Next meeting on Thursday, March 4 after the gratitude meeting.
Minutes will now be posted at website for all to read and not read during
business meeting.
The following was tabled to the next
business meeting:
II. Determination of Op
Status
A. StarLink-IRC Server requires deletion of OP's after 45 days of inactivity
as
an OP. (OP may reapply immediately if attendance is restarted.)
Recommendation: That all OP's who have been inactive as OP's in #SLAA be
deleted.
List of OP's inactive 45 days or more:
V_Kay
TimothyB, Standby
soahc, miracle1
NanL
Memlock
Mank
lamplighte
karinut
BobX
Bette
Abram
B. Recommendation: All other present OP's be continued as 100 level
OP's to lead meetings and act as doorman.
List of Active OP's
Zee (RobZ)
Maxine
RickB
TimF
DanK
georgew
C. Requirement for OP's and selection
1. 30 days, or 60 days of recovery
2. Must volunteer
Meeting was called to order by Maxine at 11:15pm EST with the Serenity Prayer.
Attendance: 17
4 Operators:
georgew Maxine RobZ
TimF
4 Non-ops:
EFreem3407 MarknDeb Sassy
Yo
2 Partial op attendance: DanK
RickB
7 Partial attendance: Abram
Allen^ GregT
Ira
Marn mystic
none2
Old business:
Approve minutes of 2/18/99 business meeting
Establish officer positions (with responsibilities)
Establish officer positions’ suggested requirements
Establish method of officer selection (volunteer or nomination)
Deletion of inactive OPs
Continuation of present OPs
Establish OPs’ selection and requirements
TimF read
the minutes of the last business meeting (2/18/99).
Maxine moved that we accept the minutes as read.
Allen^
seconded
Nine
(+) Zero (-) Two (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.A.1.[abcde]
RobZ
asked if the chairperson could also act as an op.
Maxine
confirmed yes.
Georgew
moved the responsibilities be incorporated as noted
Yo mentioned
that there was not any recommended length of term for officers and asked
if length of term will be incorporated?
Georgew
explained that it is recommended that there is no term for officers, as
good and qualified officers are difficult to find. We intended new
election upon resignation.
Marn
explained that she thought this is a discussion meeting, and assumed no
voting and nor motions. She requested clarification.
Yo stated
that he believes that everyone should have a chance to participate and
that a 6-month commitment is in order to allow for that. He made
a motion that the term of officers is for 6 months.
Maxine
addressed Marn’s point. We are not electing officers tonight.
All we are doing is establishing the office positions at this time.
Before we can elect people to the office, we have to establish that the
office is needed.
Georgew
addressed Yo’s point. About term, the StarLink-IRC server does not
like to have changes, especially in owner position for stability and the
importance of owner position relative to StarLink. Second, there
are strict requirements placed on officer positions, which Maxine designed
to parallel StarLink-IRC positions. In the interest of having qualified
people, we felt terms were not as significant as stability. If we
have a non-performing position, we CAN ask for changes without impeachment.
There are guidelines suggested for inactivity to protect the channel, and
quite frankly not many long-term members to fill positions. To have
terms could actually mean having to reduce quality of officers.
Marn
asked that if we accept the statements as they now exist regarding these
responsibilities, will it be possible in the future to add more responsibilities
as needed or delete or move them to other officers? If so, this would
make me feel it is safe to ratify such things early in the process.
Maxine
confirmed this. That is the point of just establishing the positions
at this point. We can table details to a policy committee once we
get it established. Policy and guidelines include descriptions of
officers, and can always be changed.
Yo explained
that he feels that this type of leadership in not in the best interest
of recovery and would like to ask that consideration be given for officers
to NOT necessarily be owner or ops.
TimF
moved to incorporate all listed responsibilities except 1b (namely I.A.1.[acde]).
He commented that the Chairperson would likely be Chairperson of policy
committee as well, but think that is up to policy committee.
Georgew moved to incorporate all of I.A.1.[abcde].
RobZ
seconded.
Seven
(+) Two (-) Three (x) 9 of 12 needed. Motion
failed.
TimF moved to incorporate I.A.1.[acde], without b.
MarknDeb
seconded.
Eight
(+) One (-) Four (x) 9 of 13 needed. Motion
failed.
Georgew
moved that abstentions count as no votes, commenting we will not get anything
done.
Marn
explained that when I vote abstain, I want it noted as such: it means that
I don't have enough information to have an opinion.
EFreem3407
agreed.
Georgew
suggested members please ask questions, as there is no question we are
not willing to answer.
Marn
mentioned that it could be valuable to know why others have voted to abstain.
There may be a problem here.
None2,
addressing Marn's question, abstained because of arriving too late to make
an informed vote.
Marn
mentioned that she thinks some people here may not have come in with intentions
of participating in a business meeting. Their votes to abstain may
reflect that. She voted abstention in several votes in our first
meeting, but has been able to have opinions tonight, so hasn’t abstained.
Georgew mentioned that the meeting has been announced for 6 days
in channel and agenda was sent to all here last night and tonight.
Maxine has broken it down for review. I hope most of people here
knew there was going to be a meeting. I move again
to take Tim's last motion and reintroduce it, namely I.A.1.[acde].
TimF
seconded.
Twelve
(+) Zero (-) Three (x) 10 of 15 needed. Motion
passed.
Yo explained that his agenda makes no mention of Chairperson, only President, etc. Assuming President in now being called chairperson, would like to point out that at every meeting I've attended of 12-step orientation, the 'owner' of the location of the meeting had very little to do with the officers of that/those meetings. Same thing goes for other officers.
Allen^ moved to adjourn.
Sassy
seconded.
Five
(+) Eight (-) Two (x) 8 of 15 needed. Motion
failed.
RobZ let
everyone know that they could feel free to grab an op to ask questions
privately, so that we can keep things moving smoothly, and volunteered
to help anyone.
Maxine
introduced item I.A.2.[abc]
TimF moved that Co-Chair be created as stated {I.A.2.[abc]).
RobZ
seconded.
Ten (+)
Zero (-) Two (x) 8 of 12 needed. Motion passed.
GregT
asked if discussion is allowed after a second, and pointed out that some
hands were missed.
Maxine
apologized for missing someone’s hand.
Georgew
pointed out that discussion is after topic is introduced. After a
motion and second, the motion must be voted on. If denied, more discussion
takes place.
GregT
commented that he has a different experience and understanding of procedure.
Maxine
introduced item I.A.3.[abc].
GregT moved to accept as stated (I.A.3.[abc]).
Yo seconded.
Eleven
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.A.4.[abc].
Deb asked
what "technical needs" entails, for clarification.
Georgew
addressed Deb’s inquiry. There are a series of commands that only
owner does, and we need to have someone conversant for two reasons.
In an in owner’s absence, to advise co-owner, and if owner retires, to
assist new owner and keep a record of any Star-Link modifications to commands.
GregT moved to accept as stated (I.A.4.[abc]).
TimF
seconded.
Eleven
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.B.1.[ab]
Maxine
explained that in most 12-step groups, the requirement for leaders (officers)
is sobriety time. Since in S fellowships, we set our own bottom lines
(which may be altered at anytime we see the need), we stress time in recovery
instead of time of sobriety. Also, since we ARE on-line, I suggest
we have a time of OP service to ensure that the leaders are comfortable
with this forum.
TimF
noted that all of this is listed as "suggested" time, which STILL gives
the voting group the ability to nominate/elect/... persons into positions
when the need is there but the time isn't.
DanK moved to accept the suggested requirements as stated (I.B.1.[ab]).
GregT
seconded.
Eight
(+) Zero (-) Three (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.B.2.[ab]
Yo mentioned
that the agenda suggested Chairman is the Owner of channel, and Co-Chairman
is Co-Owner. That was not brought up. Is the Channel CO-OWNER
automatically Co-Chairperson?
DanK
addressed Yo’s inquiry. The intent is that the co-chairperson will
be registered as the co-owner. Although you are correct, that was
not stated here.
RobZ
explained that the co-chair (co-owner) will be voted on, and that it is
not an assumed position.
Georgew
explained that it was our intention owner is chairperson, co-owner is co-chairperson,
secretary is 450 level op, and webmaster is 300 level op. Georgew
moved that these be added to the position description.
Yo reiterated
that he would like to see officers ELECTED, not appointed.
Maxine
again confirmed that we WOULD be electing the officers. Right now,
we are just establishing the responsibilities and requirements of the positions.
TimF moved that co-chairperson office be established as set forth in I.B.2.[ab].
Georgew
seconded.
Nine
(+) Zero (-) Two (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
MarknDeb raised a point of order - georgew has a previous motion
to add to descriptions and TimF's motion was out of order.
Georgew
restated his motion. Because it was our intention owner is chairperson,
co-owner is co-chairperson, secretary is 450 level op, and webmaster is
300 level op, motion is made to add this to the position
description.
DanK
seconded.
Nine
(+) Zero (-) Two (x) 8 of 10 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.B.3.[a].
TimF moved that with George's description added, we incorporated I.B.3.[a],
adding b. 450 level op.
Maxine
seconded.
Eight
(+) Zero (-) Three (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.B.4.[ab].
TimF
explained that georgew's description called for 300 level op, but to accomplish
item I.A.4.c, I would suggest 400 level (or 450 for consistency).
RobZ
seconded.
Maxine
moved that we accept points a & b and change c to 450 level.
Yo seconded.
Georgew explained that he agrees to 400 level, moves
item c. be added where the position will be at 400 OP level.
Maxine
seconded.
Ten (+)
Zero (-) Two (x) 8 of 12 needed. Motion passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.C.
Georgew
raised a point of order, that we only added the changed requirement to
I.B.4. TimF’s motion is still on floor to accept I.B.4.[abc] with
change from 300 to 400 level OP.
RobZ
seconded TimF’s motion, including 400 level op.
Abram
asked if the op levels are a part of the job descriptions, or are a person
needs them before they can hold that office.
TimF
addressed Abram’s query. Officers will be elected. Then that
office will place a person into an op position of the prescribed level
as defined by descriptions being talked about here.
TimF introduced a motion incorporating I.A.4.[abc] and adding d.
Level 400 op.
Georgew
seconded.
Nine
(+) Zero (-) Two (x) 8 of 11 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
reintroduced item I.C.
Georgew
explained that we never voted on I.B.4.[ab]. TimF introduced 400
level op for webmaster, but vote on I.B.4.[ab] was never done.
TimF
explained that motion was about I.A.4.[abcd] and that we need to vote on
I.B.4.[ab] now.
Maxine
reintroduced I.B.4.[ab] and adding c. Level 400 op.
Georgew
explained that 400 level is now in I.A.4.[abcd], so we just need a and
b
TimF moved that we incorporate I.B.4.[ab] and adding c. Level 400
op. And at the same time, that the text about 400 level be removed
from its position in I.A.4.d.
RobZ
seconded.
Seven
(+) Zero (-) Three (x) 7 of 10 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
reintroduced item I.C.
RobZ
requested clarification on this. Are we going to vote on this as
a motion for the next meeting? Are we going to allow nominees and
volunteers before that motion?
Yo commented
that he is STRONGLY in favor of having officers ELECTED with set terms
of office. I believe that this type of commitment can be very demanding
and should be made available to as many that would like to seek the position
with the appropriate qualifications.
Georgew
noted that it has always been the intention of all of us to hold elections
to achieve a measure of group consensus. We will hold elections and
this has never been an issue. We are only determining the requirements
and responsibilities to provide a basis on which we can all agree for the
election. The means of determining candidates DOES have a choice.
We can use nominees who meet the requirements or we can use volunteers
to insure that the parties nominated are interested. If nominees,
they need to meet requirements also or be refused nomination. We
are just asking for establishing agreement between the two here.
Yo inquired
if the Chairperson does or does NOT have to be Channel Owner. I don't
believe it is necessary, that the two serve different functions.
But that having channel owner also being the Chairperson is quite all right.
TimF
called for the order of the day to get back to the agenda.
MarknDeb commented that it is clear that the candidate could come
from either volunteer or nominee. I think the options are probably
in a potential candidate’s favor to be nominated. I
move we select candidates for election by nomination.
TimF
seconded.
Eight
(+) Zero (-) One (x) 6 of 9 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine moved to table the rest of the agenda to the next meeting.
Georgew
seconded.
Nine
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 9 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
requested that someone suggest a date for next meeting.
Georgew
suggested either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Because feedback
meetings run over, I suggest next Wednesday.
Yo was
strongly opposed to Wednesday and suggested Thursday.
Sassy
suggested Saturday.
RobZ
suggested against Tuesdays or Fridays because of feedback meetings, and
against Wednesdays for personal reasons, but stated he wouldn’t vote against
a Wednesday.
Maxine moved we have the next meeting on Thursday, March 4 after the gratitude
meeting.
RobZ
seconded.
Seven
(+) One (-) One (x) 6 of 9 needed. Motion passed.
Yo suggested
the following new business for the next meeting:
A motion
to suggest time limit for business meetings for Old Business and New Business.
A motion
to establish the length of terms for offices.
Maxine
shared the URL for our website: https://www.angelfire.com/on/slaa/slaa.html
Maxine
explained that we could read the minutes of the meeting there and also
see the next agenda. There is also an e-mail address where you can
make suggestions for topics.
Yo expressed
concern about the lengthy minutes we had tonight and how it will be triple
next week. I like to propose that we cut down the minutes read at
next meeting to bare essentials and also that we officially CLOSE the regular
SLAA meeting before beginning the business meeting.
Maxine
agreed, suggesting we do not roll them during the meeting. Let's
read them at the URL beforehand and just make any changes.
Abram
mentioned that we had a positive vote on a motion to adjourn, so lets close
the meeting and chat informally.
Georgew
remarked that the floor recognized that more old business existed.
We need another motion to close, but TimF has floor first.
TimF
commented that the meeting is not yet adjourned and Yo made two very good
points. I agree that the minutes get too long for this kind of forum and
hope that putting them on a website will let people see them ahead of time,
but not everyone knows yet. To approve minutes that are abbreviated
is inappropriate. I think that people need to read the minutes from the
website before or during the next meeting for them to be approved and hope
that this is the way we go in the future. As to the second point,
having the business meeting here has proved difficult tonight as people
came (and went) without necessarily knowing a business meeting was being
conducted, and this led to confusing votes of abstentions. I think
a better solution would be to have the business meeting in another room
name. I think that we should be open to discussion on this.
Yo moved that the minutes be posted at website for all to read and not
read during business meeting.
Maxine
seconded.
Eight
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion
passed.
Georgew moved to adjourn, and suggested anyone can send suggestions for
next meeting to any OP for consideration.
Yo seconded
both issues.
Eight
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion
passed.
Meeting was closed at 2:32am EST with
the Serenity Prayer.