Dialogue Meeting Report for March 25th, 2012
1. Attendance:
24 People Present
23 People Identified themselves
5 IG represented (CT, European, NE USA, Phone Bridge, Michigan)
13 GSRs present
6 GSAWS Board members present
14 Face-2-face members
9 Phone Bridge members
2. AA Sharing Session on the how the Greysheet should be Distributed
a. 7 groups submitted proposals on how the Greysheet should be distributed
b. A possible consensus on one proposal seemed to emerge and was articulated in the following motion and voted on.
“We agree with the long-standing GS tradition that “the GS comes with a sponsor” and that we do NOT post the GS openly on the web or otherwise disseminate it in ways that imply that it functions alone in the absence of a sponsor.
The Greysheet will be distributed through Intergroups who have requested and have been granted written permission from GSAWS, Inc.
Groups not connected to an Intergroup can contact any Intergroup to obtain the Greysheet.
A mechanism was set up for Intergroups to request permission through sending a letter to the president of GSAWS, Inc.”
c. MOTION WAS DEFEATED: 15 Agree, 3 Disagree, 5 No-vote (did not respond to name) [NOTE: The current process for this group to make decisions is a conflict resolution or consensus method meaning that the entire group must agree or not stand in the way for a resolution to pass. Therefore even one “Disagree” vote defeats the motion]
d. Dissenting opinions heard:
d.i. Any motion should include a requirement that groups requesting permission state the means of distributing the GreySheet and an agreement to not to post on the Internet or disseminate in a way that implies it functions alone in the absence of a sponsor.
d.ii. One group believes the GreySheet should not be distributed at all by any group or individual until a World Service Conference is convened determines the process and directs the GSAWS Board.
e. NEW MOTION entertained but could not be voted on before the end of the meeting:
e.i. “We agree with the long-standing GreySheet tradition that “the GreySheet comes with a sponsor” and that we do NOT post the GreySheet openly on the web or otherwise disseminate it in ways that imply that it functions alone in the absence of a sponsor. The Greysheet will be distributed through Intergroups who have requested and have received written permission from GSAWS, Inc. Groups not connected to an Intergroup or in the absence of a functional Intergroup can contact any Intergroup or World Service directly to obtain the Greysheet. A mechanism will be set up for Intergroups to request permission to copy and distribute the GreySheet by sending a letter to the president of GSAWS, Inc. that includes the proposed means of distributing the GreySheet. GSAWS, Inc. will provide written permission promptly provided distribution clearly states that the Group/Intergroup would NOT post the GreySheet openly on the web or otherwise disseminate it in ways that imply that it functions alone in the absence of a sponsor.”
f. DISCUSSION: on the new motion included the assertion by NE USA IG that the Dialogue Meeting group has no legitimacy to consider these issues or advise the GSAWS Board. That authority should rest only with the World Service Conference.
3. Meeting adjourned.
April Dialogue Meeting Agenda
April 20th, 2012 11AM-1PM EDT
Bridge: 510 423 9129 Pin 9988# *1 Mute and un-mute.
“This we owe to GSA’s future: to place our common welfare first; to keep our Fellowship united; for on GSA unity depend our lives, and the lives to come.”
1. Open with the Declaration of Unity, the “we” version of the Serenity Prayer, and the reading of the 12 Traditions.
2. Identify GSRs, Trusted Servants, and members of the community who are present.
3. Dialogue (AA Sharing Style) and Possible Vote on the following:
“The NE USA IG has called into question the legitimacy of the Dialogue Meeting to consider, vote on and make recommendations to the GSAWS Board on matters concerning the fellowship as a whole prior to the convention of the First GSA World Service Conference.”
1. Given that the Dialogue Meeting was established to resolve conflict and open communication between the Board and the fellowship, does the GSA fellowship (as represented by those who attend the GSA Dialogue Meetings) believe we have accomplished that goal and can now move from conflict resolution to providing direction to the board prior to a World Service Conference?
2. If yes, does fellowship agree that the Dialogue Meeting is a legitimate means discover the will of the fellowship and give direction to the Board to conduct fellowship business until the first WSC?
3. If yes, can we then decide to adopt the 12-step model of conducting business as follows?
- Simple majority rules
- Minority opinion being heard after the vote
- A call for a re-vote coming only from someone from the majority opinion
- Handling disagreement via the AA Sharing Session format
4. If yes to all of these,
ENTERTAIN MOTION: The Dialogue Meeting is recognized as the legitimate voice of the fellowship until a World Service Conference can be convened. Meetings and decisions will be made using a 12-Step fellowship model:
- Simple majority rules
- Minority opinion being heard after the vote
- A call for a re-vote coming only from someone from the majority opinion
- Handling disagreement via the AA Sharing Session format
5. Set agenda for next Dialogue Meeting: May 19th (June meeting: June 30th)
7. Close with the Responsibility Statement followed by the “we” version of the Serenity Prayer.
“I am responsible when anyone, anywhere reaches out for help, I want the hand of GSA always to be there. And for that, I am responsible.”
