The meeting was
called to order my Marita H. at approximately 1:00 PM with a moment of silence and the
Serenity Prayer.
The meeting
proceeded as follows:
How many Area
Assemblies do we want per year? A vote was called and there were a total of 13 votes to have four (4) Area Assemblies and one
(1) County Delegate Day to 2 votes for five (5) Area Assemblies and one (1) County
Delegate day.
Third Saturday
or third Sunday? - 4 votes for
Saturday and 13 for Sunday. The minority
was invited to speak and Jean from Bakersfield came forward stating she had done some
research for the purpose of hosting Assemblies and had assumed they were going to be on
Saturdays. No one wished to
reconsider the vote.
Should we
rotate or should we centralize (rotating the host district) our Area Assemblies? 16 voted
to rotate and 2 voted to centralize locations.
Stephanie spoke for the minority and expressed that perhaps by keeping it
centralized, it would be easier for everyone (particularly new GSR's) to know where it was
being held. She also felt that this might be
a way to keep costs down. A vote to
reconsider did not pass.
Do we want a
two-day Assembly for pre-conference or 2 two-day Assemblies; one for the pre-conference
and one in October? There was a question as to why we need one in
October? According to our Service Manual,
business is not usually conducted during an election.
However, in old Area 05 we did have business done during the elections. By having a two-day Assembly in October, we could
do like other Areas and have our election separate from our business and then have
business conducted during the second day. Some
thought that because it was such a good idea to do during elections, perhaps we could do
it annually and when there is no election, we could use the day for an Area inventory. There were 9 in favor of having 1 two-day
Assembly. 12 were in favor of 2 two-day
Assemblies. Part B of this question is whether we want to do it
annually or biannually? There was a point
of clarification concerning this question. Annually
means we do it every year and biannually means we only do it in election years. After some discussion, 14 voted for an annual
two-day and 7 voted for a biannual. The
minority spoke to this stating that we are asking for way too much both travel-wise and
time-wise. It's just too much. 16 voted to re-consider the vote. A second vote was taken and the outcome was a vote
of 4 to have it annually and 15 voted to have it
biannually.
Even though we
had discussed the agenda-style of our Assemblies at a previous meeting, it was brought to
the Chairperson's attention that no formal vote had been taken. It was therefore re-stated for a vote that New
Delegate Area 93 would follow the guidelines in the Service Manual on page S35 as a
standard in which to conduct a typical non-election assembly. In addition there will be a New GSR Orientation
and the Concepts will be read in both English and Spanish. Sharing Sessions and workshops
to be determined by next panel. It was unanimously accepted as stated above. (19)
We had also
previously accepted that time limits would be used at the microphone. Our chairperson thought it wise to take a vote on
this as well. This will be for Committee
Reports or any loving discussion from the floor. There
will be three minutes or double if there is a foreign language. Those in
favor of a time limit were 18 and 1 opposed.
A vote to reconsider failed.
The decision
had been made that the Area Committee would meet on all non-assembly months. We need to take a vote on whether we want it
centralized or rotating and then a decision of where that is. Santa Barbara has a location that is "by
donation" at St. Francis Hospital with an auditorium that seats 50 to 70 people. The Antelope Valley has a couple of locations with
occupancy of up to 100 at Henry Mayo Hospital and at Kaiser in Palmdale/Lancaster. Jean from Bakersfield has done lots of research
and noted that there was a difference in prices from Saturday to Sunday because some
facilities consider Sunday "dark days" due to the need of hiring additional
staff on days that are normally closed. Another
centralized location discussed was Fort Tejon as was Santa Maria. It was felt that this would be "the most
centralized" of locations yet. It
was noted from the floor that things could easily change after our first meeting depending
on need, availability and location. A
vote was taken and 7 were in favor of rotating the Area Committee Meeting and 13 to keep it centralized. There was no minority wishing to speak.
A vote was
taken that we set a site for the first Area Committee Meeting in February of 2001. This is for the purpose of having the first meeting
location on calendar. It was agreed by a vote of 17 that Santa Barbara
would have the opportunity to host the first meeting at St. Francis Hospital pending
availability on Sunday. If that is not
available, the meeting will be held at the Ventura County Central Office in Camarillo.
There was no
discussion regarding the website. A vote was taken and it was unanimously agreed (17
to 0) that we will have a website for New Area 93.
There was a
brief presentation on FM station translation equipment given by Steve H. The antenna actually controls the range of the
broadcast. The only thing we would need would
be transistor radios (Walkman) to use for receiving the translation. The cost would be between $250.00 to $1200.00 for
a very good sturdy antenna. A total
cost including some radios to have on hand would be around $1500 in comparison to the
equipment we are currently using which could cost upwards of $3500 to $4000.00. There were several questions brought to the
floor concerning start up costs and use outside of any particular area. The system was compared to a drive-in Movie where
you tune the movie on your car radio. The
system would also accommodate an infinite number of receivers. Our translator brought up a very good point
concerning whether or not if there were two different meetings going on at the same time
and each of the translators were translating at one of those meetings, who would hear
whom. It was agreed that a second (perhaps
less expensive antenna) would be purchased as secondary transmitter. A
vote was taken to recommend the FM Station Translation equipment for use by Area 93. 18 were in favor. 1 was against.
There was no minority opinion
It was agreed
that we continue to print a newsletter, however it was felt that it is not important to
choose a name for it at this time. Someone
asked what our Area name is…New Area 93 will be known as Central California Area. There was discussion as
to whether or not we would want our minutes in the newsletter and whether this would be
beneficial or cost effective. Newsletter
timing might change but we do not want to take away from what the newsletter is for and
there might possibly be less articles submitted for print.
There was a comment about having too much information, which would take away from
it being informative and readable. There was a vote taken as to whether or not we
would want the minutes included in our newsletter. 13 were opposed to the idea. 4 were in favor.
The secretary will continue to send out
the minutes as has been done in Area 05.
There was a
question as to whether or not we have a PO Box yet. Marita
advised that we have our PO Box, Tax ID Number, and Articles of Incorporation and
Corporate By-laws . We have received
confirmation from the IRS that our non-profit application has been received and that we
should be approved in the next 60 days. Once
we have that we can open our bank account and everything will be ready for the new Area. We do not want to have the new PO Box out just yet
because all money will continue to go the Area 05 until 1-1-01.
At the November
Assembly, when we come together as New Area 93, it was unanimously voted (19 to 0) that
the Trustee (or person of his/her choice) will conduct the Election and the ratification
including the roll call.
There was a
sense of this body that the "wishing each other well" motion presented by our
Chairman this morning be done at the Assembly.
Vicki made a
presentation to the Assembly to reconsider the following:
Motion and
second to reconsider the number of officers. A vote was taken to reconsider. 16 voted
to reconsider and 3 not to reconsider. After
a lot of loving discussion we took each officer position one by one
Delegate 15
yes
0 no
Alt Delegate 17 yes
0 no
Chair
17 yes
0 no
Alt Chair
0 yes
19 no
Secretaries 17
yes
0 no
Registrars
11 yes
8 no
There was much
loving discussion concerning the position of the Registrar.
However there was no one wishing to change his or her vote and the vote stands.
A vote taken as
to whether or not we would change the Treasurers position into two positions, Treasurer
A/R and Treasurer A/P. The vote
was 9 in favor of one Treasurer and 8 in favor of two Treasurer positions.
There was much
loving discussion regarding the amount of work done by the Treasurer and the fact that we
need to be good stewards of the funds given to us by the groups. It is felt that it would be good business practice
by a non-profit organization to have the two positions.
There was discussion about using the finance committee to do report and other
duties assisting the Treasurer.
Vicki called
for a point of order -- the previous vote for
the number of Treasurers was voided and Vicki gave a brief presentation of why she
believes we only need one Treasurer. A new
vote was taken. 10 in favor of one Treasurer position. 8 in favor of two Treasurers positions. Minority opinion was heard and no one wished to
change his or her vote. We will have one Treasurer in Area 93.
A motion was
made and seconded to reconsider the number of Committee meetings slated for the new panel. There was a vote of 12 to 5 to reconsider the
number of Committee meetings. Discussion was
opened up. We originally planned to have a
Committee meeting in the months we do not have an Area Assembly. Some believe this would be a good idea and that it
would be easier to remove than to add on. Others
felt that this was asking way too much from the new DCMs.
It was believed that this could hurt participation. A vote was taken to change the number of Area
Committee Meetings. 9 were in favor of
changing and 8 against. No one wished
to change his or her vote and so we continued discussion.
After many different recommendations, a
motion was made that there be 5 Area Committee Meetings in the months of February, April,
July, September and November. 15 were in
favor of the motion, 4 opposed. We will have
5 Committee Meetings as noted above.
A motion was
made and seconded that we reconsider the voting pool (those eligible to stand). A vote was taken to reconsider…12 against reconsidering and 4 to reconsider. The issue will not be reconsidered.
A motion was
made that the Assembly is given a choice to accept the new package or to adopt old Area 05
guidelines and modifying as needed. There was a second and the matter was open for
discussion. After much loving discussion, it
was stated that there is a choice on whether or not they will accept the package we put
together or they can make changes as necessary. It
is not felt that this is something in concrete, but instead is something to start with. The vote was taken as to whether or not there
will be more than one package offered to the Assembly.
The vote was 2 in favor of presenting the
new package and the old Area 05 guidelines and 16 against having more than one package
available to vote on. There will only be one
package to vote on at the Assembly. There
was no minority opinion offered. The vote
stands.
A motion was
made that if the Assembly accepts the package, all Area guidelines, not changed at the
November Assembly, be adopted for Area 93. In this way we have a working document to work with
and it gives us a running start on some guidelines. It was unanimously agreed.
There was a
motion made that we must have a two-thirds majority by those voting in order to pass any
recommendations. It was
unanimously agreed.
Last item of
business is the District structure. This is going to need long-term discussion and it was unanimously agreed that we wish to postpone
this discussion until a later date.
It was
unanimously agreed that New Area 93 would meet on December 17, 2000 at Kaiser Permanente
Hospital in Woodland Hills.
Respectfully
submitted,
Bertie D.