Return to Minutes Listing Page
Minutes of business meeting on Fri-16-Apr-99
The following was the net result of motions passed during the meeting:
Business meetings be held on a two week basis until completion of elections,
and then monthly afterwards.
We allow each member to nominate one member for each position on slate.
The op level descriptions (I.B. 1.c./2.c/3.b./4.c.) be moved FROM requirements
TO suggested responsibilities (namely I.A. 1.f./2.d./3.d./4.d) and are suffixed
with the word minimum (to allow for any officer to be assigned a higher level
if deemed necessary for the course of their service).
I. Adjusted Leadership Positions for #SLAA [originally from 2/23/99]
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.
f. 500 level op minimum (owner)
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.
d. 499 level op minimum (co-owner)
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
d. 450 level op minimum
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 minimum
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
The next business meeting will be on Sun-2-May-99 after the regular meeting.
The following was tabled to the next business meeting:
Scheduling business meetings firmly on calendar
Meeting was called to order by Maxine at 11:12pm EDT with the Serenity Prayer.
Attendance: 8
2 Operators: georgew TimF
2 Non-ops: Sassy Yo
4 Partial attendance: Abram DanK Maxine RickB
Approve minutes of 3/25/99 meeting
Old Business: Establish final procedures for nomination of officers
- revisit requirements
- post at website
- accept nominations for 2 weeks by making nomination to TimF when he is available
at meetings
Georgew moved to accept the minutes of the 3/25/99 meeting.
DanK seconded.
Seven (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Motion passed.
Georgew noted that business meeting intervals are not decided. I open the
floor for discussion with recommendation that intervals be 2 weeks until elections
are held, then monthly. There was no discussion. Georgew moved that meetings
be held on a two week basis until completion of elections and then monthly afterwards.
Yo seconded.
Six (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.
Georgew noted the next topic of discussion is nominations. There needs to
be a mechanism for explaining the requirements, and I recommend they be posted
at our web site, but perhaps should be posted in room, too.
TimF remarked we could post on website AND post the website address in the opening
script (not the topic).
Georgew remarked good idea, and the leader can remind everyone they need to
read before voting.
Georgew noted the next topic is how to execute nominations. I suggest nominations
be sent with one allowed per member for each officer to Tim, or to an op if
Tim is not there to be forwarded to Tim. And that two weeks be allowed, so everyone
has chance to participate. One more thing, Tim needs to post the nominations
so that there are no duplicates.
TimF commented that he thought technique was handled in last meeting and approved.
But I see George is getting a little more specific. Agree with limiting, but
suggest one per member PER POSITION.
Georgew agreed.
Georgew noted that most of that is procedural and doesn't require a vote, except
for the limitations. I request that Tim draft a proposed procedure for us all
to post at website from discussion.
TimF acknowledged.
Georgew moved that we allow each member to nominate one member for each position
on slate. I thought of another issue, should we limit members to nominating
only others, or themselves, too.
DanK asked is there any harm in allowing folks to nominate themselves? Sounds
like a good way to volunteer to me.
DanK seconded.
Five (+) Zero (-) One (x) 4 of 6 needed. Motion passed.
Yo asked about the wording of that last motion. Were we going to allow members
to nominate themselves?
Georgew confirmed yes they could.
TimF commented that it can be explained on website.
TimF explained that at 2/23/99 meeting, we made two sections for each of the
four positions (responsibilities and requirements). The OP level was placed
in the requirements rather than the responsibilities. I would suggest that these
four "requirements" be moved to "responsibilities." The
op level is a responsibility, not a requirement to gain office, and it is applied
to an officer once they get such office.
Georgew noted that that would probably be less confusing.
Yo agreed with Tim, that it should be a responsibility, not a requirement. For
if 500 level op is a requirement, there is only ONE who holds that level and
only ONE who would be qualified for nomination. Therefore, there can be NO VOTE.
If it is made a RESPONSIBILITY, then the ELECTED chairperson would automatically
become a Level 500 op and then accept the responsibility of becoming channel
owner as well as responsibilities of being Chairperson.
Georgew remarked that Yo is absolutely right, and Tim, Maxine and I had discussed
this one before. We recognize the need to make channel level a responsibility.
Intention has always been to have elected chair become owner, as I'm sure you
all remember extended discussions on this. We intended to do this and Tim was
reminding me, and it is so agreed. Tim will combine requirements and qualifications
into an easily read document, making it clear that Chair will be owner and 500
level op.
Yo explained that it is his understanding that the term Co-Owner is not recognized
by IRC, and asked for clarification.
Georgew and TimF both believe co-owner is the correct term.
TimF furthered about last point that he was making and Yo commented about. I
move that the op level descriptions (I.B. 1.c./2.c/3.b./4.c.) be moved FROM
requirements TO suggested responsibilities (namely I.A. 1.f./2.d./3.d./4.d)
and are suffixed with the word minimum (to allow for any officer to be assigned
a higher level if deemed necessary for the course of their service). This was
a suggested motion I had placed earlier to Maxine, and I would be interested
if this floats.
Yo seconded.
Georgew agreed with moving OP levels as we discussed. It truly is a responsibility,
as it defines channel OWNER. The other two are not responsibilities, but true
requirements as we suggest them. I propose a sequential list I a. thru f. A
header requirement suggested - with g. and h.
TimF explained this motion does NOT move the suggested requirements. It ONLY
moves the OP level lines for each of the four offices.
Georgew agreed. That is the correct way.
TimF restated motion (which has been seconded): That the op level descriptions
(I.B. 1.c./2.c/3.b./4.c.) be moved FROM requirements TO suggested responsibilities
(namely I.A. 1.f./2.d./3.d./4.d) and are suffixed with the word minimum (to
allow for any officer to be assigned a higher level if deemed necessary for
the course of their service).
Four (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 3 of 4 needed. Motion passed.
Georgew proposed to revisit meeting schedules. I think varying schedule time
of week, which will happen with fixed date each month, is problematic. Weekends
are slower with fewer members. I would suggest something like third Thursday
of each month to keep the meeting on a day with high attendance potential.
TimF explained that personally, I get here most all the time, so day isn't important
to me. But by varying the day, some who may only be able to attend on certain
nights would have a chance to attend from time to time (more involvement). I
prefer the fixed date of month method myself.
Georgew remarked that Tim makes a good point, but I also think we have two few
people to get representative feedback. I suggest this be postponed to next meeting.
Therefore, I move next meeting be on Thursday in two weeks and meeting be adjourned.
Sassy seconded.
Maxine had a conflict with that date.
Wednesday 4/28/99 was suggested, but Yo had a conflict with that date.
Sunday 5/2/99 was suggested.
Five (+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 4 of 5 needed. Motion passed.
Meeting was closed at 12:30am EDT with the Serenity Prayer.