Group Conscience Topics
Business Meeting
- Business Meeting Segments (10/15)
- Common Welfare Guidelines (10/14)
- Common Welfare Guidelines > Violations (10/07)
- Complexity (4/08)
- First Meeting (9/98)
- Group Conscience (8/98)
- Group Conscience > No revisit (10/14)
- Group Conscience > No revisit (8/98)
- Group Conscience > Two-thirds Majority Voting (10/14)
- Late Arrivals (1/99)
- Location (4/08)
- Location (7/98)
- Minutes (10/05)
- Participation (7/06)
- Participation (1/99)
- Permanent Member Status (4/11)
- Proposals Format (10/13)
- Proposals Format > Past Group Conscience Decisions (10/14)
- Proposals Format > Eliminate Anticipated Outcome (10/14)
- Proposals Format > Why Actions Need to be Taken (10/14)
- Proposals Format > Language Changes by Responsible Trusted Servant (10/14)
- Scheduling (4/08)
- Scheduling (4/99)
- Scheduling (7/98)
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Proposal 3: 3-day Business Segments (10/15)
Decision: We will try 3-day segments in our next business meeting. The decision stands for at least one year per previous group conscience decision. If it does not work we can change it back!
Discussion: This is a new proposal for this business meeting. This is not usually a problem at the start of a meeting, when there are many topics posted and much to discuss. As the meeting wears on, however, the Chair must wait for the 4-day segment to end before she can post the next step of the business meeting. This was confusing to some members. Some members wondered if the meeting had ended. 4-day segments caused a drag on the interest of our members. We discussed shortening the segments to 3 days. The vote was majority in favor, with a minority against. The minority opinion on this is that not everyone has full time access to email discussions, especially while traveling. Sometimes a member would like to give more thought to a discussion. One member who voted for the motion changed her mind. The proposal went for revoting. After the revote, majority opinion stands with one abstention.
Proposal: The GROW Business meeting segments will last 3 days instead of 4 days.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Common Welfare Guidelines
Business Meeting > Common Welfare Guidelines (10/14)Decision: Having approved a change from "consensus" to a two-thirds majority vote on proposals, we must revise the Business Meeting Guidelines to reflect new decision-making procedures. The following are the revised GROW Guidelines for conducting business:
- Proposals to be considered during GROW business meetings should include the following:
- A clear brief statement that summarizes the proposal;
- A rationale that describes why the group conscience decision is needed, and
- Specific language to be presented for discussion and voting in the business meeting (including, as appropriate, language for a job description, form letter, or GROW policy or guideline). This language may need to be modified by the Trusted Servant responsible for the area to reflect the group's discussions.
Before submitting a proposal, meeting participants are encouraged to consult with the Business Chair, Secretary, or Steering Committee members to formulate their proposals if they need help. They should also review past Group Conscience Decisions related to the proposal (see http://www.g-r-o-w.com/members/groupc/gctopics/gc_index.htm).
- We allow a minimum of 4 days for discussion, more when warranted.
- At the end of the 4-day discussion period, the Chair calls for a vote. 4 days are allowed for voting, which can be done either publicly on the list, or privately by sending votes to the Chair. The Chair counts the votes.
- The voting is done by: I agree or I disagree.
- At the end of the voting period, the Chair announces the results of the vote. The group holds to a 2/3 majority to pass or fail any group conscience decision.
- Following the announcement of results, the Chair will ask if the minority wants 4 days to discuss their minority opinion.
- If yes, then 4 days of discussion will begin.
At the end of the 4 days of discussion, the Chair will ask if anyone who originally voted for the Proposal (a majority voter) has been persuaded by this discussion to change her opinion. If yes, the Chair then calls for another 4-day voting period. The outcome of the second vote is the determining vote. As in the first vote, the 2/3 majority vote will be observed.
If no majority voters have been persuaded to change their opinion, there will not be another vote. - If the minority does not want 4 days to express their opinion, there will be no further discussion and there will not be another vote.
- At the end of the voting period, the Business Chair announces the final results of the vote.
- Note: If any item on the agenda has not reached a 2/3 majority vote by the 17th day of the business meeting, the item is tabled and held over to the next scheduled business meeting.
Although we had a low voter turn-out, 12 of the 12 members who responded were all in agreement with this Proposal. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Common Welfare Guidelines > Violations (10/07)
Decision: We don't have consensus on this agenda item as sent out. However, a dissenting voice is offering alternative wording, and I would like to give us one more chance for a head nod. We have approached other issues in a similar way in the past.
Proposal: Amendment to Common Welfare Guidelines.
Amend our common welfare guidelines by eliminating part of them, specifically the portion that reads "3) If she chooses to continue the behavior, she will be unsubscribed as follows: 1st offense - 7 days; 2nd offense - 14 days; 3rd offense - 30 days; 4th offense - 1 year. "
Comments: This proposal received a lot of discussion. It appears that some of us believe that #3 helps provide us with a definite process to both let an individual choose if she will change her behavior and a way to help the group if she does not. On the other hand, some of us believe that #3 is too lenient. I believe some have an idea of how to keep #3, but to help people be more aware of it. As we don't seem to be anywhere near consensus on this issue, Why don't we talk about some of the ideas that people have of helping our members be aware of our Common Welfare Guidelines.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Complexity
Business Meeting > Complexity (4/08)Decision: 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.
Comments: During this four-day period, we discussed the complexity of Business Meetings. No one idea surfaced as being a focus of support. 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....
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
First Meeting
Business Meeting > First Meeting (9/98)
Decision: First business meeting to be held in January 1999.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Group Conscience
Business Meeting > Group Conscience (8/98)
Decision: Adopted Group Conscience Guidelines
Business Meeting > Group Conscience > No revisit (10/14)
Decision: All Group Conscience Decisions have a one-year "no revisit" period. The following statement will be placed on the Business Meeting Chair's Job Description: "Review all incoming proposals to ensure that they have not been finalized / approved within 1 year. If the proposal was finalized / approved during the last Business Meeting, inform the member of the one-year Group Conscience revisit decision and table the item to the next Business Meeting.
Proposal: To extend Group Conscience "no revisit" policy from six months to one year.
August 1998 Group Conscience language: All Group Conscience Decisions have a six-month "no revisit".
Rationale: In 1998, when decisions were made about how to conduct our Business Meetings, the meetings were scheduled quarterly. At that time, we decided that we did not want to consider/discuss the same issue two meetings in a row. A 6-month waiting period until a proposal could be raised again meant that the same proposal would not come up in two consecutive Business Meetings.
In April 2008, we changed the meeting frequency to two times per year and it was possible to have the same proposal come up two meetings in a row. Changing the period for "no revisit" to one year would allow us to avoid having to decide/discuss the same issue two meetings in a row. It would also ensure that we have had enough time to know if the prior group conscience did not resolve the issue satisfactorily.
Proposed language change: All Group Conscience Decisions have a one-year "no revisit" period.
The following statement will be placed on the Business Meeting Chair's Job Description: Review all incoming proposals to ensure that they have not been finalized / approved within 1 year. If the proposal was finalized / approved during the last Business Meeting, inform the Resolution: Of the 17 members who responded, all were in agreement. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Comments: Of the 17 members who responded, all were in agreement. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Group Conscience > No revisit (8/98)
Decision: All Group Conscience Decisions have a six month "no revisit."
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Two-thirds Majority Voting (10/14)
Decision: Although we had a low voter turn-out, 12 of the 12 members who responded were all in agreement with this Proposal. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Proposal: To change our voting procedures from 'Consensus' to 'Two-thirds Majority' Rule. At our Business Meetings, we use the "consensus" building voting method; i.e. we all agree, we all disagree, or we all agree to disagree. GROW Business Guidelines also mention trying to achieve "Substantial Unanimity". However, 'substantial unanimity' doesn't mean 100% agreement or disagreement. It simply means a two-thirds majority according to the AA Service Manual and consistent with the Twelve Concepts for World Service by Bill W. which states:
"The Conference, through ample discussion, always strives for substantial unanimity, Page S56, The Voting Process. In order to become an Advisory Action, a recommendation must be approved by "substantial unanimity" - defined as a two-thirds majority."
Also, because our group is a contributing member of OIAA (Online Intergroup of AA), their position on voting was sought. It is as follows:
"A unanimous vote can be too high a bar to achieve; a simple majority not high enough. A 2/3 majority seems a good compromise so long as the minority opinion is heard and considered."
Explanation/Rationale: By using the 2/3 majority rule via "I agree" or "I disagree" -
- it will be more consistent with the practice of most online and f2f Business Meetings;
- it will be easier to understand;
- it will shorten the voting process;
- there will be no need to carry an item over from week to week,
- more members may be willing to participate in the meeting.
Those who are not satisfied with the outcome of the vote will still have the opportunity to voice their minority opinion, if they wish, and can always raise the issue again at another meeting
If this is adopted by the Business Group, this new method of voting will begin with our April 2015 Business Meeting. Also, an updated set of Guidelines to reflect this change will be submitted.
See revised guidelines at www.g-r-o-w.com/members/biz/guidelines.htm.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Late Arrivals
Business Meeting > Late Arrivals (1/99)
Decision: The steering committee will determine how to bring late comers up to speed with the least amount of disruption to the business at hand.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Location
Business Meeting > Location (4/08)
Decision: 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.
Comments: 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.
Business Meeting > Location (7/98)
Decision: To conduct business on a separate mail list
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Minutes
Business Meeting > Minutes (10/05)
Decision: There being no objections, the following will be recorded as a group conscience by consensus, and added to the Secretary's job description: What TS reports were presented to the meeting What discussions were on the table The outcome of the discussion How that decision would be entered into the record as a GC Decision (wording) What discussions are ongoing and a brief background as to why If there was a change to a previous GC, what it is changing from and to Any other business before us and the outcome TS positions filled and still open GROW website url and password.
Proposal: Annette asked that, as guidance for our current and/or future secretaries, we clarify what our minutes should include, such as:
- What TS reports were presented to the meeting
- What discussions were on the table
- The outcome of the discussion
- How that decision would be entered into the record as a GC Decision (wording)
- What discussions are ongoing and a brief background as to why
- If there was a change to a previous GC, what it is changing from and to
- Any other business before us and the outcome
- TS positions filled and still open
- GROW website url and password
Comments: To further focus the discussion, the Chair suggested that such guidelines be included in the Secretary's job description. Nine members responded to this item, each agreeing that the above clarifications shall be included in the Secretary's job description.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Participation
Business Meeting > Participation (7/06)
Decision: All trusted servants are required to attend business meetings and will be automatically subscribed to the business list by the Listkeeper.
Business Meeting > Participation (1/99)
Decision: The doors of the business meeting will remain open to all members for the duration of the meeting.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Permanent Member Status
Business Meeting > Permanent Member Status (4/11)
Decision: Agenda Item was withdrawn.
Proposal: Proposal to make Jean L., who is one of our founding members, a permanent subscriber to "grow-owner" so that she can work "behind the scenes" to oversee and provide assistance, as needed, in maintaining and managing the GROW List. She as served as Listkeeper and Greeter and "knows the ropes".
Comments: This proposal generated quite a bit of discussion. Many members were in favor of the proposal, as phrased. However, some members raised the following concerns, which warrant further discussion:
- Such a move would violate AA's Traditions by taking an action based on personality rather than principle;
- There are other members of the group who were founding members and are also knowledgeable about the Listkeeper, Greeter, etc positions.
- One member wondered if such a position is "permanent," and if Jean were not available, will we look for someone else for this position? Will the position have specific tasks, etc.?
- One member suggested that Jean would be like an "Elder Stateswoman" for the GROW group and would continue doing what she has always been doing (e.g. being an available resource, etc).
- Another member was in favor of the proposal, but conceded that if it is the consensus of the group that the "permanent" aspect of the subscription to grow-owner is troublesome, perhaps we could break it down and make the subscription for a two-year time, to be renewed every two years as the need dictates.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Proposals
Business Meeting > Proposals Format (10/13)
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Past Group Conscience Decisions (10/14)
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Eliminate Anticipated Outcome (10/14)
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Why Actions Need to be Taken (10/14)
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Language Changes by Responsible Trusted Servant (10/14)
Business Meeting > Proposals Format (10/13)
Decision: We have achieved consensus on the format for business meeting proposals, and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Proposal: Guidelines for Writing Proposals
To facilitate the decision-making process in GROW Business Meetings, we should adopt a set of guidelines for proposals. Therefore, it is proposed that the group approve and adopt the following points to be included in the GROW Business Meeting Guidelines on the website and in Business Chair communications at the opening of the meeting:
"Proposals to be considered during GROW business meetings should include the following:
- A clear brief statement that summarizes the proposal, including the anticipated outcome of adopting it;
- A statement of how the proposal would be implemented if adopted; and
- Specific language to be presented for discussion and voting in the business meeting (including, as appropriate, language for a job description, form letter, or GROW policy or guideline).
Before submitting a proposal, meeting participants are encouraged to consult with the Business Chair, Secretary, or Steering Committee members to formulate their proposals if they need help."
Comments: The following comments were received on this Proposal:
- How can the author of the proposal know what the anticipated outcome will be? I ask this because I have proposed things that went into a completely different direction than I expected.
- As to the anticipated outcome, if the proposer does not anticipate a particular outcome, why they need help."are they making the proposal in the first place? I assume the anticipated outcome is the reason they are making a proposal.
- I agree with this Proposal; however, the logistics of getting this done so that the Proposals can be properly formulated prior to the opening of the Business Meeting should be addressed. That is, the membership should be made aware that guidelines exist (I know this will be posted on the website. Sometimes people don't read the website).
- I suggest that when the Business Chair announces an upcoming Business Meeting and encourages participation, she can ask if there are any proposed agenda items and advise of the Proposal Guidelines and offer assistance, etc. Likewise, throughout the year, if a suggestion for an agenda item is made, the Business Chair or Secretary or whoever can advise of these Guidelines and offer assistance.
- It seems to me that my suggestion does not require a formal Proposal and vote. If the Proposal 9.4 is passed, the guidelines would be posted on the website, and the membership would be made aware of this new "requirement." There is inherent in the Proposal the presumption that the Business Chair would request that Proposals be timely submitted and to advise members that they can get assistance from the website and the TSs. I can't recall the specific wording of the Business Chair Job Description ~ maybe passing of this Proposal will require modification of that job description, and perhaps, the list of duties.
- I am in favor of this proposal for the most part. The only thing I would change would be "anticipated" to "hoped for" outcome.
- I think that a new proposal should be written and submitted to the Biz List for approval since we will be adding the verbiage to the Business Chair's Job Description and list of duties.
- I like it. I even like the part about putting in our anticipated outcome. Although I may be wrong about the actual outcome when I make a proposal, if I haven't thought about the outcome, I'm not clear why I would want to propose something. And then it's clear to others in part why I'm making the proposal, so they have clear information to respond to. I think it's a great idea.
- I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this proposal as I just hope it is not something that is going to bring about a bunch more work for whomever may have to be responsible for the outcome if it is passed. I like the idea that Dr. Bob always had to "Keep It Simple". I guess I am afraid if we keep adding more work to the service positions that no one will want to volunteer for them.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Past Group Conscience Decisions (10/14)
Decision: Under the first item in the GROW Business Meeting Guidelines for meeting Proposals, add a sentence to the last paragraph that asks members preparing proposals to review similar group conscience decisions that have been made in the past. Sentence to read: "They should also review past Group Conscience Decisions related to the proposal (see www.g-r-o-w.com/members/groupc/gctopics/gc_index.htm)."
Proposal: Under the first item in the GROW Business Meeting Guidelines for meeting Proposals, add a sentence to the last paragraph that asks members preparing proposals to review similar group conscience decisions that have been made in the past.
Old language: Before submitting a proposal, meeting participants are encouraged to consult with the Business Chair, Secretary, or Steering Committee members to formulate their proposals if they need help.
New sentence added to the end of the final paragraph: They should also review past group conscience decisions related to the proposal (see www.g-r-o-w.com/members/groupc/gctopics/gc_index.htm).
Rationale: Some topics have come up in business meetings many times over the years. When a new proposal is raised that deals with one of these topics, it should consider past discussions. The new sentence asks people to review earlier group conscience decisions so that their proposal reflects concerns and suggestions that have been discussed earlier. To
Comments: Of the 16 members who responded, all were in agreement. However, it was suggested that in the body of the new sentence to be added, we capitalize past GROUP CONSCIENCE DECISIONS or use bold type. This way it looks more like a category heading. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Eliminate Anticipated Outcome (10/14)
Decision: Under the first item in the GROW Business meeting guidelines for meeting proposals, replace bullet a. to eliminate the requirement to anticipate the outcome.
Proposal: Under the first item in the GROW Business meeting guidelines for meeting proposals, replace bullet a. to eliminate the requirement to anticipate the outcome, which has been confusing.
Old language: A clear brief statement that summarizes the proposal, including the anticipated outcome of adopting it;
New language: A clear brief statement that summarizes the proposal;
Rationale: Outcomes are implied by the proposal. Asking meeting participants to predict the future has not been useful.
Comments:17 out of 17 members who responded were all in agreement with this Proposal. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Why Actions Need to be Taken (10/14)
Decision: Replace bullet b. to eliminate the description of how the proposal will be implemented and to ask the proposer to explain why action needs to be taken. New language: A rationale that describes why the group conscience decision is needed;
Proposal: Under the first item in the GROW Business meeting guidelines for meeting proposals, replace bullet b. to eliminate the description of how the proposal will be implemented and to ask the proposer to explain why action needs to be taken. This reflects how proposals have actually been presented.
Old language: A statement of how the proposal would be implemented if adopted;
New language: A rationale that describes why the group conscience decision is needed;
Rationale: The new language allows for an explanation of the reason a decision needs to be made. The old language was confusing and not very useful. In practice, proposals have contained a rationale which has been far more useful than a discussion of how the proposal should be implemented.
Comments: 19 out of 19 members who responded were all in agreement. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Proposals Format > Language Changes by Responsible Trusted Servant (10/14)
Decision: Under the first item in the GROW Business meeting guidelines for meeting proposals, add a sentence to bullet c. acknowledging that business meeting discussions may necessitate changes in the proposed language and allows those changes to be made by the Trusted Servant who will implement the decision.
Proposal 3.2(c): Under the first item in the GROW Business meeting guidelines for meeting proposals, add a sentence to bullet c. acknowledging that business meeting discussions may necessitate changes in the proposed language and allows those changes to be made by the Trusted Servant who will implement the decision. New sentence: This language may need to be modified by the Trusted Servant responsible for the area to reflect the group's discussions.
Old language: Specific language to be presented for discussion and voting in the business meeting (including, as appropriate, language for a job description, form letter, or GROW policy or guideline).
New sentence added to end of bullet c.: This language may need to be modified by the Trusted Servant responsible for the area to reflect the group's discussions.
Rationale:We have spent a lot of time in the business meeting discussing exactly what language should be included in GROW literature. However, we already ask for specific language as part of the proposal. That language may need to be changed based on our discussions. The current proposal allows us to delegate the final language to the Trusted Servant who will implement the approved proposal. It will streamline the business meeting decision-making process by allowing meeting participants to focus on the merits of the proposal and by allowing follow-up work on the language to be done outside the meeting.
Comments: 18 out of 18 members who responded were all in agreement. Therefore, we have achieved consensus on this item and it is now a part of our Group Conscience decisions.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Scheduling
Business Meeting > Scheduling (4/08)
Decision: Frequency of Business Meetings: It was decided to hold business meetings twice per year in April and October.
Proposal: Number of Business Meetings per Year
Comments: 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.
Top of Page
Back to GC Contents
Business Meeting > Scheduling (4/99)
Decision: The business list will be closed at the end of each quarterly business meeting. All members will be unsubbed from the business list and will need to re-subscribe to the business list at the start of each new business meeting.
Business Meeting > Scheduling (7/98)
Decision: To hold business meetings quarterly.
Proposal: To hold business meetings quarterly (in the months of January, April, July, October) using a 4-day format. No digest on business list.