How to read this page

Framework versus documented path

Each comparison places the CoDA framework on the left and the path reflected in the written record on the right. The purpose is not to infer undisclosed motives or internal actions. It is to show what the published process says and what the available record documents.

Terminology: “Governor(s)” is used rhetorically in the underlying record. It is not an official CoDA title. CoDA uses the term “trusted servant(s).”

Process comparison 1

Seventh Tradition and Meeting Responsibility

Two side-by-side views: the self-support structure CoDA describes and the governance pattern reflected in the record.

CoDA Framework

Basic self-support framework.

F1Group is fully self-supporting through Seventh Tradition contributions.
F2Treasurer receives meeting contributions.
F3Meeting expenses are paid from group funds.
F4Prudent reserve and excess funds are handled through group process.
F5Core meeting resources remain the responsibility of the group, not an individual.
F6The group provides its own Internet presence.

Stated / Observed Governance Pattern

Governance as stated in the meeting preamble and reflected in the record.

O1Seventh Tradition funds are not applied to the meeting's core platform expense.
O1The core meeting platform remains outside group funding and responsibility.
O1The group remains dependent on individually controlled infrastructure.
O2Private funding and control are later cited as the reason regular business meetings are not held.

Core structural issue

If private platform control is used as the reason no regular business meeting exists, then private control is no longer only logistical support. It becomes part of meeting governance. That links Seventh Tradition self-support to Second Tradition group conscience.

Reference key

Framework references

F1: FSM Combined p. 47 — self-support through Seventh Tradition contributions.

F2–F4: FSM Combined p. 44 — treasurer, expenses, prudent reserve and excess funds.

F5: FSM Combined p. 48 — the important issue is that the group, not an individual, is responsible.

Observed record references

O1: Meeting preamble states that Zoom is anonymously funded and directs donations to CoDA International.

O2: March 3 statement that the meeting does not hold business meetings because Zoom is privately funded.

Process comparison 2

Tradition Two and Group Conscience Access

Two side-by-side views: the group-conscience process CoDA describes and the access path reflected in the email record.

CoDA Framework

Basic group-conscience access for meeting-wide matters.

F0Healthy meetings hold regular business meetings.
F1A member raises a meeting-wide issue at a scheduled business meeting.
F2Members present raise issues or items of business.
F2Members present discuss.
F2A vote is taken.
F2The majority determines group conscience.
F3A group conscience may also be requested during a regular meeting when needed.
F4Trusted servants carry out the decision.

Observed Access Path

The access path reflected in the written record.

O1No scheduled business meeting exists because Zoom is privately funded.
O2Members are directed to send meeting-wide concerns to the organizers' email.
O3The March 4 email requests a group-conscience discussion and vote; no response or vote is produced.
O4Fellowship time is then described as personal shares only, leaving no identified meeting space for the requested group-conscience discussion.

Core process issue

The CoDA framework describes a members-present path for raising meeting-wide issues, discussing them, voting, and then having trusted servants carry out the decision. The written record shows repeated routing away from that path.

Reference key

Framework references

F0–F1: FSM Combined p. 9 — healthy meetings and business meetings.

F2: FSM Combined pp. 9, 23 — members present, discussion and vote.

F3: FSM Combined p. 9 — group conscience during a regular meeting when needed.

F4: FSM Combined p. 23 — trusted servants carry out group-conscience decisions.

Observed record references

O1: March 3 — no business meetings because Zoom is privately funded.

O2: February 16 — questions and suggestions directed to the meeting email.

O3: March 4 — specific group-conscience vote requested; no response or vote produced.

O4: March 10 — fellowship time described as personal shares only.

Process comparison 3

Crosstalk and Share Filtering Process

Two side-by-side views: the sharing and policy process CoDA describes and the process reflected in meeting practice.

CoDA Framework

Basic process for sharing, crosstalk boundaries and policy-setting.

F1A member shares imperfectly.
F1The share is not ridiculed or embarrassed.
F2No crosstalk during the share.
F3Questions about crosstalk or format go to a business meeting or group-conscience forum.
F4Members present discuss and decide the policy.
F5Trusted servants carry out the decision.

Observed Process

The share-filtering process described in the record.

O1The first half applies an on-topic share rule during the regular meeting.
O2A share may be interrupted and criticized as not sufficiently on topic.
O3The second half is limited to personal shares.
O4Meeting leadership decides in real time whether a share qualifies under the rule.
O5No scheduled business meeting or predictable group-conscience forum is identified for members to define or vote on the policy.

Core process issue

The CoDA framework separates sharing time from policy-setting. Questions about crosstalk or format are explored at a business meeting or group-conscience forum, where members present discuss and decide the policy. The record instead describes share-eligibility rules being applied during the regular meeting without a shown members-present forum for defining or voting on those rules.

Reference key

Framework references

F1–F2: FSM Combined, Part 2, p. 37 — Guide to Sharing and crosstalk guidance.

F3: FSM Combined, Part 2, p. 9 — questions about crosstalk or meeting ideas may be explored at business meetings.

F4–F5: FSM Combined, Part 1, pp. 22–23 — members present determine group conscience and trusted servants carry it out.

Observed record references

O1: Meeting preamble — first-half shares must stay on topic.

O2: Observed interruption of a share for being insufficiently on topic.

O3: March 10 — fellowship time described as personal shares only.

O4–O5: Consequence of live meeting control where no regular business meeting or predictable group-conscience forum is identified.

Process comparison 4

IMC Disagreement and Mediation Process

Two side-by-side views: the initial inquiry and mediation structure described in CoDA's IMC materials and the path documented in the correspondence.

Published IMC Process

Paraphrased from the IMC Policies & Procedures Manual and “Dealing With Disagreements.”

F1IMC receives a written request for assistance.
F2Acknowledgement asks whether the prior disagreement steps were followed and provides the disagreement diagram.
F3Questions are answered as possible and preliminary facts are gathered.
F4An IMC response team of at least two members is assigned; recusal is used if needed.
F5The response team requests relevant documentation and contact information for the parties.
F6The first and second parties are asked separately for their perspectives.
F7Dialogue continues using the disagreement process; mediation is considered when appropriate.

Path Reflected in the Correspondence

Only actions shown in the written record are stated here.

O1March 10: a written request gives the issue, prior local steps, requested guidance, and attached correspondence.
O2March 12: IMC forwards the request to Healthy Meetings rather than identifying an IMC response team.
O3March 13: Healthy Meetings asks what the requester hopes to obtain from a recurring group-conscience check-in; the request is clarified again.
O4March 19: a committee member attends the meeting; Healthy Meetings then describes it as compliant and well run.
O5March 20: Healthy Meetings says the meeting's trusted servants supplied their report and introduces conduct allegations and “extreme cases” language.
O6The written record does not identify an IMC response team, a recusal review, or separate perspective-gathering from both parties before those conclusions were communicated.
O7April 24: IMC states that HMC's process was followed and offers a Zoom with two IMC members and one participant from the challenged HMC process.

Core process issue

The published IMC process emphasizes structured inquiry, recusal where needed, separate perspectives from the parties, continued dialogue, and mediation. The correspondence instead documents referral to Healthy Meetings, a compliance conclusion, later allegations based on a report from meeting leadership, and a Zoom offer after the handling of the matter itself had been challenged.

Intermediary steps: CoDA's “Dealing With Disagreements” diagram ordinarily places Intergroup and larger regional/VE bodies between the local meeting and IMC. The March 10 request documented the attempted local group-conscience step. The written responses do not identify missing intermediary steps as a reason to decline or redirect the request, and Healthy Meetings later answered “Yes” when asked whether it was the correct committee.

Reference key

Published process references

F1–F7: CoDA Issues Mediation Committee Policies & Procedures Manual, Section 5, “IMC Disagreement Initial Process.”

CoDA “Dealing With Disagreements” diagram: person-to-person, neutral help, local group conscience, Intergroup, larger region/VE, then IMC.

IMC Policies & Procedures Manual

Dealing With Disagreements

Written record references

O1: March 10 request for guidance and mediation.

O2–O5: March 12–20 correspondence among IMC, Healthy Meetings, and the requester.

O6: Description limited to what the written correspondence identifies.

O7: April 24 IMC response and Zoom offer.

Continue to the record

Read the underlying documentation

The process comparisons are summaries. The full Process Break Matrix and source correspondence remain available in the underlying record.

Open the Process Break Matrix Open the actual emails