeper Backup
OIAA rep
Secretary
Sponsor listkeeper
12-step listkeeper
Treasurer
2nd signer
Weekly topic listkeeper
Webkeeper
Webkeeper backup
``````````
1b.5 Steering Committee -- past TS
We discussed whether or not the following three positions should be kept on the Steering Committee:
Immediate Past Business Chair
Immediate Past Secretary
Immediate Past GSR
We did not have consensus during the previous head-nod period and we don't seem to be moving toward consensus now. The chair doesn't see much room for compromise (it's sort of a "yes" or "no" issue with not a lot of play in it). Therefore, in this case, we apparently agree to disagree. Since these three positions were part of the Steering Committee previously, they will remain on the SC.
Some comments during this discussion were:
"For the last two business meetings (by my count) these positions have had next to them (no longer a member of the group_) so I see no reason to include them as steering committee members"
"I can go either way on this. On one hand, I can see the value of having
these gals on the S.C. for their input when there is an incident. However,
if no one has been in these positions for some time now, perhaps they are
not necessary."
"I've never known (but that doesn't mean I might have missed something) any position, f2f or otherwise (except for here, of course), where a past trusted servant has to continue service. Perhaps they can simply be available if needed, but if they leave the group, we just make do? "
"True, we have had times when none of these past TS's have been here. However, I do believe,
they are valuable to the Steering Committee. Especially now that we have cut it down to just
the one year term TS. I support having the past Business Chair, Secretary and GSR on the
Steering Committee. It lends experience and background to the Committee. "
``````````
1c.5 Trusted Servant responsibilities
We separated the Secretary and the Business Chair's responsibilities from the list of trusted servant responsibilities. The only discussion centered around whether or not we should have a monthly backup topic leader. The discussion was inconclusive. Therefore, the chair will pull out the Weekly Leader Listkeeper position and put the rest of this list up for head nods/ head shakes.
The WLL and the finding of a weekly replacement will be put in topic 5 for ease of discussion.
==============================
2a.5 -- Secretary responsibilities
The chair sorted out the differences, and after a comment posted by the original committee, it appears that we will have consensus on this topic, so it will be up for head nods/ head shakes in this next period.
``````
2a.5 -- Business Chair responsibilities
The chair sorted out the differences, and after a comment posted by the original committee, it appears that we will have consensus on this topic, so it will be up for head nods/ head shakes in this next period.
==============================
5c.5 Weekly Meeting: finding replacement
The comments on this topic and the WLL position responsibilities focused around two differing ways to find replacements:
* Announce in letters sent to the group (both asking for volunteers for leading and in the monthly posting about who will lead) that it is the weekly leader's responsibility to find a replacement.
* Have the WLL keep a list of volunteers to take on the responsibility, for a month, of filling in as a weekly leader if there is no posting on Sunday.
The chair will post this for one last round of discussion (we have time for one more round of discussion and one round of head-nods), with an idea for a compromise that has occurred to her
==============================
==============================
Individual agenda items and a summary for the regular GROW list will follow.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura B., GROW Business Chair