Return to Minutes Listing Page
Minutes of business meeting on Thu-4-Mar-99
The following was the net result of motions passed during the meeting:
Next meeting on Thursday, March 11 after the gratitude meeting.
I. Determination of Op Status
A. All OP's who are inactive for 45 days or more be deactivated until they request reinstatement and indicate they wish to perform as an OP.
Therefore, the following OPs will be removed: V_Kay; TimothyB/Standby; soahc/miracle1; NanL; Memlock; Mank; lamplighte; karinut; BobX; Bette
B. All present OP's be continued at at least 100 level ops to act as needed for #SLAA meetings.
Therefore, the following OPs will remain active: Abram; DanK; georgew; Maxine; RickB; TimF; Zee (RobZ)
C. We solicit OP's on a regular basis as we need them, but specifically requiring them to volunteer and have 60 days of recovery in #SLAA.
The following was tabled to the next business meeting:
Nominations of officers
Meeting was called to order by Maxine at 11:10pm EST with the Serenity Prayer.
5 Operators: Abram georgew Maxine RobZ TimF
2 Non-ops: Deb Yo
2 Partial attendance: Ryan Sassy
Approve minutes of 2/23/99 business meeting
Old Business: Deletion of inactive OPs
Continuation of present OPs
Establish OPs’ selection and requirements
Maxine reminded everyone that the minutes (2/23/99) are posted on website.
RobZ moved that we accept the minutes as read.
Eight (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion passed.
Maxine introduced item I.A. Determination of Op Status - Inactive OPs
Maxine stated: 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.
TimF moved to table this until the meeting after next.
Deb asked for what reason TimF has requested this be tabled.
TimF commented that we have a reasonably full agenda tonight. The "old" ops have had that status for, in most cases, over a year without attendance. We've emailed them once, but they don't know about tonight's meeting, muchless upcoming meetings. Putting it off wouldn't hurt anything, but would 1) give us a chance to move on to more pressing issues and 2) give them more opportunity to return to this channel.
Georgew commented that these OPs have all NOT been here for a long time and they are welcome to return anytime. I recommend we finish this business, as it should be simple to do.
Four (+) Three (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Motion failed.
RobZ moved to vote on the two issues at hand for the old business (I. A. and B.)
TimF moved to amend the word "doorman" to "doorperson."
RobZ seconded the amendment.
Six (+) One (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Amendment passed.
Maxine separated the motion to vote on only item I.A. first.
TimF questioned the accuracy of "StarLink-IRC Server requires deletion of OP's after 45 days of inactivity as an OP."
Deb commented that on her network, any op not active for that length of time is no longer registered. The whole point is to keep server resources down and safety up.
Georgew stated that he is convinced we do not want active ops who have not served for 45 days. I believe that is the principle here and wish to note we are voting for the principle. The 45 days was only a reference.
TimF stated that he has received clarification on this matter, and the wording of this motion is NOT accurate.
RobZ moved to amend the wording to be for "slaa" not "starlink."
Georgew moved the motion on the floor be amended to read: "All OP's who are inactive for 45 days or more be deactivated until they request reinstatement and indicate they wish to perform as an OP."
TimF stated that "inactive" is ambiguous - does that mean attending an #SLAA meeting? If so, that affects AT LEAST one if not more of those on the list to be deleted.
Georgew stated that the motion refers to OP's specifically - so inactivity is intended as an OP. Visiting slaa does us no good, and a visit is NOT being an active OP.
RobZ commented that with a lot of ops, one may not have an opportunity to serve. 45 days is short.
Five (+) One (-) One (x) 5 of 7 needed. Amended Motion passed.
Maxine introduced item I.B. Determination of Op Status - Active OPs
Maxine stated recommendation: All other present OP's be continued as 100 level OP's to lead meetings and act as doorman doorperson.
Georgew moved "All present OP's be continued at 100 level to act as needed for #SLAA meetings."
TimF questioned the wording "continued at 100 level." Not everyone should be 100, as officers will by nature of their position be higher level. This motion reduces ALL op's - including Maxine (room owner) to 100. I move motion be amended as such: "All present OP's be continued at at least 100 level ops to act as needed for #SLAA meetings."
Seven (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Amendment passed.
George called for the previous question. RobZ seconded. Six (+) Zero (-) One (x) 5 of 7 needed. Call for question passed.
Amended motion: "All present OP's be continued at at least 100 level ops to act as needed for #SLAA meetings."
Eight (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Amended Motion passed.
Maxine introduced item I.C. Determination of Op Status - Requirements
Maxine stated requirement for OP's and selection could include: 1. 30 days or 60 days of recovery., and 2. Must volunteer.
Georgew moved that "We solicit Op's on a regular basis as we need them, but specifically requiring them to volunteer and have 60 days of recovery in #SLAA."
Abram asked for explaination of what is meant by 60 days of recovery in #SLAA? 60 meetings?
Georgew stated he means simply regular attendance - hopefully a couple times per week.
Yo claimed Abram brought up a good point. Until "days of recovery" can be more completely defined, the motion would seem meaningless.
Georgew stated the only other alternative is days of sobriety (meeting bottom lines). This is counterproductive - who would be the arbiter - what business is it of ours - so simply being a regular, and showing interest by coming, seems to be the best way.
Yo claimed that being a "regular and showing interest by coming" is still not clearly defined.
Abram moved that the motion be amended to read "and to have attended 25 meetings in #SLAA."
RobZ stated that there is no way of keeping tack of exact meetings, so 60 days is an about number not an exact one.
Sassy commented that she thinks 60 days of fairly regular attendance is what is meant.
Maxine confirmed that the intention is 60 days and not 60 meetings.
Six (+) Two (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion passed.
Maxine introduced new business item I. Nomination of officers -- Nominations
will be accepted for the next 2 weeks for all positions.
Georgew moved "Nominations be accepted up until next Tuesday, March 9, so that Wednesday exists for clearing against requirements, so a vote may be had at a meeting in one week."
Yo stated that he doesn't understand "Wed. exists for clearing against requirements."
TimF pointed out that we have already established that the "requirements" are SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS, so NO "clearing" is necessary.
Georgew stated that he vehemently objected. While we need flexibility to bend requirements, I will strenuosly object to acceptance of a nominee who has, for example, only 2 months recovery instead of 12. While guidelines, we need to approve candidates, not accept everyone.
RobZ agreed with Gary, claiming he, too, needs help on that line in question.
Georgew stated that the intention is to review all nominations against the requirements, set last week, on Wednesday so all is clear for a vote next Thursday. Not for strict adherance, but for meeting the intention and spirit of the requirements that this august body passed with a purpose last week.
TimF responded to "the intention is of reviewing all nominations against the requirements set last week." It was CLEARLY passed that the requirements are SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS previously and therefore NO passing or reviewing need be done. I agree with george's statement "but for meeting the intention and spirit of the requirements." But it is in that spirit that people nominate, decline, AND VOTE. It is up to the group to vote wisely knowing the intention and spirit of the SUGGESTED requirements. To have any kind of review is ABSOLUTELY NOT NECESSARY. In fact to do so, we would need to amend the requirements.
Yo stated that clearly these SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS are NOT REQUIREMENTS at all, but rather RECCOMENDATIONS. Further, no TERM OF OFFICE has been determined, so nominations are not called for. Thirdly, a time limit was supposed to be given for these meetings, and 2 hours I feel is PLENTY. I'd move that the current motion be tabled for our next business meeeting!
Georgew suggested amending his original motion to include the requirements we all agreed to as mandatory and not recommended.
TimF explained that that motion is not on table, having passed last meeting. This kind of motion would be new business.
Deb stated that "required" means: demanded, ordered, insisted on. She asked if the voters decide if the nominee is qualified for the job with no candidate interviewing done by anyone or any group in authority?
TimF noted that if a moton is against standing policy or 12 traditions - it should be ruled out of order. This motion is against our standing policy of SUGGESTED requirements.
Abram commented that he believes all of us here are trying to achieve the best for the channel with the skills and knowledge of procedures that we currently have. At the same time, I think the comment about long meetings is apt. I think we may need to consider meeting on the weekends, as was once suggested. I hope we can set our next meeting time before we are forced to adjourn by all of the east coasters falling asleep.
RobZ remarked that we never got past old business and encouraged us to get along and move forward when we meet again.
Georgew moved to table the current motion and adjourn until next Thursday,
Six (+) One (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Motion passed.
Meeting was closed at 1:23am EST with the Serenity Prayer.