Return to Minutes Listing Page

Minutes of business meeting on Thu-25-Mar-99
The following was the net result of motions passed during the meeting:
All officers including chair, co-chair, secretary, and webmaster serve for a one-year term. Further, there shall be no limits on the number of terms an officer may serve.
We allow any member to submit nominations during the nomination period directly to TimF by any means they desire, or any op in TimF's absence for forwarding to TimF at the earliest possible time.
We set a time limit on meetings of approximately 60 to 90 minutes, with the chair stopping the introduction of any new item of business at 75 minutes.
Business meetings be after share meetings, 11pm Eastern Time.
The next business meeting will be on April 16th.
The following was tabled to the next business meeting:
Nominations of officers

Meeting was called to order by Maxine at 11:04pm EST with the Serenity Prayer.

Attendance: 9
4 Operators: DanK georgew Maxine TimF
1 Non-ops: Sassy
4 Partial attendance: Abram Leslie Ryan Yo

Approve minutes of 3/4/99 business meeting
Approve minutes of 3/11/99 discussion meeting
Old Business: Establish term of office

Yo moved that the minutes of 3/4 be approved as written.
Sassy seconded.
Seven (+) Zero (-) One (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion passed.

Maxine explained that the discussion meeting on 3/11 didn't have any voting or motions but the notes are posted as well. Maxine moved that we leave the notes posted and not worry about it being formal minutes.
DanK seconded.
Eight (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion passed.

Maxine mentioned that during the last couple of meetings, it has been brought up about terms of office. She introduced Old Business item I. Provide for a term of service for all officers of one year. There shall be no limit to the number of terms an officer can serve.
TimF requested clarification about whether we're going toward boardroom with discussion before motion.
Maxine confirmed this.
TimF said he supported a term of office all along, having suggested 6 mo. or 1 yr. I agree with no limit to number of terms - allowing a dedicated person to continue should they still have desire, energy, and time. I would support this as stated or for 6 months. But bottom line - I SUPPORT IT!
Yo requested clarification of these terms applying to offices of Channel Owner and Ops or for Meeting Officers only?
Maxine stated meeting officers.
Yo commented that 1 year is a long time.
Georgew moved that “All officers including chairperson, co-chairperson, secretary and web master have a term not to exceed one year, with an unlimited number of terms."
Yo asked if discussion on motion been completed?
Maxine confirmed no. We just got the motion on the floor.
Yo noted that Tim referred to boardroom style with discussion BEFORE motion, and remarked that he is confused.
Georgew explained that boardroom style does allow for unlimited discussion BEFORE a motion. When the chair asks for a motion discussion may continue until a motion is made. After a motion is made the chair must deal with the motion before other business and discussion is closed.
TimF noted that he, too, is confused. I thought this more informal style was to allow us to "narrow in" on an acceptable motion that could be passed more easily. Allowing discussion throughout the process until a final vote is taken. I dislike the wording of the motion that has yet to be seconded. He requested the chair to clarify how to proceed.
Maxine suggested we proceed with a second to the current motion on the floor. If no second, motion fails and we open for a new motion.
Georgew noted that Tim is correct. Boardroom style is too allow a group to zero in (not necessarily agree) to a close consensus, although that may not occur in discussion. However, when the chair asks for a motion, it is usually a signal for the end of discussion. However a motion that is not seconded may be dropped. And a seconded motion may me amended, but only twice.
Yo reiterated that 1 year is an awfully long time for this type of meeting, and the fact that's it's a nightly meeting makes it all the more longer. Personally, I think 3 months sounds a lot more reasonable, especially for someone like myself who is just getting started, to take such a responsible commitment. I'd really like to see George's motion reduced AT LEAST to 6 months. If it follows the rules of business meetings, I'd like to make such a motion: Terms of office not to exceed 6 months for the above mentioned officers.
Maxine restated that these offices are only for business meetings, which will be monthly.
DanK explained that he could support 6 mo. OR 1 yr., but have a problem with the way it is stated. Not to exceed, followed by unlimited seems like a contradiction to me. Could we resolve that?
Georgew believes we have a misconception. We have OP's to run meetings, with a schedule for each night. No OP runs more than two meetings. This motion is strictly for the government of the channel and NOT about running meetings. Our meetings, after we have a slate of officers, will be once a month, with some committee work in between. This has never changed. Under these circumstances, I believe the one-year term is reasonable, especially as chair will be owner and longevity is preferable for server continuity. We will not over work anyone in one month meeting increments. OP's do bulk of work in channel. Therefore, I move that “All officers including chair, co-chair, secretary, and webmaster serve for a one-year term. Further, there shall be no limits on the number of terms an officer may serve.”
Abram seconded the motion.
Eight (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion passed.

Maxine introduced New Business, Nomination of Officers. Floor is open for discussion on the PROCESS of nominating officers, not for nominating tonight.
Yo requested clarification about whether these officers are for the sole purpose of running the Monthly Business, as I thought the officers were meant for the nightly #SLAA meetings.
TimF noted that when doing the discussion meeting minutes, we weren't on the same page about this. A while back, it was questioned about having different Chairs for the different nights. Chairing the nightly meetings is NOT AT ALL related to the Chairperson position. Any op (and even non-op) can chair a meeting. These officers are purely for the business end of things. This is mostly moderating (scribing, ...) the business meetings, which will eventually be approximately monthly (or so). They allow for better communication upward and downward with world services and represent a "trusted servant" position of service to the group as a whole - even between business meetings. While we meet every night, that may grow to more frequent. But at this time, we are ONE GROUP of SLAA and, as such, are electing officers to represent that ONE GROUP in the greater scheme of "world service." We might grow to having 8 or 14 meetings. We might grow to having two or three SLAA groups sharing this room. But the officers we are talking about will represent what is now considered ONE GROUP for the purpose of BUSINESS MEETINGS and business functions between meetings.
DanK noted that he believed Maxine stated that we would NOT be accepting nominations tonight, but the agenda leads me to believe otherwise.
Maxine explained that we would accept nominations for 2 weeks (or whatever we decide to set). We do not have to start accepting nominations tonight. What procedure would you like to use for accepting nominations? We can have you nominate someone and send it to me via email. I can check with that person to see if they accept nomination and we can post the nominations at the website. Or we can just ask for volunteers and let first come, first filled.
DanK suggested email.
Georgew stated that nominations could be quiet simple. If Tim is at any meeting, the person may submit their nominations to Tim. If Tim is not present, than to any op. Nominees should be posted before meetings, so people will not repeat. Any Op who gets nominations should forward to Tim when he is next at a meeting. By posting nominees, we will not waste time in repeating nominees.
TimF stated that what George suggested sounds very simple and keeps things current. From past experience with nominations, usually the meetings are already firmly stated (but ours aren't yet) so people accomplish this in one meeting. They know that it will be meeting for nominations and elections. Starting with highest office and working downward one at a time, nominations are accepted (as many as are offered) for chairperson (first), then seconded (not necessary here). Then those people briefly qualify themselves - claiming that they are an addict, offering past service work, whether or not they have a sponsor - and people vote. Here we haven't had regular meetings yet, so to open nominations for 2 weeks (or whatever) makes sense. This works whether by email or contact at meeting.
Georgew stated that he might have caused some confusion by not making it clear that his intent was for nominations to be submitted at everyday share meetings. I need to point out we do not have enough members attending business meetings for true group consciousness. Nominations must be separate, as members need time to digest who is nominated. We do NOT have a quorum for business meetings. Technically we should not be holding this meeting with the substantial number of members we have, but I think we must make exceptions for time, interest, and the ability of an addict to be patient with the process. But the most important thing we will do is our election. For this, I insist we have a quorum. The only way is submission in channel every night for nominees and voting to be in channel, too, for a period of days. Thus all meeting attendees have a chance to participate in both and it also gives us a quorum.
TimF remarked that George gave some new information, and he supports that concept of getting as many "regulars" involved as possible. An additional point I'd like to make is #SLAA on StarLink-IRC is my SLAA homegroup. Many here might not even know what I mean by that. I can have an AA homegroup, and NA homegroup, and SCA homegroup, ..., but ONLY ONE homegroup for any 12-step fellowship that I'm in, and this is my homegroup. Based upon what George stated, the only additional remark I have is that only homegroup members should vote. Since many might not clearly follow that, another way of putting it is that IF a "regular" ALSO attends face-to-face SLAA meetings, then THOSE persons need to decide whether they want this or a face-to-face meeting to be THEIR homegroup. Anyone else may vote here without question.
Georgew asked Tim, “Am I assuming we are talking only about SLAA?
TimF confirmed yes, face-to-face SLAA vs. #SLAA on StarLink.
Georgew stated that in his humble opinion, it doesn't make a difference, since a member in #SLAA will be electing someone for # SLAA only and has absolutely no impact on other SLAA meetings where he has right to group consciousness as he does in #SLAA. No interference of responsibility that I can see, and each group is separate, so why not give everyone a vote? Where is impact on other group? It’s not like an intergroup function - there you could end up speaking for two groups, but not here.
DanK noted that we are getting off track from the agenda. Do we have a date for our elections? If so, we had better get on with the nominations.
Maxine stated no; we don't have a date for elections.
DanK moved that “We allow any member to submit nominations during the nomination period directly to TimF by any means they desire, or any op in TimF's absence for forwarding to TimF at the earliest possible time."
Maxine seconded.
Seven (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Motion passed.

TimF moved that “The nomination period be defined as Fri-26-Mar through 24 hours prior to election of officers - which will be clearly posted in advance.”
Georgew raised a point of order. We were in middle of discussion at meeting before last over the weight the recommended requirements are to have in accepting nominations. I believe we need to resolve that before nominations may ensue. I still feel strongly we need to use those requirements for what I intended when they were written - a means of insuring we have the best possible candidates. Secondly, we need to provide information to everyone in the channel about the nomination procedure and about recommended requirements, so that all are equally and fairly informed about what they have to do.
TimF withdrew his motion.
Maxine moved that we table nominations until after further discussion.
DanK seconded.
Six (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.

Georgew moved “We set a time limit on meetings of approximately 60 to 90 minutes, with the chair stopping the introduction of any new item of business at 75 minutes.” This is to try to have meeting of 90 minutes maximum.
Maxine seconded.
Five (+) Zero (-) One (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.

Maxine moved that “Business meetings be after share meetings, 11pm Eastern Time.”
DanK seconded.
Five (+) Zero (-) One (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.

Maxine moved “We conduct business meetings on the 15th of each month, regardless of what day it falls on.”
Georgew seconded.
Four (+) One (-) One (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.
Maxine asked if any other suggestions, noting motion barely passed.
Abram suggested making it the 16th of each month.
Maxine seconded.
Five (+) Zero (-) One (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.
TimF noted that BOTH motions passed. We've lost some due to lateness. Maybe we should just worry about NEXT meeting for now and get MORE people to pull this one together.

Maxine moved to conduct the next business meeting on April 16th.
Abram seconded.
Six (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.

Georgew moved to adjourn.
Sassy seconded.
Six (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.

Meeting was closed at 12:53am EST with the Serenity Prayer.