0422 – Minutes for the second 3-day session

Minutes for the second 3-day session

(Links to Proposals open a new page.)

During the second 3-day session of our business meeting, we voted on Proposal 2 (Revise Secretary’s Position Description) and Proposal 3 (Preamble Language).

We did not vote on Proposal 1 (assigning GROW membership requirements to Trusted Servant position descriptions that do not currently address this issue). The Chair extended discussion so that participants could discuss the requirement for specific positions. Two people submitted comments that did not change the proposed terms of service.

Sixteen people voted in favor of revising the Secretary’s position description and no one voted against it; therefore, Proposal 2 is adopted as a Group Conscience Decision.

Sixteen participants voted on Proposal 3 to change “men and women” in the Preamble to “people.” As background, this change was approved at the 71st General Service Conference annual meeting in April 2021 as a non-binding advisory action. By Tradition, each AA group is autonomous and can make its own decision about whether to change the Preamble it uses in its meetings. It’s impossible to know what decision the thousands of individual AA meetings are making for their own group. The change does not involve our basic text. It is not suggested that Big Book language should be changed. The Preamble was developed years after the BB’s first publication by people in the General Services Office.

Eleven (69%) voted in favor of making the change, and five voted against it. The majority vote is greater than the 66% required to carry the measure. During the third 3-day session, we invite those who voted “I disagree” to offer their minority opinion on the issue during the third 3-day session. If anyone changes their vote as a result, we will conduct a re-vote on Proposal 3. If no one changes their vote as a result, the proposal is accepted as a Group Conscience Decision.

During the second 3-day session, participants discussed Proposal 4 (Website Support Services), Proposal 5 (Temporary Mentor Letter #3), and Proposal 6 (Website Position Descriptions).

Six women commented on Proposal 4 which would authorize the expenditure of up to $300 per year for professional consulting services in support of our website. The consultant would help resolve issues related to WordPress plugins. All of the comments supported the proposal, but there were some questions. One participant wanted clarification on the relationship between support services for the mailing list and the website. The most likely candidate for providing these services also runs the oso-aa.org server, but this work would be completely independent of that activity. Another expressed concern about the amount of Prudent Reserve GROW should withhold but agreed that we could wait to see what impact this decision might have.

Seven participants commented on Proposal 5 to add Form Letter #3 to the Temporary Mentor’s position description. All of them supported the proposal. Several reported that our form letters are helpful to them in their own Trusted Servant positions.

Six women commented on Proposal 6 which presented new position descriptions (PD) for the Website Administrator, Webkeeper, and Webkeeper Backup (who would become the Topic Archivist). All of the comments were supportive of the proposal; however, there were questions. One participant asked for an explanation for setting the terms of office for Website Administrator and Webkeeper to five years. The primary reasons are how difficult it has been to fill the Webkeeper position and the level of skills necessary. One woman suggested adding a line to the Website Administrator’s position description about working with a professional(s) in support of website management. The Chair will add a bullet to the PD. Another wanted clarification of the PD item saying “Should be familiar with WordPress and website management,” suggesting that the words “should be familiar” do not clearly convey the demands of the position for someone considering volunteering.

During the third 3-day session, we will vote on Proposals 1, 4, 5, and 6 and consider any Minority Opinion on Proposal 3 that is submitted.