Hybrid Subcommittee Reimbursement

Presentation: When the Area shifted into meeting hybrid, that created a hybrid team, which is now a subcommittee of the tech committee. There are five members of the hybrid subcommittee required to be onsite that travel from various locations in our Area. The intention is to provide reimbursement for their travel because they must be present to serve the Area. There is a precedent of reimbursement for similar types of Area service. If our Area decided to produce a workshop, that’s also an event that could be included for reimbursement.

Questions: Q: Is this per person? A: Yes, there are five members of the subcommittee required to be on site. In the future, we don’t know. Five is not a fixed number at this point.

Q: This reimbursement is for miles and what else? A: This motion is according to area travel guidelines, which include mileage and, in some cases, housing (i.e., hotel), depending on distance and drive time. Area officers and committee chairs receive such reimbursement, as well.

Q: Do we have an estimate of how much would be added to the budget? A: We don’t have a way to estimate the cost of travel to assemblies that haven’t been bid upon.

Outcome: Voted by simple majority to become New Business at the ACM on March 25, 2023

Discussion: Group consciences: None.

Personal opinions: We are asking that the motion cover members of the Hybrid Sub-Committee at the same rate as the guidelines. This is an important and significant accessibility issue.

Q: The budget submitted was for five people; how many people will we reimburse? A: 4-5 per ACM, 5-7 per Assembly.

People get burned out when they do too many of these roles at once. We need enough volunteers to do the work.

The motion currently doesn’t limit the number of people or who determines that number. I think we need limits.

Q: Has the finance committee looked at this? A: We know that some of this info may change, and we are reserving a financial impact statement until we have numbers

I was part of the ad hoc hybrid committee, and the Area voted to reimburse those members at that time. I think sometimes in AA we expect individuals to bear the cost when the groups are donating to Area to support exactly this type of thing.

My only concern is that it seems premature. Without job descriptions, it feels too open to interpretation. // There are positions in I&T where members are reimbursed, those are spelled out in the guidelines (which are on the website). If you are reimbursed by your district, that comes first.

People are already doing these jobs at a personal expense; I would hate to delay too long

The subcommittee does have an org chart and defined roles. We might need extra people at an assembly if this body decides we need more hybrid rooms.

We would like to hear more participation from those online who benefit from and need this service.

Outcome: Motion to become Old Business at the Area Committee Meeting on April 22, 2023

Discussion:

Group consciences: None.

Personal opinions: The tech committee chair provided the motion’s estimated financial impact. Assuming two assemblies per year at more than 175/200 miles of travel (which includes four hotel rooms), the current five members’ transportation to ACMs, assemblies, and area events at current reimbursement guidelines (49 cents per mile, bridge tolls, and $150/night lodging for assembly hotels), the annual cost would be $8,172. The maximum annual cost if the five members originated from the farthest part of the area would be $10,297. The committee sought a bid to have our hybrid needs provided by Tech12. For a one-day assembly providing the same services we currently provide, including using some of our equipment, it would cost $8,100.

I’m concerned about the sustainability of the cost and the lack of job descriptions, it’s too broad. I’m concerned that we’re setting a precedent by it being reimbursed retroactively.

The committees are new, and we are still working on our draft guidelines. // I was on the tech committee previously. It looks like it’s running smoothly now, do we still need the number of people we have in person now?

The hybrid subcommittee looks each month at whether they can do their service with fewer people. This month we have five and we’re looking at trying three. We’re building the car while trying to drive it.

We have multiple hybrid meetings happening in several rooms at once. If the committees weren’t hybrid, we could do it with fewer people.

The assembly coordinator shared current commitments on site: sound/AV person, two people in each of the committee rooms, online host, liaison to the interpreter that listens to interpretation in Zoom, and the person who runs the projector. We would like to have one person in each committee room. We could have a smaller team, but that would decrease quality.

I’m a former area treasurer, and the numbers don’t seem higher than they should be. We are shifting how we spend money in the area. We are spending more money on technology because there’s a need. We are moving away from mailing the Comments/ Comentarios of about the same amount of money. It puts us into the modern world.

Q: Are the subcommittee members also setting up the equip11 AREA COMMITTEE MINUTES—MAY 2023 ment? A: Yes. The five members get here early and do a lot of work in the morning.

I’m from a hybrid district. It is very time-consuming and complicated to set up equipment and get things running. I can’t imagine the difficulty for the area.

I served on the ad hoc hybrid committee. This same conversation came up for reimbursement and it was approved. The reason we reimburse people to come here is because they are required to provide the service.

The area chair requested further discussion from online members on this motion because it affects hybrid capabilities.

Outcome: Motion to remain Old Business at the Area Committee Meeting on May 27, 2023

Discussion:

Group consciences: Our district is unanimously in favor. This provides an essential service and allows access to others who wouldn’t otherwise be able to participate in General Service. Seventy-two percent of GSRs and officers attend online. Concerns about fluctuating numbers of subcommittee members were raised, but we trust the committee to be prudent.

Our district was unanimous that this is an essential need for the Area for many of the same reasons just mentioned. Our fellowship has cried out for us to continue hybrid. For our area to be self-supporting, we can’t expect our trusted servants to cover their own costs to serve the need of the fellowship. // Our district was unanimously in favor for all the reasons previously cited. // Our subdistrict was unanimously in favor. The only question was is this separate from the assembly coordinator’s role of setting up equipment?

The finance committee is concerned about the sustainability of the cost. This will add an additional 10% to the annual budget. Our contributions aren’t growing; they are staying flat. There are many committee members (e.g., BTG, PI/CPC) that attend the ACM and assemblies without travel reimbursement. Personal opinions: What does the area prioritize? We have already reduced the number of required onsite people to three at ACM and five for assemblies, but it may change over time. We spend $2000-3000 on free lunches at assemblies. In some areas, people pay registration to attend an assembly. There are other places where we can save money outside of this motion.

I thought our Area decided by vote to have our ACMs and assemblies hybrid, but we never voted. If we intend on having hybrid meetings, we need to make sure the people who know how to do this are here to do it. On the other hand, given the cost, maybe we need to take a closer look at this.

I asked the finance committee, if this is approved, where will this item be located? It sounded like they didn’t know where it would go. Maybe hybrid could be transitional. We don’t know where the meeting culture is going to go. Should we consider whether we should be hybrid, or should we have an online area or an online district? If people need to be reimbursed and it’s a hardship, I think we should sup11 AREA COMMITTEE MINUTES—JUNE 2023 port trusted servants to do their service, but at what point are we paying people to do service? I personally support this motion.

I hear the concerns about the finances, but I think Zoom is here to stay in one form or another. We need to engage more members if we’re going to get more participation and more contributions. Anything we can do to engage offsets the financial inconvenience.

I’m a member of the hybrid subcommittee. I attend ACM meetings on Zoom. My current position would not be reimbursed. The process of doing this service is different from someone who is a liaison for a group. This service is all-encompassing. You have a very different experience being at the ACM when doing this service.

I appreciate the ability to go to ACMs and assemblies without having to drive several hours, but I’m concerned that we’re starting to pay people for service. On the other hand, people should be able to serve without it being a hardship. I’m torn between these arguments.

I often hear people ask how to get people to participate in General Service and restricting access prevents that. I wouldn’t be able to participate if there wasn’t online access. I hear that some people believe that people that don’t want to come in person are lazy. Nobody is being paid for service. If we say that people shouldn’t be paid for service, then area officers shouldn’t be reimbursed, they should just serve. But we say they are a necessary part of serving our area, and I believe that providing hybrid capabilities to our area is an essential service. // When we started the hybrid committee, I had to ask for help. If service is sacrifice, that is what we do to stay sober.

I consider this motion a necessary access issue, but I want to ask what the spiritual solution is. The solution is to trust that the hybrid committee is doing its best to limit its onsite people. Also, we should be guided by the spiritual principle of generosity and not be driven by fear that money won’t come.

This area has a well-run hybrid meeting. The committee has proved its value. // I wonder if we could see the job descriptions of the members and what they do to help the discussion.

These trusted servants have the option to decline the reimbursement. Our contributions can increase over time, and we can raise awareness of the importance of supporting the area through contributions. We want to make sure we have qualified people to serve and don’t lose the people currently serving.

Outcome: Motion to remain Old Business at the ACM on June 24, 2023

Discussion:

Group consciences: My group is 100% in favor of this motion. Many of us are 12 AREA COMMITTEE MINUTES—JULY 2023 only able to attend virtually. Having technicians run virtual meetings is essential and should have priority over other expenses.

Our district unanimously agreed with the motion. // The subdistrict I serve in, geographically, is very thankful for the online component.

My district values the ability to be here virtually and believes reimbursing these members for their service is needed. During our group conscience, a member was worried that there is a “sundown clause” for the motion. Personal opinions: We’ve made a motion to purchase equipment, and we’ve developed a committee to investigate functionality, but we haven’t made a policy decision that we are going to support hybrid capabilities for Area events. I would feel more comfortable with passing this motion if we decided as an area that this is what we want. I think it would be good to perform regular assessments of the need for hybrid (e.g., every four years). Once we start doing something in AA, stopping it is nearly impossible to stop it.

Our area hasn’t officially decided to be hybrid, but I think it has worked out well. I would like us not to wait until we make an official decision to provide reimbursement. This motion would provide reimbursement, not payment. I agree that we should have a periodic evaluation to determine what is necessary.

The chair gathered a sense of the room to determine whether the body is ready to vote on this motion.

Outcome: Motion to remain Old Business at the Area Committee Meeting on July 22, 2023

Discussion:

Group consciences:
Our group unanimously supports this motion, citing the 7th tradition and the importance of supporting the hybrid component at all ACMs and assemblies, allowing all groups an ear and a voice.

My group 100% approves of this motion. We would not exist if we didn’t have the technologists to provide this for us.

My District supports this motion.

The GSRs in my district reported that these members provide a valuable service and deserve compensation for their expenses.

Personal opinions:

I think the technology committee should be paid mileage, but I don’t think it’s right to pay mileage for one committee over another. We treat everyone the same and don’t play favorites. Concept 11 mentions employment for money in the Service Manual. Authority and money are deeply linked. Possession/control of money implies possession/control of people. Unwisely used, this can result in unhappy division (haves on one side and have-nots on the other). A part of the fence must be taken down for harmony.

We should provide reimbursement and support the hybrid component. Some people can’t attend in person for health reasons, and they should be able to participate. Technology is here to stay. If we adhere to guidelines of anonymity. It seems equitable.

My concern is not knowing the year-to-date cost since it’s retroactive. I wonder if a tech committee member is coming for another position they are reimbursed for (i.e., District), would they still be reimbursed by the Area?

In the expense reimbursement guidelines, it says if a committee member is being reimbursed by a district, they are reimbursed first by the district prior to being reimbursed by the Area.

If your job description requires you to be there, we need to reimburse you.

Motion passed by substantial unanimity. 38 in favor; 4 against; 4 abstentions. The minority opinion was heard.

I’m not against the principle of the motion, I’m concerned about sustainability.

We don’t reimburse every-one who does service (e.g., members of the finance and I&T committees). I’m also concerned about financial sustainability.

I’m confused about how and who is reimbursed for hotel stays. Also, it’s a lot of money for a lot of people.

Motion to reconsider passed by simple majority: 21 in favor; 17 against.

Outcome: Motion to remain Old Busi-ness at the Area Committee Meeting on August 26, 2023

Discussion:
Group consciences:
None.
Personal opinions:
Many of us require virtual access to attend. I’m in favor.

We don’t make decisions out of fear of financial insecurity. We’re also not a wealth-accumulating business. We ask for and expect to have the means to carry the message. There is a need based on how many people attend online. Providing reimbursement is in line with our traditions.

This service is critical for our hybrid capability, and these people should be reimbursed for travel.

Because of the Zoom component of our meetings, I can attend. I’ve seen hybrid done well and poorly. It makes a difference to have the support necessary to do it well.

There is a precedent for this. Some members of the I&T committee are eligible for travel reimbursement while performing their on-site service.

A.A. can survive without Zoom and hybrid. I know that’s an unpopular opinion. H&I in Sonoma County voted to do away with hybrid, and they are still doing their service effectively. This is valuable but not necessary. We haven’t discussed whether we can continue to meet hybrid with fewer people and/or less equipment. Is every position justified?

We’ve not made a policy decision on this as an area. A district is discussing a policy motion on hybrid functionality for ACMs and assemblies that may come before this body. I wish we could vote on that before voting on this motion. I wish we could make a policy decision before we fund it, as we have for other area services.

would not be here if we didn’t have Zoom; I can’t be there in person. COVID cases are rising, and hybrid capability is important to keep people safe. We need to continue to have hybrid functionality for our area and reimburse these members.

I’m in favor of this motion. I would like to know if this is approved, would this become a line item, or would it need to be re-evaluated each year?

I hope we have the funding to reimburse retroactively.

I reviewed the motions book and Comments and found a motion for the area to operate hybrid. At the same time, the area officers used their right of decision to trial hybrid. In effect, we became hybrid without a formal motion to do so. I wish there was a policy that we operate hybrid before funding it.

This should be assembly business. When we spend money, sometimes that means we forego services elsewhere. I wish for a more detailed description of the positions and what is needed.

If this motion fails, that doesn’t mean we will eliminate hybrid. We are voting on whether we reimburse or not. I’m glad that District 15 is discussing a motion about continuing to operate hybrid. I wish there were three motions: one for assemblies, one for ACMs, and one for committees and sharing sessions.

Initially, I was against this because I heard it would be 10% of the budget, but then it was walked back to 5%. It’s expensive to do this, but there’s also a cost to lose the members performing this service.

We operate under the spiritual principle that people who store, transport, set up, and operate equipment for our area operations are reimbursed for travel according to guidelines. We have a failsafe if the area needs to save money (e.g., restricting officer visits or eliminating food at assemblies).

The previous motion to be hybrid was tabled because a hybrid subcommittee was formed, so the procedures were followed correctly.

Vote by substantial unanimity: 34 in favor, 11 against.
No minority opinion was heard because this motion was previously passed and reconsidered.
Outcome: Motion passed. 8/26/23