Return to Minutes Listing Page

Minutes of business meeting on Tue-23-Feb-99
The following was the net result of motions passed during the meeting:
I. Established Leadership Positions for #SLAA
A. Responsibilities of officers (minimum)
1. Chairman
a. Be responsible for #SLAA channel to follow server rules
b. Lead committee to develop policy and guidelines for channel
c. Finalize any scheduling conflicts with OP's
d. Lead committee in determining conflicts over restriction/bans applied for
inappropriate behavior when an incident is not clear or not covered guidelines.
e. Lead a review committee when a claim of unfair treatment occurs.
2. Co-Chairman
a. Perform all functions of Chairman in his/her absence.
b. Serve on all committees with Chairman
c. Assist Chairman as requested.
3. Secretary
a. Be responsible for minutes of all Member meetings.
b. Serve on all committees with Chairman
c. Maintain Policy & Guidelines and distribute to new members
4. Web Master
a. Maintain #SLAA web site.
b. Be responsible for keeping notice of #SLAA meetings and website
URL posted and accurate in other recovery site links
c. Assist in #SLAA channel technical needs
d. 400 level op [subsequently moved to I.B.4.c]
B. Requirements for Leaders. (Suggested)
1. Chairman
a. One year of recovery
b. 6 months as OP
c. 500 level op (owner)
2. Co-Chairman
a. One year of recovery
b. 6 months as OP
c. 499 level op (co-owner)
3. Secretary
a. Three months of recovery
b. 450 level op
4. Web Master
a. Three months of recovery
b. Ability and technical knowledge to manage and modify #SLAA website
c. 400 level op
C. Officer candidates selected by nomination
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:
TimothyB, Standby
soahc, miracle1
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)
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:
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.