Presentation of New Business
This is a placeholder tab content. It is important to have the necessary information in the block, but at this stage, it is just a placeholder to help you visualise how the content is displayed. Feel free to edit this with your actual content.
Old Business at the July 2024 Area Committee Meeting
Discussion:
Group Consciences:
There’s been discussion about what committee means and whether it’s just the ACM or all the committees. If it doesn’t include the committees, why not?
// My group is online and in person. What keeps us together is our treasury because we have difficulty with hybrid and only use it once a month for business meetings. For recovery meetings, we function as two different groups. Our online group wants representation to know what’s going on and be able to come to these meetings. Our alternate GSR couldn’t get here today.
// The motion does not include anything except the area committee business meeting because it would become untenable to provide a hybrid for every committee meeting. Some of them already are hybrid. Our district favors this motion.
// My group had questions about this motion. They were curious why anyone would be against it. We voted and were unanimously in favor. // Someone from my group said it would make us lazy. I believe it makes us more accessible.
// My group was surprised there was a need for the motion and surprised that PRAASA isn’t hybrid. We’re talking about allowing people who cannot attend in person. Let’s do it and keep it.
// Our group fully supports this motion. Our district extends to the Oregon border, and we favor this for accessibility.
// Hybrid meetings are expensive but are overwhelmingly supported. We should rethink the idea that some things are supposed to be hard. Some people can’t attend important meetings for a variety of reasons. Though it’s expensive, we are getting good participation because of hybrid functionality and feel it must continue.
// We can disseminate information better by meeting hybrid. People can participate even when they have outside factors preventing them from attending.
// My fellowship has thirty meetings, all but one are online. The geographic characteristics of these groups vary a lot. Having the online component of hybrid allows people to participate. Can the online part continue, and the physical location relocate in the case of an emergency?
Personal opinions:
I’m not in favor of this motion because it obligates our ACM to always be hybrid and there is no flexibility if something happens, and we need to do something different. If we pass this motion how it’s written, we are obligated to do a hybrid production every time regardless of if that capacity is required. What if attendance drops off and we set all this up for no one. The intention of the motion is good, but I think it should fail for a better motion.
// I agree the intention is good, but the wording could be improved. My group had to rebuild our GSR funds so I couldn’t attend in person. We need hybrid functionality; it’s a valuable operation we should continue. // Providing hybrid is an accessibility issue. It’s not about comfort or convenience. It allows people to participate fully. Not having hybrid prevents people who want to serve but are not able to for various reasons.
// I favor this motion because online is the only way I can attend these meetings. We need to be inclusive. It saves people money for transportation to be able to join online. I got sober when we didn’t have internet. We need to keep moving forward with technology.
// We want to be inclusive and get people involved; it would be exclusive if we stopped being hybrid. Being able to attend online helps with accessibility.
// Before we were hybrid, people had reasons they couldn’t be here. There will always be reasons why we can’t be here. That’s why we get alternates. Being hybrid has made it so that we come together less.
// When this came up, the lazy word came to mind. But today I can’t attend in person, and it would be devastating if I had to miss this because I couldn’t Zoom in.
// We need this to continue to support our community and fellowship. The General Service Conference and General Service Office are doing this to improve accessibility and increase participation.
// The pandemic started in March 2020 right before the pre-conference assembly and the General Service Conference. We had to do an assembly and do it quickly so our delegate could go to the conference in April. If this motion failed, we would not get rid of our hybrid components. We’ve created a committee and a team to be hybrid. I read this motion as no matter what, we must always be hybrid, even if there’s a fire and we can’t meet in person, or some other circumstance that hinders us from meeting hybrid. I’m worried about that.
// I agree with what people have said about accessibility. We should think about how we struggle with AA as a whole in terms of being inclusive and wrapping our minds around what we are going to do with the online component. What will we be doing in the future? Is there a role for an online area that would still allow people to be in General Service? I don’t think we’re there yet, so I’m glad we’ve made the investments for hybrid. // Tradition one and responsibility statement came to mind. The importance of maintaining hybrid is that every alcoholic can be involved in general service.
// I’m hard of hearing and watching the screen so that I can see an interpreter. This helps me understand. Closed captioning is important as well as ASL interpreters.
// Being hybrid allows people to participate. Not having it is a barrier to access. // We need to have the capability to attend online. I’m a dog sitter, and I need to do that for my income.
// We need to pay attention to people’s needs and change AA in a way that brings more rather than less. This changes for more. I’m going to care for my husband in his older life, and this allows me to participate. I’m not lazy, this makes me hungry for service.
// This is a service to us. I might be there, I might not, but I need to be able to see you there. We need to make ACMs and assemblies hybrid whether this passes or not. // We do hybrid well in this area because we put in a lot of work and thought. Technology is not in a place where hybrid can be done simply or easily. Online only is, but not hybrid, even in corporate settings. I care about accessibility and hybrid a lot. It’s not the money that concerns me but are we self-supporting through trusted servants? Providing a service that requires in-person to be available is challenging. The technology committee is a large committee.
// We can all get behind being accessibility. AA is getting older, so we’ll need more accessibility. I encourage those online to give generously online because that’s how we support the technology. The average in-person contribution is $3.50, and the average online is $1. If online groups/GSRs don’t contribute, people attending in person are subsidizing the people who need the accessibility to attend online. Let’s collectively fund it. // I love hybrid and the accessibility it provides. I want to make sure we don’t vote just based on that feeling. This motion is about making this a requirement for the future until another motion overturns it. We should keep the flexibility in place to keep it going or discontinue it in the future. Don’t look at this with fear of what future trusted servants might do with hybrid for reasons we don’t know yet. It’s working fine the way things are, and I don’t think we need to formalize it with a motion. // Looking at the wording of the motion and saying the motion forces us to do it if we have a catastrophe. Zoom started because of one. When one comes, there will be a solution. The idea of a catastrophe shouldn’t be a reason for voting against something that gets people involved, perhaps even more young people.
// I don’t understand the comments about a fire. I’m here because of Zoom, and I didn’t have to spend money on gas. // If this motion isn’t passed, we aren’t going to eliminate hybrid. If it does pass, we have the responsibility to always offer it, even if we don’t have the means to do it. I’m worried about having that pressure that we must do it. // Can the chair give us the impact of the motion if it passes and fails?
// Impact if the motion passes with a yes vote: Our area will commit to funding and providing service commitments for the hybrid functionality for every Area Committee Meeting and each assembly. Impact if the motion does not pass voting no: Our Area Committee Meetings and assemblies will be either hybrid, in-person only, or virtual-only, depending on the Area’s decision at that time.
// The history of this has been interesting and fundamental to my growth. I appreciate the discussions we’re having. If we vote no, it doesn’t mean we won’t have hybrid meetings. If it passes, it means it’s documented somewhere that we’ll do it. Another motion can overturn it. Voting for this is a way to say that we want it and that it’s necessary if possible. // I’m the technology committee chair. Thank you for sharing on this. Tech is a tidal wave that has overtaken A.A. as a whole and we’re at the tip of the wave. We voted last year to fund the hybrid team’s travel for room and board and mileage. The initial projections for that were $6,000 to $8,000 per year. Last year, the committee worked hard to cut costs and limit their services, we spent $4,700. We’re really trying to be prudent. This is a fabulous enterprise where spirituality and money mix. // I’m not clear on the intent of this motion. Our area goes out of our way to make things accessible and inclusive for everybody. Is the intent to give assurance that we’ll continue to provide hybrid, or do we just trust the area to continue to provide hybrid?
// When considering a motion, we should ask what the need is. Is there a need to continue hybrid? If it passes, the area will commit to providing hybrid accessibility. With accessibility, you must put yourself in someone else’s shoes to think about it. If the area thought we didn’t need hybrid anymore, an ad hoc committee can be formed to investigate. When discussing the motion to reimburse the hybrid team for travel, people said we put the cart before the horse by not having a policy that we all agree we need this service. This motion would set a policy.
// I can’t attend in person. I think it’s worth the cost. Hybrid allows us to collaborate, and I think we can do it in a sustainable way. We have greater attendance. We can support creativity and innovation.
// I was very active in general service for many years and then for various physical reasons, I could no longer make the trip to come here. I’m grateful for the pandemic because when it started, AA moved quickly to open virtual A.A. I spent three days learning how to get online to be able to participate online. My participation has been constant and helpful to my group. This motion started because someone said virtual meetings would end in January because we could start meeting in person again. We can’t end this.
// I have no dispute about the value of hybrid and the necessity of maintaining it. Our area has already committed the resources and funds to do this. Hearing the impact of a negative vote, I’m against this motion. We need to trust our trusted servants to decide when we can no longer do it.
// I’m all over the place listening to this. I’m struck by what the last person said. I support hybrid and accessibility, but the motion will restrict trusted servants from making decisions as circumstances evolve, financially, logistically, or crisis-wise. This implicates future trusted servants.
// The Chair re-read the impact statement and took a sense of the room of who was ready to vote. (94 Y; 27 N).
Vote by substantial unanimity: 107 in favor; 60 against. Motion failed. Minority opinion was heard.
When the impact statement was read, it made me more in favor than against it. It’s based on what the Area feels at the time which can change at any time. Having a solid policy gives us more voice and unity as a group. // We need this to be inclusive of everyone. If hybrid goes away, I won’t be involved in general service. There are 111 people online now. Those voices won’t be heard if we don’t have this assurance. I worry there’s a threat that may go away. If circumstances change and we no longer need hybrid, there can be another motion. A.A. must move forward and grow or it’s going to die. // I think it’s important that we vote to make a commitment to stay hybrid. Nothing in A.A. is concrete. We can always go back by creating a motion if that needs to happen. Right now, we have the technology, so we should approve this.
// In my opinion, the wording of the motion is too vague, but we need to commit to being hybrid. The motion isn’t perfect, but we shouldn’t let perfect get in the way of good.
// I got sober during the pandemic when in-person meetings weren’t available. Accessibility is important to allow people to participate in Service. The hybrid component makes service possible. // It’s clear from the discussion that hybrid is popular. It seemed the group’s conscience shifted after hearing the impact statement. It was close, but I think it’s because some people changed their vote in the last two minutes.
// I voted for this because it shows our commitment to those who can’t physically attend. Voting no is a sign we’re not committed to them. If I could add an amendment, I would add “if reasonably possible” to the end of the motion.
// You don’t have to give a reason why you join online. It’s important that people don’t feel they have to have the right reason to participate that way. Our groups are struggling with factions that want to have hybrid out or hybrid in. The only reason I can see for not doing hybrid is if we can’t afford it. This would be good for my district to hear what the Area is doing. There was a vote to reconsider that was seconded. Vote by simple majority to reconsider: 104 in favor; 60 against. Motion to reconsider passes.
<< Motion to remain Old Business at the Summer Assembly on August 10, 2024.>>
Old Business at the Summer Assembly on August 10th 2024
Discussion:
Group Consciences: We agree with substantial unanimity that the Area should continue to provide hybrid access as a policy because it will not affect how we do business or affect people who choose to be in person but could harm those who, for whatever reason, can only access general service online. //
My group agreed with substantial unanimity. Hybrid makes the Area more accessible. It should be confirmed in writing despite its current hybrid nature. Minority opinion comments were that formal approval is unnecessary if it’s included in the budget. We should trust our trusted servants, and it’s overly constricting. It would require another motion to not be hybrid.
Zoom is here to stay, and hybrid ACM and assemblies allow inclusivity and a larger voice as an area. It also allows for changes in conditions that might preclude people who would normally attend in person, for example, a road closure, fire, or inclement weather. //
Our group wants to keep the ACM and assemblies hybrid with unanimous support.
My meeting is 100% online. Our group is unanimously in favor of the hybrid model. Our group represents the communities who could not otherwise meet in person or favor online, such as those with accessibility challenges and hearing issues. One member doesn’t agree with a comment that not attending in person represents a lack of commitment to serve. She believes our group has a strong commitment to be involved.
My group is unanimously in favor. We want to support the area with everything necessary to continue participating virtually and increasing accessibility.
My meeting is in support. We went back and forth during the discussion. Some didn’t want to do hybrid now that the pandemic is over, but we realized it adds extra service commitments. Those service positions are a key to helping our members stay sober.
The language is very strong, so if the hybrid portion dropped, would we no longer be able to conduct business?
Personal opinions:
Q: Does this refer only to the ACM from 12:30 to 3:30 and not the sharing sessions/committee meetings?
A: About this motion, yes. // If this motion fails, it doesn’t mean we won’t have hybrid meetings. It will continue even if this motion fails. // We’ve spent a lot of money on the equipment to meet hybrid, so it would be wasteful to end the hybrid. If we couldn’t meet hybrid, we wouldn’t be able to do business. If either the internet failed or if we had no money and could only meet virtually because we couldn’t find an affordable location, we wouldn’t be able to do our business. The way we’ve moved in our Area isn’t by making big proclamations; the motions book is filled with weird ideas. This would tie our hands in a way that doesn’t work for us. I’d love us all to meet, but if we don’t have money, I’d rather we meet virtually than not meet at all. The chair reminded the body that at the last assembly, this motion failed due to the majority not having substantial unanimity. A motion to reconsider was made and passed. Therefore, this will be the final decision on this motion.
Vote by substantial unanimity. Y: 94; N: 82; Abst.: 5. << Motion failed. >>