1017 – Business Meeting Proposals

List of Proposals

Proposal 2.1: Abolish the position of OIAA Representative.
Proposal 3.2: Discuss the creation of a new GROW web site.
- Proposal 3.3: Form a workgroup led by the current Webkeeper …
- Proposal 3.4: Form a workgroup led by the current Webkeeper …
Proposal 4.2: Increase the treasury Prudent Reserve to $122.00.
Proposal 5.3: Trusted Servants will inform the Steering Committee …
- Proposal 5.4: Trusted Servants will inform the Steering Committee …
Proposal 6.4: When a Trusted Servant’s term of service finishes, the vacated position …
- Proposal 6.5a: (Announcing TS Vacancies – Version A)
- Proposal 6.5b: (Announcing TS Vacancies – Version B)
Proposal 7.4: Update position descriptions
- Proposal 7.5: Update position descriptions

Proposal 1: Establish a Facebook page for GROW.

A private Facebook page would provide an informal meeting area for before and after our meeting – similar to going to coffee after a face-to-face meeting.

Rationale: Social media can provide a tremendous amount of support for members of the group, and I believe the relationships between our members would be strengthened through this. It would give us an area where people could share about things not directly related to sobriety and where our members can get to know each other in a way not really possible in the mailing list. A private Facebook page could offer an informal avenue for getting support and for having fun.

I could create a page and advertise it informally, but would prefer to have a group conscience guide the activity for this. The task of administering or managing the Facebook page could fall under the Webkeeper. As the backup webkeeper I would volunteer to establish and administer the page.

Note: We discussed this proposal during the April business meeting but did not come to a decision on what to do. This document includes not only the original proposal but also a list of questions that arose and summaries of what was said in April. Please read all the way to the end of this document. – Danna GROW Business Chair

[Beginning of notes on Proposal 1]

In order to document our April discussions on this issue, here are questions already raised that should be considered and discussed in October (grouped by common theme):

General

Would the private Facebook page be an “official” arm of GROW?
Is a Facebook page (even a private one) a violation of AA’s 11th Tradition?
What would be the benefits of a private Facebook page for GROW members?
Can the Facebook page create any security problems for the e-mail meeting?
Should we (and how do we) get feedback from GROW members on the possibility of having a private Facebook page for all members?

Facebook page management

How will the private Facebook be administered or managed?
Should more than one person be authorized to administer the Facebook page?
Do we need to create a new Trusted Servant position to administer the site?
If we do need a new Trusted Servants position, what will her job description say?
What length of term would the administrator/moderator hold?
How will the Facebook page administrator know who is eligible for membership?
What would the Facebook page/group do to ensure the anonymity of all GROW members?
How will disputes/disagreements be handled in the Facebook group?
Do we need to (and how do we) measure the success or failure of the Facebook page?

Relationship to & Impact on GROW’s main mailing list

Would the private Facebook page be “advertised” on GROW’s website?
How will GROW members be informed of or invited to join the private Facebook page?
Will members who leave GROW be asked to leave the Facebook page?
Could the Facebook page create a clique within GROW that would make some members feel left out?
What impact would the Facebook page have on GROW’s ongoing AA e-mail meeting?

APRIL 2017 SUMMARIES

During the fourth 3-day session, we discussed a new proposal to create a private Facebook page for GROW. The page would offer GROW members a meeting- before- or after-the-meeting and a way to get to know each other better. Discussions were animated, covering a wide range of arguments. Many participants supported the idea; however, many others had concerns about AA’s tradition of anonymity, how the Facebook page would be administered, whether the page would detract from the primary purpose of the mailing list, and the conditions of membership in the private page. Some members felt the page might create a clique within GROW that would damage the e-mail meeting.

Several participants who are members of private Facebook pages shared their experience with the group. The proposal’s author provided a detailed rationale that responded to most of the concerns that had been raised. A couple of participants wondered if we should not bring this question to the entire mailing list. Several members pointed out that accepting this proposal could necessitate creating a new Trusted Servant to administer the private Facebook page and, therefore, a new job description.

With little resolution on the issue and the end of the meeting on the horizon, we will vote on three options: create a private Facebook page with no further discussion, creating a private Facebook page for a six-month trial period and revisiting the issue in the October business meeting, or deferring the discussion until the October business meeting (without creating the page).

Voting on Proposal

Participants voted on one of three options:

7a: Establish a Facebook page for GROW.
7b: Establish a Facebook page for GROW and revisit the proposal during the October 2017 business meeting to assess its performance and impact on the GROW e-mail meeting and decide if it should be continued.
7c: Defer until the October 2017 business meeting a decision on the proposal to establish a private Facebook page for GROW members so that further discussions can take place.

Seventeen participants voted for all of the three options, but no option received the 2/3 majority required to adopt as a Group Conscience decision. Because we have reached no decision by the 17th day of the meeting, we will table the proposal until the October 2017 meeting.

[end of notes on Proposal 1.]

Summary of Discussion on Proposal 1.1 (GROW Facebook page)

Many participants commented on Proposal 1.1 (Establish a private Facebook page for GROW).
One participant shared the GSO guidelines “General Social Networking Websites” with the group. The guidelines addressed concerns about AA and individual anonymity within the social networking framework.
Several members expressed concern that a GROW Facebook page would not be consistent with Tradition 11: “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.”
Some participants expressed concerns about security, potential hacking or vulnerability of personal information. Others were concerned about personal anonymity. Several members said they would not participant in a GROW Facebook page.
With much support for the idea, a member suggested that a Facebook page should not be officially affiliated with GROW or AA – that it should be a personal page to which GROW members can be invited and that it should not be used for GROW business or sharing or for AA materials. The personal Facebook page for GROW members would be for socializing only.
A participant pointed out that if the page were a personal page not affiliated with GROW, it would not be subject to approval or a vote in the business meeting and that page administration would not be a concern for us.
Participants shared their experiences with other similar private group Facebook pages. Some reported fairly negative experiences where posts were inappropriate or argumentative and where the page administrator became more of a “fire fighter.” Others’ experiences were more positive.

Call for Votes on Proposal 1.1 (GROW Facebook page)
Proposal 1.1: Establish a Facebook page for GROW.
A private Facebook page would provide an informal meeting area for before and after our meeting – similar to going to coffee after a face-to-face meeting.

If you agree with this proposal *as is*, please vote “I agree.”
If you disagree with this proposal *as is,* please vote “I disagree.”

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

We will take votes through the end of the day on Saturday. I will announce the results on Sunday, October 8th.

Resuits of Voting on Proposal 1.1 (GROW Facebook page)
A total of 21 participants voted (of 28 ‘registered’) on the proposal to establish a private Facebook page for GROW members.

Two (2) participants voted in favor, and nineteen (19) voted against Proposal 1.1. The vote did not meet the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in favor of the proposal.

Our Business Meeting Guidelines allow three days for the minority opinion to be presented and discussed. If, after hearing the minority opinion, any participant wants to change their vote from “I disagree” to “I agree,” we will conduct a second vote.

At this time, I request that each of those who voted “I agree” on Proposal 1.1 send me a private note letting me know if they plan to post a “minority opinion.”

If the minority does not want to express their opinion, we will close this discussion, and the vote stands. Since the proposal has failed, it cannot be considered again until October 2018.

Proposal 1.2: Minority opinion – Facebook group
Grow business members,

I appreciate all of the discussion that surrounded this topic, and accept the group conscience. What I believe I heard through the discussion is that there would not be objection to an informal group that was announced (in an Off Topic post) to the group once in awhile.

I’ve renamed the group “Test – GROW” to “Growing – Coffee & Chat” and have provide the following description of the group:

This Facebook group was created as an after-meeting location that members of the GROW online meeting can use to get to know each other better and to have discussions that are not part of the meeting.

Note that this Facebook page is not formally affiliated with Alcoholics Anonymous or the GROW online meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous.

I will send a note to our group about once a month or so to let people know that some of us meet outside of the meeting for “virtual coffee and conversation” – this happens in F2F meetings frequently and can be analogous to a member introducing herself to a newcomer and inviting them to coffee after the meeting.

Thanks again for the discussion and being part of the group conscience.
Cheryl D.

Process for Proposal 1.2 (Facebook)
The Business Meeting Guidelines allow for people to change their vote after the Minority Opinion is presented. If someone changes their vote, a re-vote would be held. If no majority voters have been persuaded to change their opinion, there will not be another vote. The proposal fails, and it cannot be revisited until October 2018.

We have until end-of-day on Tuesday to see if anyone wants to change their vote on the Facebook proposal. If you want to change your vote, please let me know.

Outcome of Proposal 1.2: (GROW Facebook page)
The Minority Opinion submitted to the group outlined a private Facebook page that would not be officially related to GROW but that would be named “Growing – Coffee & Chat” and would include an informal off-topic message to the Grow list inviting members to join the page. The minority writer also submitted an excerpt from the AA pamphlet “The Group” discussing an informed group conscience.

Many members responded to the Minority Opinion, overwhelmingly opposed to the hypothetical private Facebook page, its name, and any off-topic message to the main list about the page. As a result, the woman who submitted the proposal changed her vote to “I disagree.”

After the changed vote, the final results are one (1) “I agree” and 21 “I disagree.” Therefore, the proposal fails and will not be discussed further.

Consistent with the Business Meeting Guidelines, this proposal cannot be raised again before the October 2018 Business Meeting.

Proposal 2.1: Discontinue the OIAA Rep position.

Rationale: In April 2016, after lengthy discussions and a re-vote, our Group Conscience decision was that: “GROW will remain and continue to send a Representative to Intergroup meetings.” We were to re-visit this decision in October 2016.

We stopped sending GROW contributions to OIAA in October 2014. Checks had not been cashed for months, and members who been our OIAA Rep could not tolerate the language and bickering that went on during the OIAA meetings.

In October 2016, we had a volunteer in place as our OIAA Rep to run for one year until October 2017. To my knowledge, during this past year, we have received no feedback/ or communications regarding OIAA meetings, and no member has raised any concerns about the lack of information regarding OIAA.

For these reasons, it seems that we do not need this service position any longer. We should delete it from our list of Trusted Servants and archive references to it on our website.

Summary of Discussion on Proposal 2.2 (OIAA Rep position)

Discussion of Proposal 2.1 (Proposal 2.1: Discontinue the OIAA Representative position) centered on GROW’s relationship with the larger AA online community and the nature of the OIAA Rep position. A participant shared a Grapevine article, “Living Cyber,” that talked about OIAA’s hospitality suites at International Conventions and OIAA in general.

GROW stopped contributing to OIAA about two years ago, and no information has been shared on OIAA activities over the past year.
Several participants felt that it is important for GROW to be part of AA’s larger online service structure, that not participating would isolate us from the AA community and that we would not be aware of issues being discussed by OIAA.
Another participant pointed out that because OIAA has been unproductive or chaotic in the past does not mean it will continue to be. She said that, even if we are not contributing to OIAA, we should maintain our connection to that group.
A participant pointed out that reporting regularly about OIAA activities is required of the OIAA Rep in the job description for that Trusted Servant.
Another participant noted that the OIAA Rep job description is out of date and needs to be revised.

Call for Votes on Proposal 2.1 (OIAA Representative)
Proposal 2.1: Discontinue the OIAA Representative position.

If you agree with this proposal *as is*, please vote “I agree.”
If you disagree with this proposal *as is,* please vote “I disagree.”

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

We will take votes through the end of the day on Saturday. I will announce the results on Sunday, October 8th.

Results of Voting on Proposal 2.1 (Discontinue OIAA Rep Position)
A total of 20 participants voted (of 28 ‘registered’) on the proposal to discontinue the OIAA Representative position.

Two (2) participants voted in favor, and eighteen (18) voted against Proposal 2.1. This did not meet the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in favor of the proposal.

At this time, I request each of those who voted “I agree” on Proposal 1.2 send me a private note letting me know if they plan to post a “minority opinion.”

If the minority does not want to express their opinion, we will close this discussion, and the vote stands. Since the proposal has failed, it cannot be considered again until October 2018.

Proposal 3.2: Discuss the creation of a new web site…

Proposal 3.2: Discuss the creation of a new web site and pursue looking into how that would be done.

Rationale: Currently, a Webkeeper must have extensive knowledge of how to create and maintain web pages. There are web site services offered such as WordPress that make it easy to create and manage a web site. This would allow more members the option of signing up for this position and make it possible to make this a rotating position in keeping with AA principles.

Remarks: If this is too loosely worded, perhaps we could tighten it up a bit before the business meeting. I am purposely leaving it vague because it is the discussion I envision getting started, not the web site itself. It will require several rounds of business meetings, I suspect, to vote this in. I myself have had a WordPress account for a number of years and it is very easy to upload, edit and create. I understand that group accounts can go on it but I am not well informed about web sites. I would love to have more input, and if the idea is not workable, then we will find out.

To get us started on a conversation about a new website, I’ve listed some questions for which the answers might help us move forward. If any of these bring something else to mind, please share it with us.

Do you the existing GROW website?
What information on the existing website do you use most? Least?
How do you access the existing site – computer, cellphone, tablet, etc.?
What problems have you had getting to and/or using the existing website?
What would make it easier for you to use GROW’s website (to be included in a redesign)?

Thank you for your questions, Sue. I am not personally aware of “complaints” about the website from our members; however, there are a number of issues that it would be nice to correct. I’ll give you my impressions based on convesations with our webkeeper and a few other long-time members:

The HTML-based website is very cumbersome for our webkeepers. Each line has to be coded separately. In addition to making it a very labor-intensive task, this introduces the possibility for coding errors that could cause long-term problems for users of the site.
Because we use HTML coding, very few GROW members are “qualified” to step into the webkeeper positions. This is why we made the webkeeper a non-rotating position and why we get very few volunteers when vacancies in the webkeeper and webkeeper back-up jobs are announced.
Today, many people use cellphones and tablets to access the Internet. Our current site isn’t set up to be viewed that way and can be very difficult for those users.
There are software packages available today that make adding, editing, and searching for content much easier. Adopting, for example, a content management system (CMS) would make the webkeeper’s job easier and would allow more GROW members to perform it – meaning it could be a rotating position. It would also give the flexibility to design pages that are “friendly” for users of mobile devices.

Proposal 3.3: Form a workgroup led by the current Webkeeper to develop a proposal for changing the GROW website and present that proposal at the April 2018 business meeting.

Summary of Discussion on Proposal 3.3 (GROW Website Workgroup)
Our Webkeeper presented a general plan for a workgroup of from three to five members that would develop a proposal for presentation at the April 2018 business meeting that would address two primary objectives: improving access and user-friendliness (focusing on meeting topics and archival business meeting notes) and revisiting the roles of the Webkeeper and Webkeeper Back-up. She explained that there are a range of options that are not expensive or complicated. She also reminded us of the importance of Keeping It Simple!

The website proposal presented in April 2018 would address:

Recommended software, web hosting needs, and associated costs;
Timeline and steps for website conversion;
Recommended changes to the Webkeeper and Webkeeper Back-up positions; and
Any other recommendations to accomplish workgroup objectives.

Ten participants commented on the proposal to form a website workgroup led by our Webkeeper. All comments on this proposal were very supportive. One participant asked if it might be possible to address the desire for a chat area within the new website. The Webkeeper referred back to the two primary objectives of the website workgroup: 1) easy access and user-friendliness and 2) the roles of Webkeeper and Webkeeper Back-up. She said issues like a chat area could be addressed after the new site was up and running successfully.

Call for Votes on Proposal 3.4 (GROW Website Workgroup)
Proposal 3.4: Form a workgroup led by the current Webkeeper to develop a proposal for changing the GROW website and present that proposal at the April 2018 business meeting.

If you agree with this proposal *as is*, please vote “I agree.”
If you disagree with this proposal *as is,* please vote “I disagree.”

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

We will take votes through the end of the day on Friday. I will announce the results on Saturday, October 14th.

Results of Voting on Proposal 3.4 (Website Workgroup)
Eighteen (18) participants voted in favor, and no one voted against Proposal 3.4, exceeding the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in favor of the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is approved and adopted as a Group Conscience decision.

Group Conscience Decision: Form a workgroup led by the current Webkeeper to develop a proposal for changing the GROW website and present that proposal at the April 2018 business meeting.

GROW’s webkeeper will form a small workgroup (no more 3 or 5 members) that will discuss and develop a proposal to present to the April 2018 business meeting for a path forward in addressing these two workgroup objectives:

How to manage the group’s increasing need for easy access and user friendliness to the GROW website with focus on weekly meeting topics and archival business meeting notes.
How to address the roles of web-keeper and backup web-keeper so that they are accessible to more membership involvement (i.e., making the web-keeper position a rotating one and making the tasks of the roles of web-keeper and backup web-keeper less technical and more about maintaining content on the website.

Specifically, the proposal to be presented to the April 2018 business meeting will include:

The website proposal presented in April 2018 would address:

Recommended software, web hosting needs, and associated costs;
Timeline and steps for website conversion;
Recommended changes to the Webkeeper and Webkeeper Back-up positions; and
Any other recommendations to accomplish workgroup objectives.

Proposal 4.2: Increase the treasury Prudent Reserve to $122.00.

Rationale: In October of 2015, a group conscience decision was made to purchase a yearly Grapevine subscription (both in print and online) at a cost of just under $50. At that time, we did not discuss adding the cost of the subscription to GROW’s Prudent Reserve. Increasing the Prudent Reserve will ensure the new Treasurer can meet our expenses (six months of web hosting at $12/month and a Grapevine subscription at $50 for one year).

Results of Voting on Proposal 4.2 (Increase Prudent Reserve)
Eighteen (18) participants voted in favor, and no one voted against Proposal 4.2, clearly meeting requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in favor of the proposal.

Since we have a unanimous outcome, Proposal 4.2 is approved and adopted as a group conscience decision.

Group Conscience Decision: Increase the treasury Prudent Reserve to $122.00.

Proposal 5.3: Add a bullet to the Trusted Servant Common Duties…

Proposal 5.3: Add a bullet to the Trusted Servant Common Duties section that calls for Trusted Servants to inform the Steering Committee (through the Secretary and/or Business Chair) when they are unable to meet all the duties described in their Position Description.

Recommended Language (as second bullet under the Trusted Servant Common Duties section at g-r-o-w.com/members/ts/tsdesc.htm#tscommon):
Smooth and uninterrupted volunteer service to GROW depends upon your ability to carry out your commitments. If a Trusted Servant finds that she cannot meet all the duties listed in her Job Description, she will inform the Secretary and/or Business Meeting Chair that she is unable to fulfill her responsibilities. Working with the Trusted Servant and the Steering Committee, the Secretary and/or Business Chair will then seek alternatives for assuring all duties are covered (including securing a temporary back-up or advertising the position on the main list). If a member of the Steering Committee is concerned that not all items in a job description are being met, she may bring her concern to Secretary and/or Business Meeting Chair, who will work with the Trusted Servant to assure their duties are covered.

Rationale: GROW has no process or solution for assuring that Trusted Servants have the support they need to fulfill all of the duties listed in their Job Descriptions. While we assume that Trusted Servants will ask for help, we have had several situations in the past where job responsibilities were not met, and no call for help was issued.

This proposal formalizes the process by which a Trusted Servant can ask for help, and other Trusted Servants can provide needed support. Life events can make it difficult to fulfill a Trusted Servant’s role. All Trusted Servants should know that they can, and are expected to, ask for both short- and long-term help. In the case where a Trusted Servant does not ask for help, the Steering Committee should be empowered to take action to assure that all duties are addressed.

Summary of Discussion on Proposal 5.4 (Trusted Servant Common Duties)
As of today, there have been seven comments on Proposal 5.3 (Trusted Servant Common Duties). Two participants felt that the spirit of the recommended bullet was “common sense” and did not need to be codified into a rule for Trusted Servants (TSs). The proposer argued that it helps “to say it out loud” to encourage TSs to seek help when they are not able to meet all the duties listed in their job description. Most participants expressed support for the proposal, understanding the new bullet as a reminder rather than a rule and agreeing that having it written on the webpage would reinforce the importance for our Trusted Servants of asking for and offering help.

Rather than extend the discussion period to encourage more comments, we will vote on Proposal 5.4 (Trusted Servant Common Duties) during the fifth 3-day session.

Call for Votes on Proposal 5.4 (Trusted Servant Common Duties)
Proposal 5.4: Add a bullet to the Trusted Servant Common Duties section that calls for Trusted Servants to inform the Steering Committee (through the Secretary and/or Business Chair) when they are unable to meet all the duties described in their Position Description.

If you agree with this proposal *as is*, please vote “I agree.”
If you disagree with this proposal *as is,* please vote “I disagree.”

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

We will take votes through the end of the day on Friday. I will announce the results on Saturday, October 14th.

Results of Voting on Proposal 5.4 (Trusted Servant Common Duties)
Seventeen (17) participants voted in favor, and no one voted against Proposal 5.4. This exceeded the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in favor of the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is approved and adopted as a Group Conscience decision.

Group Conscience Decision: Add a bullet to the Trusted Servant Common Duties section that calls for Trusted Servants to inform the Steering Committee (through the Secretary and/or Business Chair) when they are unable to meet all the duties described in their Position Description.

Proposal 6.4: When a Trusted Servant’s term of service finishes…

Proposal 6.4: When a Trusted Servant’s term of service finishes, the vacated position will immediately be announced to the whole group so that others might have the opportunity to serve.

Rationale: Even if the serving Trusted Servant is willing to stay on longer than their term, all GROW members should have the opportunity to volunteer for a service position. If no one volunteers, then the serving TS’s willingness to continue into a new term would be gratefully accepted.

Over the years, there have been times when some of us, eager to serve, have stayed on longer than our term. When a willing, experienced, and able person offers to stay on longer than their term, it is very tempting to accept their offer without announcing the service opportunity to all group members. As tempting as it is to do this, it is unfair to our members not to first ask for volunteers from the group at large. Only when no volunteers step forward should we accept the TS’s willingness to stay on in the position, entering into a new term. Even with the frequent scarcity of volunteers, fair is fair: the group at large needs to be offered a chance at service first.

Summary of Discussion on Proposal 6.4 (Announcing TS Vacancies)
Seven participants commented on, and everyone supported Proposal 6.4 (Announcing TS Vacancies) in general. Two questions were raised:

What to do about positions where a Trusted Servant had taken the position mid-term (usually because the original TS quit).

Responses to this question were mixed with several participants thinking that a Trusted Servant who volunteered mid-term should get first opportunity to fill the position in the next regular term of office. However, several participants also thought that position vacancies should be open to all GROW members without exceptions. There was no clear group preference on this issue.

Whether the proposal language should be included in a position description.

The Secretary is responsible for announcing and filling vacancies, so the language should be incorporated into her position description. The appropriate bullet already exists (“Calls for nominations/volunteers.”), and the proposal language will be added to the end of that bullet.

The Chair will present two versions of the proposal, the difference addressing a vacancy announcement for a vacancy that was filled during the term of office will or will not be offered to the GROW membership (if the volunteer finishing out the term wants to remain in the position for the new term of office).

Please do not vote until you receive the formal “Call for Votes.”

Proposal 6.5a: Announce all vacancies first to the main list.
Proposal 6.5b: Announce vacancies first to the main list except when a Trusted Servant who accepted job mid-term wants to continue in that role.

If you agree that all Trusted Servant vacancies should be announced first to the main list, even when a volunteer has accepted the position mid-term and wants to continue in that role, vote “I agree” on Proposal 6.5a. Your vote for version 6.5b will automatically be recorded as “I disagree.”

If you agree that some Trusted Servant vacancies do not need to go to the main list first (in the situation where a Trusted Servant accepted her position mid-term and wants to continue in that role), vote “I agree on Proposal 6.5b. Your vote for version 6.5a will automatically be recorded as “I disagree.”

If you do not agree with either version of the proposal, vote “I disagree” on both Proposal 6.5a and Proposal 6.5b.

Call for Votes on Proposal 6.5a (Announcing TS Vacancies – Ver A)
Proposal 6.5a: When a Trusted Servant’s term of service finishes, the vacated position will immediately be announced to the whole group so that others might have the opportunity to serve. This applies to all Trusted Servant vacancies.

If you do not agree with either version of the proposal, vote “I disagree” on both Proposal 6.5a and Proposal 6.5b.

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

We will take votes through the end of the day on Monday. I will announce the results on Tuesday, October 17th.

Call for Votes on Proposal 6.5b (Announcing TS Vacancies – Ver B)
Proposal 6.5b: When a Trusted Servant’s term of service finishes, the vacated position will immediately be announced to the whole group so that others might have the opportunity to serve.

Recommended Language to be added to the 11th bullet in the Secretary job description as follows:
“Calls for nominations/volunteers. When a Trusted Servant’s term of service finishes, the vacated position will immediately be announced to the whole group so that others might have the opportunity to serve. When a Trusted Servant position was filled during the term of office, the Secretary can fill the vacancy at the end of the term without announcing it to the main list only if the current Trusted Servant asks to continue in that job.”

If you agree that (in the situation where a Trusted Servant accepted the position mid-term and wants to continue in that role) the vacancy announcement does not need to be announced to the main list only if the TS asks to continue, vote “I agree on Proposal 6.5b. Your vote for version 6.5a will automatically be recorded as “I disagree.”

If you do not agree with either version of the proposal, vote “I disagree” on both Proposal 6.5a and Proposal 6.5b.

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

We will take votes through the end of the day on Monday. I will announce the results on Tuesday, October 17th.

Results of Voting on Proposal 6.5 (Announcing Trusted Servant Vacancies)
During the fourth 3-day session, our discussions of this proposal resulted in some refinements. A participant suggested that the final approved proposal should be included in the Secretary’s job description. The 11th bullet in the existing job is “Calls for nominations/volunteers.” Participants agreed that the language of the proposal, as approved, should be added to the end of that bullet.

The second area of discussion focused on whether all vacancies should be announced to the main mailing list or some could be withheld from announcement when a TS filled the position mid-term (usually because the original TS quit). Because two clear options emerged from discussions, the Chair presented two versions of the proposal for voting: Proposal 6.5a: Announce all vacancies first to the main list.

Proposal 6.5b: Announce vacancies first to the main list except when a Trusted Servant who accepted job mid-term wants to continue in that role. Participants were instructed to vote “I agree” on their preferred version or to vote “I disagree” on both versions.

No one voted against both versions of the proposal, revealing general approval. Nineteen (19) participants voted on each version. Eight (8) participants (42%) voted in favor of Proposal 6.5a (applies to all vacancies), and eleven (11) (58%) voted in favor of Proposal 6.5b. Therefore, votes in favor did not meet our requirement for a 2/3 majority (or 66%) to approve a Group Conscience decision.

Our guidelines state that ” If any item on the agenda has not reached a 2/3 majority vote by the 17th day of the business meeting, the item is tabled and held over to the next scheduled business meeting.” The 17th day of the October meeting will be Thursday, October 19th.

Because we cannot have another 3-day discussion and then a 3-day period for re-voting, we will hold the proposal for the April 2018 business meeting. It will be the first topic for discussion at that time. As a starting point, the Chair will provide summaries of this meeting’s deliberations and votes at that meeting.

Proposal 7.4: Update Position Descriptions.

Between this meeting and the April 2018 meeting, the Business Meeting Chair will work with prior and current Trusted Servants to review and update their position descriptions to be presented for approval in April.

Rationale: The purpose of this proposal is to correct inaccuracies, not to add new job duties.

It has been several years since we did a general review of our position descriptions to assure they are current and relevant. While some changes have been made as a result of group conscience decisions, minor inconsistencies have appeared over time. There are also a few places where a duty is duplicated within a job description.

Rather than make a huge project of a job description review, the Business Meeting Chair will contact Trusted Servants (both outgoing and incoming as appropriate) individually and ask them to suggest where and how bullets for specific duties should be changed to reflect current schedules and practices. (For example, in many places, a bullet may require a TS to provide quarterly reports at business meetings; however, we no longer meet quarterly so semi-annual reports are needed.)

We will not add new duties or delete current ones without business meeting approval, although we make such recommendations.

Asking each Trusted Servant / position to do its own review will allow us to develop current and correct job descriptions. The revised descriptions will then be presented at the April 2018 business meeting for final approval.

Summary of Discussion on Proposal 7.4 (Update TS Job Descriptions)
Four of the 31 people on our list commented on Proposal 7.4 (Update TS Job Descriptions). All comments agreed that updating Trusted Servant positions would benefit GROW. The review will focus on items that are inaccurate or outdated. No items in job descriptions will be added or deleted without approval at the April 2018 business meeting. Despite the few people commenting, we will vote on the proposal in the fifth 3-day session.

Call for Votes on Proposal 7.5 (Update Job Descriptions)
Proposal 7.5: Update Position Descriptions. Between this meeting and the April 2018 meeting, the Business Meeting Chair will work with prior and current Trusted Servants to review and update their position descriptions to be presented for approval in April.

If you agree with this proposal *as is*, please vote “I agree.”

If you disagree with this proposal *as is,* please vote “I disagree.”

Please send your vote to grow-business@oso-aa.org or, if you want to vote privately, to dmcd.grow@zoho.com.

Results of Voting on Proposal 7.5 (Update TS Job Descriptions):
Eighteen (18) participants voted in favor of, and no one voted against Proposal 7.5. Therefore, we have a unanimous decision, and the proposal is approved and adopted as a Group Conscience decision.

Group Conscience Decision: Between this meeting and the April 2018 meeting, the Business Meeting Chair will work with prior and current Trusted Servants to review and update their position descriptions to be presented for approval in April.

We will not add new duties or delete current ones without business meeting approval, although we make such recommendations.