Sept 5, 2026 – WS Conference – Conference Report – Day 3 – History of Cocaine Anonymous Documents Archive

CONFERENCE REPORT

C.A. WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE 2026

WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

42 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTS:

Welcome to the 2026 C.A. World Service Conference!

We’ve worked hard all year to get prepared and organised for this year’s conference.

We want to provide the best service possible to all the conference attendees and ensure that we have a great productive conference.

The committee meets every forth Sunday at 9am (Central Standard Time) throughout the year.

We also have various subcommittees which meet weekly, fortnightly and monthly.

We’ve accomplished the following projects this year:

After Conference Wrap-up

Reviewed and forma ed the 2025 ‘After Conference Report’ for distribution to the delegates and fellowship.
Distributed the Conference daily minutes and summary of motions to delegates and fellowship.
Completed the Conference Committee 2025 ‘After Conference Report’.
Generated and reviewed the 2025 Conference evaluations and made some planning changes thereafter as a result for the 2026 Conference.

Hotel Coordination

Worked throughout the year with the hotel, planning and organising the details of the conference.
Communicated regularly with the hotel discussing meeting room numbers and sizes, meals, equipment and other hotel related items.
Reviewed and arranged hotel reservations for the WSBT, TEC and WSOB.
Resolved issues with hotel reservations for attendees and monitored room block availability and occupancy.
Planned meeting space size and layout with various committees.

Delegate Support

Revised the 2026 Conference forms i.e. Credentialling, Registration, Delegate and Trustee proxy and Referral process.
Maintained the Conference Committee page on the website i.e. Registration,

43 | P a g e

Credentialling, referrals, delegate mailings etc.

Pulled together materials and organised contents for 4 delegate mailings posted to BOX for the delegates.
Reorganised and cleaned up the Box providing access to new delegates.
Revised the information of ‘How to use the Box’.
Updated the Conference fact sheet for delegate and conference attendees.
Planned both a pre-conference and on-site new delegate workshop in order to help new delegates attending for the first year.
Planned the delegate orientation for the start of conference.
Revised and updated the credentialling and registration platforms to assist all conference attendees with compliance to the Conference Standing rules 5 & 6.
Monitored and managed over 168 registrations from 62 different areas on the RegFox platform with the following break-down by region:

Region | No of Delegates | No of Areas

- Atlantic North | 20 | 5
- Atlantic South | 14 | 7
- European | 16 | 8
- Mainland Europe | 12 | 7
- Midwest | 16 | 7
- Pacific North | 25 | 8
- Pacific South | 31 | 9
- Southwest | 27 | 8
- Orphan | 1 1
- New Bid | 2 2
Reviewed, resolved, and/or approved over 200 credentialling requests from over 59 different areas.

Committee Administration

Prepared the committee budget for the 2027 conference and revisions to the 2026 committee budget.
A ended to 13 referrals made to the in-conference committee during the year producing committee approved responses to 10 of these referrals.
Prepared the 2026 conference agenda.
Generated 4 quarterly reports for the WSBT.

44 | P a g e

Organised memorabilia to be sold at the conference.
Coordinated with the Unity Committee to provide a Unity Breakfast.
Updated our Committee Guidelines with motions to bring to the conference floor.
Continued to compile a conference committee handbook for committee use.
Continued to strengthen the Coordinator committee to assist with the tasks of Box. management, hotel liaison, registration, credentialling and memorabilia.
Monitored and forwarded incoming 96 referrals to the appropriate WSC Standing
Committees, updating the necessary data on Formsite.
Checked and con nued to follow up on all outstanding referrals from previous years.
The referral master document has been uploaded to the Box and is available for review.
It is saved in the following location:
Delegate Information Main File/2026 Conference Materials/2026 Master

Referrals List

The Conference Committee remains aware of the ongoing long-term planning project, particularly as it relates to the frequency with which the World Service Conference is held.

The Committee has concerns about this project, as we believe it encroaches upon the Conference Committee’s clearly defined scope and purpose, which includes oversight of matters relating to the organisation, structure, and frequency of the World Service Conference.

Our intention in raising these concerns is not to obstruct long-term planning, but rather to ensure that the established service structure is respected and that the Conference Committee is appropriately involved in any project that directly aﬀects the structure, or frequency of the

World Service Conference.

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AT CONFERENCE:

Position | Name | Email | Phone

Chairperson | Rudi VR | Ravanrooyen@gmail.com | +27 74 627 6455

Vice-chairperson | Peter M | Petermcgolpin@gmail.com | +447 903 679 487

Committee | Co-Secretary Nina H | ninajanehancock@gmail.com | +17 604 819 409

Committee Co-Secretary | Richard | suttonr894@gmail.com | +17 802 572 766

45 | P a g e

Coordinator | Robyn G | Rlgreenway7@gmail.com | +1 918-549-0790

Vice-Coordinator | Nicole J | Nicoleyazmin30@gmail.com | +17 207 079 329

Referrals Coordinator | Lou B | Louissinburns08@gmail.com | +1 323-353-8707

Committee Member | Jay F | Finesilver1988@gmail.com | +1 303-596-5592

Committee Member | Judson W | Judsonwing@gmail.com | +1 205-365-1671

Committee Member | Melissa | therealmelissad@yahoo.com | +1 404-573-3196

Committee Member | Nikita H | nikitahabich@outlook.com | +1 616 698 259

Committee Member | Sheree H | Threegran@gmail.com | +1 773-569-1220

DIAS

Conference Chair | Duane M | duanemiller59@yahoo.com | +1 951-830-7854

Conference Vice-Chair /Parliamentarian | Stephen C | stcroslin@gmail.com | +1 714-330-0416

Conference Co-Secretary | Melanie V | melvanrooyen2017@gmail.com | +27 622 510 346

Conference Co-Secretary | Amanda T | amandatimoney@hotmail.com | +447 539 965 997

WSOB AND WSBT Members

WSOB Chair | Randy G | wsochair@ca.org | +1 602-577-7512

WSOB Director of Conferences and Conventions | Jesse G | docac@ca.org | +1 512-504-6464

WSBT Representative (1st) | Stuart J | ert@ca.org | +44 777-388-7078

WSBT Representative (2nd) | Richard B | anrt@ca.org | +12 123 630 226

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE MOTIONS:

Referral # 14022599 (Board Submission – WSBT)

Change the wording of Standing Rule 5(a) to read as follows:

a. To be credentialed and carry votes at the WSC, the chair of the body you are representing must submit complete names, email addresses, phone numbers, and number of votes being carried in writing to the World Service Oﬃce 30 days prior to the World Service Conference.

(Attachment 2 provided to properly show strike-through text.)

Reason the change is being requested:

– The reference to ‘complete mailing addresses’ needs to be removed to better reflect our

46 | P a g e

current operational process. Delegate Mailings are no longer sent by physical mail, so there is no reason for the WSO to need this information.

– To be in better compliance with our current Statement of Policy, Point I (WSM, Page 18). Collection of complete mailing addresses falls into the category of collecting too much information, based on our current operational process.

– The second instance of the wording ‘must be submitted’ is redundant as it is already present earlier in the sentence.

MOTION 1: To amend the wording of Standing Rule 5 Item a, on Page 49 of the current World Service as follows:

a. To be credentialed and carry votes at the WSC, the chair of the body you are representing must submit complete names, ~~complete mailing addresses~~, email addresses, phone numbers, and number of votes being carried must be submitted in writing to the World Service Oﬃce 30 days prior to the World Service Conference.

MOTION 2: The Final 3 Proposals for the 2028-2030 World Services Conference location. This is from the RFP Sub-Committee of the Conference Committee (Request for Proposals) from hotels across the United States and Europe to host the C.A. World Service Conference in 2028 & 2029 & 2030. (Attachment 1)

Referral # 16650990 (Board Submission – WSBT)

Please note that the legal name of the Fellowship is Cocaine Anonymous World Services (CAWS). There is no such organization as Cocaine Anonymous World Services, Inc. (CAWS, Inc.) and any men on of that organization is incorrect. The World Service Board of Trustees is asking all World Service Conference Committees to review any and all Conference Approved Documents (World Service Manual, Committee Guidelines, etc.) and change any erroneous naming convention of Cocaine Anonymous World Services, Inc; CAWS, Inc., or anything other than Cocaine Anonymous World Services (CAWS) to the correct nomenclature.

MOTION 3: To approve the Conference Committee revised Committee Guidelines. (Attachment 2)

47 | P a g e

World Service Conference of Cocaine Anonymous Daily Minutes – Day 3 – Saturday – 5th

September 2026

REFERRALS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO OTHER COMMITTEES:

None

REFERRALS STILL IN COMMITTEE:

Referral #17700404 (Individual Submission)

I would like to propose that the RFP guidelines are amended to accommodate and facilitate the option of a Virtual or Hybrid Conference.

The amendments should include the requirements and specifications for a fully costed proposal that could be fairly compared to a hotel-based proposal.

Referral #17761803 (Group Submission)

We would like to propose that the Conference Committee guidelines be revised to state that RFP responses should not be excluded from consideration solely because they include a virtual or hybrid component

Referral #18009940 (Individual Submission)

Please review the RFP cost breakdowns particularly with regard to flight costs as we believe if the Conference was held in Dublin that more delegates would go from Europe and less from North America, making the flight costs overall much different than those presented in your motion.

CLOSED REFERRALS:

Referral # 176734483 (Individual Submission)

Please look at revising SR10 so that the editing, particularly for new language, is shown in an alternate colour, such as red. Using bold text for new language makes it difficult to differentiate when added to already bold language, such as headings. Presumably bold was introduced for diﬀerentiating the new language when documents were being printed and it would have been prohibitive to print in colour. Now that we share and review documents in electronic format the restriction on the use of colour no longer exists. Having recently edited documents for approval at Conference we found that the ongoing work was carried out in colour and then this had to be converted to black for

48 | P a g e

the final submission. This seems counter intuitive.

Response:

Thank you for your submission:

Strikethrough and Bold in documents versus redlining/color serve different purposes that are standardized editing methods across the professional world. The current usage of strikethrough and bold versus usage of color is in line with these methods. Strikethrough is a structural tool used to cross out text to show dele on or revision, whereas red is a color primarily used to make text stand out or to denote urgency, errors, or cri cal comments

In response to your concern regarding confusion with text that is already bold, such as Headings, that is a final format for use in the manual/ committee guidelines and does not necessarily reflect the format that should be used when creating motions, where bold text isonly used where indicating new language. The use of bold in the final document for emphasis for headings is up to the respective submitting committee after the document has been approved by conference.

NO ACTION TAKEN

Referral # 17420922 (Group Submission)

Dear Members of the WSC Conference Committee. I hope this referral finds you well. We are writing to strongly request that you consider enabling virtual participation at the 2026 World Service Conference and those in the future. Uncertain es surrounding visa approvals, especially the deep search into applicants’ social media accounts and the requirement to declare previous drug use, will prevent some delegates from entering the country. Many are not willing to compromise their integrity by lying on an oﬃcial document and view this as undermining their recovery. Our view is that these circumstances could prevent up to half of our membership from being represented. We are aware that tensions and instabilities in certain cities, and unrestrained military-style Federal policing, has prompted several European governments to advise would-be travellers of an increased risk of harm while visiting the United States. This has compromised the willingness of some delegates to travel to this year’s conference. As a Charitably Incorporated Organisation in the UK we have a duty of care to our members and are obliged to address safeguarding issues and mi gate potential risks wherever possible. Some of our number live with disabilities and accessibility issues. Travelling such long distances also puts strain on members with family responsibilities, particularly those with children. Travelling to the United States from Europe requires me to acclima se to the change in time zones. This along with days of travel means that members are obliged to use up to a week of annual leave, or lose

49 | P a g e

a week of pay. By oﬀering a virtual participation option, CAWS would ensure that all voices are heard, and that Conference remains democratic, inclusive and representative of our entire fellowship. It would ensure the Right of Participation. This approach would not only accommodate those unable to travel, it would allow engagement from Areas that may be facing logistical constraints; and enable representation without adding financial burden to new and smaller Areas. It would be a disservice to our Fellowship if the unity enjoyed by those who can attend continues to be negated by the sense of exclusion felt by many others that cannot. We respectfully request the matter be conscientiously reviewed in the light of the broad spectrum of our Fellowship and the points raised above. Your attention to this as a matter of urgency would be very much appreciated.

In love and service,

C.A. London Area Service Committee

c.c. World Service Board of Trustees

Response:

Thank you for your submission.

There is currently activity within the Conference Committee to create pathways for the review and possible update of the Conference Committee RFP Process/Guidelines to address the submission of proposals re: virtual/hybrid conferences. In addressing the specifics of your submission, this referral was received in March of 2026, leaving insuffcient time to plan, organize, and install a hybrid/virtual component for the 2026World Service Conference. It would not have been logistically feasible to implement given the time constraints, nor would we have adequate groups’ conscience to come to consensus regarding the pros and cons of moving away from the spiritual exchange that we know takes place while meeting face-to-face. The planning required to implement the monumental task of a hybrid/virtual component would not be possible with the additional consideration of our contractual obligations regarding our current hotel site. We are under contract with the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Marriot until the end of 2027, we aﬃrm C.A. should and must present itself professionally and meet any contractual obligations already under implementation.

Although C.A. has had a single hybrid/virtual Conference due to the outbreak of COVID-19, this was conducted during an unprecedented time, under force majeure circumstances, and with the full support of the WSOB, WSBT and Conference Committee. The proposal in this referral would have caused a significant strain on participation of volunteers, physical resources, and the finances of our fellowship.

50 | P a g e

Please reference the following response previously given by the 2023 Conference Committee regarding Hybrid/Virtual Conferences. We feel that the response given is still in line with the thinking of the Conference Committee and may help to shed some light on the wider reasoning for not conducting a hybrid/virtual conference (Also please see further response at the bottom of the last page):

Excerpt from REFERRAL #10351721 (CONF 2022-06) – Pre-Conference (17-Dec-21)

With the current state of world aﬀairs and COVID-19 rolling pandemics… and in lieu of Concept Four: Throughout our Conference structure, we ought to maintain at all responsible levels a traditional “Right of Participation”, taking care that each classification or group of our world servants shall be allowed a voting representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must discharge. I think the time has come that every World Service Conference, commencing with the 2022 World Service Conference, be at minimum a “hybrid” conference giving delegates, committee chairs and trustee, both in-person and virtual access and attendance.

RESPONSE: The following is the response by the WSC Conference Committee to three referrals listed above (#9227555 (CONF 2021-07), #10218557 (CONF 2022-04) and #10351721 (CONF 2022-06)). This response is also relevant to any other such referrals on the topic on online or hybrid Conference.

No Ac on Taken.

Thank you for your respective time to make these referrals to our committee. We also thank you for your service to our fellowship and to the Conference itself. We have studied this matter from several perspec ves using logistical and practicalities to direct us on one hand, while also being mindful of our need to respect and balance the Concepts as applied to this entire matter. When we do this, the unescapable conclusion remains that a hybrid Conference is not the best direction for our fellowship or for the Conference itself on an ongoing basis.

Each one of these three referrals has a similar theme in suggesting/arguing that a hybrid conference is the preferred course going forward. Here, so that we are all clear, we understand that a hybrid Conference involves some combination of delegates in one location along with some varying group of other delegates which are either at their home location or, as was the case two years ago, at a hub location centrally located to several proximate areas. In our analysis and narrative below, we are mindful not only of

51 | P a g e

these three referrals, but of the concern by some members of the Conference who expressed concerns to members of our Committee directly of by asking additional questions during our report and even during Conference week and since then. It is our desire below to share our experience, strength and hope related to this important matter.

Overview:

The first response is that the good is the enemy of the best. While the Conference was able to happen while hybrid for the one year in 2021, there was significant feedback that indicated that a multiple day Conference held across different time zones was extremely challenging to those on the dais, those doing the planning, and those attending both in person in the main Conference location, as well as those participating either at their homes or similar locations, or those who were part of a hub location as was the case in 2021 with a hub location in the UK. Overall, the clear conscience of those participating that year was that such a virtual Conference was simply not as eﬀective. There will always be restrictions for anyone to serve in certain capacities. This is true in all civic and service organizations. Requirements to serve will always make serving not possible or probable for some. (i.e. A person with small or school age children might not be able to attend, and travel restrictions based upon past history are two examples).

Further, the cost of doing business is the price all businesses must come to terms with, our fellowship is no different in this regard. Our fellowship embraces and encourages a return to a useful life. There are many ways to serve our fellowship and it is encouraged that our members engage in service that they are ready, willing and able to perform in the spirit of both the 4th and 9th Concepts.

We cannot and should not attempt to be all things to all people. We serve as we can and if love and tolerance is our code, then acceptance cannot be far behind.

Cost Implications:

There have been many comments and questions regarding the cost implications of an online aspect of a future Conference. This topic itself has raised many points of consideration. There is the necessity for us to review and clarify some pertinent ideas and guidance.

The issues and challenges raised by lack of physical attendance becomes immediately clear for those involved with contractual obligations with the host hotel. For C.A. to

52 | P a g e

secure the meeting rooms and services we require from a hotel we are committed to meet a certain amount of room night bookings (o en plus food & Beverage sales).

By experiencing a reduced physical attendance, which would occur as some Areas/members would seek an easier so er way to attend, the cost burden would then be placed on those attending in person (higher room costs) and our World Service finances would likely be very negatively impacted.

An online option for 2023, 24, 25 would have a negative impact on our already agreed performance agreements with the selected Hotel. 2026 & 2027 negotiations are already underway and will likely be finalized just after this year’s Conference in September 2023. So we are looking at the possibility of a virtual component which could not happen practically for at least 5 more years. Note also please that to attempt to reduce our physical attendance commitments would likely put our group out of the running with hotels that provide such meeting room needs…or the additional cost for meeting room hire would increase substantially and increase the cost of conference by tens of thousands dollars. By moving the Conference out of Los Angeles, to Dallas, we saved over $50,000 per year overall for our fellowship, now, by trying to implement a virtual component, we estimate that a significant portion of that savings could be lost. That savings allows us to continue to discharge program services and carry the worldwide message of hope, faith and courage.

There is another cost factor too, namely, there are significant staffing and connectivity expenses to hold a hybrid Conference, as we learned in 2021. There were more staﬀ needed to control the input and output and the varied hubs and individuals. Plus, we had to secure additional monitors and screens to see each other. Also, vote tabulating was diffcult as was ensuring that a quorum was always present. Lastly, it should be noted that the one hub in the UK at the Conference in 2021 cost CA world large amount of funds, the exact number has not been ascertained or shared with our fellowship. We estimate that adding these items back in to the cost would exceed over $35,000 in today’s dollars.

There have been many claims that the expense of attending WS Conference is too much for some C.A. Areas. While understanding this point it is important to clarify again that with the ‘right’ to participate comes a responsibility to be self-supporting.

We have reviewed the ac vi es and cost implica ons of the 2021 hybrid Conference and while on the surface it may have looked ‘cheaper’ it actually generated many hidden costs that were eventually put on CA World Services to pay. Of course, we understand

53 | P a g e

that 2021 WSC was a unique circumstance and it was beneficial that we came together in whichever way we could, to allow our World Services to try and regain momentum after such a challenging 2 years. Many of our European members attending online chose to meet at a ‘hub’ hotel and while some of the costs were met by the areas there were additional unbudgeted costs met by WS’s. There was no evidence to show that there was a saving to ‘C.A. as a whole’ and our research actually leans us toward a conclusion that costs were actually increased by having hybrid and hubs yet participation was hindered, even compromised. Due to CAWSO bookkeeping styles at that time, and lack of invited involvement by the Conference Committee (not by their choice), many of the additional costs paid to facilitate a ‘hub’ were hidden and/or not listed against actual WS Conference budgets.

The Right of Participation:

The argument that small or new CA Areas are being denied the right of participation is not actually the case. The right to participate is open to all C.A. Areas, the opportunity and invitation is extended to all such areas as long as they meet the basic criteria laid out in our WSM. Areas should not confuse an inability, or unwillingness, to meet a financial responsibility with being denied the opportunity to participate. These same areas do have the right to proxy one or more of their votes to others who might be attending, so that their areas’ voice, conscience and votes still can be considered, even if a representative from that area cannot be in actual attendance during that Conference.

The unfortunate truth is that many who could physically attend may be denied that opportunity when a seemingly ‘cheaper’ option is oﬀered of not attending in person and being able to zoom in (or whatever future technologies might be available in any given year). There remains a strong necessity, logistically and spiritually, for all Conference participants to be in the same location at the same time. In our experience, the vital group conscience the Conference is charged with seeking and then following, cannot be found if we aren’t together as one body. Something o en magical occurs when we debate together in one room that eludes us when participants zoom in from all over.

A Direct Look at our Fourth Concept:

Throughout our Conference structure, we ought to maintain at all responsible levels a traditional “Right of Participation”, taking care that each classification or group of our world servants shall be allowed a voting representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must discharge.

54 | P a g e

This concept about allowing delegates, oﬃce staﬀ, trustees… to vote in our Conference and preventing one group from having ul mate authority over another. Delegates, WSO Board of Directors, and WSBT are given not only a voice but a vote. The ques on is does On line participation enhance that principle? It has been demonstrated that online meetings and participation can be helpful for a meeting that lasts a few hours or less. But when it comes to a mul -day Conference it is much less than eﬀective. The vast diﬀerence in time zones is fraught with challenges over multiple days when it comes to the full and effective participation of members. In our second tradition of the original 12 Step fellowship it was determined “the good is the enemy of the best”. The Right of participation cannot be used to say we are denying participation because of expense. Our 7th tradition speaks to us being self-supporting. Also, we witnessed several times our delegates in Europe and in other locations around the world, losing the ability to reason and stay focused when our floor proceedings went to even 10pm in Los Angeles which was 5 am or 6 am in the morning in Europe and even later in other countries. It just didn’t work.

While it would be amazing to have more participation at our Conference, one must be mindful that the Big Book we use so diligently asks us to consider that God is either everything or he is nothing.

The principles of any successful and effective multi day Conference would beg to have all in the same physical space. While a virtual Conference may seem nice and an easier softer way, Is it what’s best? We have proven that it is not best by our clear personal experience.

The Negative Impact on Small Areas:

We are aware of the argument that oﬀering an online component might help smaller areas to participate at the Conference itself. That said, we know of several small areas that fund raise all year in order to be able to send one delegate to the actual Conference. Further, small areas are still provided two votes at the Conference, these votes can be proxied to delegates from other areas who will be attending in the smaller area, or any area frankly, cannot aﬀord to get its delegates to the actual Conference. This is not a perfect solution, but on balance, it presents a fair solu on to those areas whose delegates cannot make it to the actual Conference.

Unity/Hub:

To us, there is still something meaningful and important when all Conference attendees are in the same room at the same time as debate and voting occurs. The collective

55 | P a g e

conscience of our fellowship is more likely to be heard in such settings versus having some of our members live with others participating from various locales around the world. Also, from a unity perspective, we all do better if we are together to hear and experience debate and then God’s conscience. This is less likely to occur when we are not in the same places. Some people assert that having hubs helps this unification, even if there are several hubs throughout the CA world. Our experience is to the contrary. While the one hub in Europe was successful at some levels, it was still expensive, the cost of which was absorbed by the world service oﬃce and some of the participating areas. Further, it appeared to several of our members, that the hub seemed to vote as a block on many items. This dynamic is in and of itself disunifying and unfortunate.

Spiritual Balancing:

In our experience, at the Conference level of service, there is o en the need for a balancing of the practical and the spiritual. Here, arguments can be made about helping small areas or allowing members with disabilities to participate if there were to be a virtual component. While these arguments are compelling, we must remain mindful of the distinct need to find a collective recognizable group conscience from those in the same room, while eﬀectively exercising the right of decision at the right me during debate and voting/decisions. Both sides present compelling consideration(s). That said, for now, we side with the need to have us all be in the same place for the lowest economic cost overall to our fellowship versus allowing these other suggested factors to detract us from our primary purpose.

Our Committee remains open to a continued study of these dynamic issues. We will do this on an ongoing basis even if there is no active referral on this topic before us. We do note that none of our similar situated fellowships have adopted a hybrid Conference model yet either. We would invite any of you to join our Committee and become involved in future similar discussions which will surely be put forth each year going forward.

Thank you for taking the me to read. We hope you understand that the committee has endeavoured to present a thorough and though ul response, and hope that this adequately addresses the implementable feasibility of your referral as well as providing clarification on some of the other points that were raised.

ILAS,

2026 Conference Committee

56 | P a g e

NO ACTION TAKEN

Referral # 16335754

Make the CAWS Conference a 100% Virtual Conference.

1.) A Virtual Conference saves the fellowship hundreds of thousands of dollars!

a.) Currently it costs every C.A. Area approximately $4000 plus dollars to send 2 delegates to the Conference—that’s $640,000 dollars out the Area coﬀers that could be better used for Area

Public Information, Outreach programs, H&I panels, local events, or donatons to World Services, rather than giving it to the airlines and hotels. A Virtual Conference would eliminate this gross expenditure of C.A. Members monies.

b.) Total Conference Expense savings of: $43,520.00 for 2024 and projected $46,312.00 for 2025. A Virtual Conference would eliminate this expense. The cost of a CAWS Zoom Business licence is less than $400 and can manage attendance up to 300 participants.

2.) A Virtual Conference provides maximum accessibility and maximum attendance. a.) A Virtual Conference makes it possible for anyone to attend regardless of financial diffculties, physical disabilities, health challenges, legal travelling impediments, or safety issues.

b.) Some argue that a Virtual Conference is problematic due to the different time zones around the world. This matter can be easily surmounted… One year the conference could be held in the

North American time zone, next year in the European time zone, or the times and days of the Conference could be staggered, just name two possible options.

3.) A Virtual Conference has all and more of the audio/visual needs to facilitate the Conference business.

a.) The technology of the ZOOM platform allows for complete control and management of such an event, transcripts (in any language), screen sharing, participant interaction and management, recording the entire event (if necessary).

NO ACTION TAKEN (See below for response)

Referral # 16268842

At the next WSC RFP review could a fully virtual conference be considered? So we can consider the cost for an online conference vs the various physical locations.

It feels this could open up the right to participate for many more of our fellowship Including people with health issues childcare or domestic situations people who cant take me oﬀ to travel a long distance people with travel document or visa issues people with criminal records.

If we restructured WSC to not include the sub-committee or regional meetings it could possibly even be done in two days, and we could save the fellowship the travel and accommodation costs.

NO ACTION TAKEN (See below for response)

57 | P a g e

Referral # 16265543

Is it time to reconsider our WSC?

Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom have recently issued travel advisories for their citizens regarding entry to the US.

They fall into two types of warnings:

The US only recognising gender at birth (so gender change or gender “x” is not recognised”.)

And the increased vigilance of border staﬀ and possessing an ESTA or visa does not guarantee entry.

Many governments have stressed the importance of honesty when interacting with border agencies. I believe many of our delegates and other members travel to the US via the ESTA process. It is amazing so many members of Cocaine Anonymous can answer no to these questions which are on the ESTA (especially the bits in bold)

1.“Do you have a physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict; or do you currently have any of the following diseases (communicable diseases are specified pursuant to section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act): Cholera, Diphtheria, Tuberculosis infectious, Plague, Smallpox, Yellow Fever, Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers, including Ebola, Lassa, Marburg, Crimean-Congo, Severe acute respiratory illnesses capable of transmission to other persons and likely to cause mortality.”

2. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

3.Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs? Answering yes to any of these questions is likely to result in the ESTA being denied and then a visa and or a waiver of the entry requirements is likely to be necessary.

If delegates and or trustees do get refused entry this could aﬀect the use of Tradition 7 money, the right of a voice and participation is going to be aﬀected. Also if we can only have delegates from outside the USA who have never used or dealt illegal drugs or whose gender identity matches their gender assignment at birth it restricts the ability of many of our fellowship to participate as delegates.

Given the increased vigilance at the border (including checking the contents of electronic devices such as phones and laptops) it appears there is a much bigger risk of being declined entry to the US.

Additionally there are now extra security and documentation requirements for people to travel internally in the USA.

This could impact Tradition 7 funds in a couple of ways, we might fail to meet our contractual obligations with venues for events and incur penalities. Additionally people denied entry may have to pay their repatriation cost, and this could also have an ongoing impact on their ability to

58 | P a g e

travel elsewhere in the world.

Our venue choices can aﬀect members right and ability to participate at events such as the WSC (concept 4).

Given these issues is it about me we reconsider how/where WSC takes place? Can the conference be run as a hybrid meeting? What are the barriers to this happening? Could conference be restructured? The World Service committees already meet electronically outside of conference, so is it essential to have these committees meeting at conference? Regional meetings take place outside of conference, so do they need to be included in the conference schedule? If committee and regional meetings were removed from the conference agenda then perhaps the conference could be reduced to a two day event and this could be done virtually. This would increase the potential for more of the fellowship to participate as delegates in a number of ways. Previous convictions or drug usage would not be a barrier to attending

People’s gender identification would not be a barrier to attending conference Delegates would not have to take a week oﬀ to attend conference, there are potential delegates who do not go for the position because they cannot aﬀord to take me oﬀ or have childcare or other responsibilities meaning they can’t travel for extended durations

The cost of delegates participation would be hugely reduced (no travel or accommodation costs)

People with travel, health or mobility issues could participate.

Also there are environmental benefits; Continuing with the current format is reducing people’s ability to participate, it has huge financial costs, there is an environmental impact associated with the travel. Another option would be to have Regional Service Conferences, allow Regions to have a service structure similar to WSC, Areas and Districts. We could have Area Service Representatives similar to DSRs and GSRs and a full service structure at the Regional level, again this could reduce travel, and accommodation costs, it could be part of the role of an ASR that they participate in a World Service Committee too.

Response:

Note: we have created one response (below) for all three of these referrals which suggest a virtual Conference or some other hybrid model (referrals 16268842 and 16335754 and 16265543. Combined Response: NO ACTION TAKEN

Thank you for your referral.

This matter has come to our Committee each of the past five years by one or more referrals requesting some sort of hybrid, all virtual, an abridged agenda, or a full conference with some sort of a robust on-line component. Each year, we have carefully considered the respective

59 | P a g e

referral(s) and have concluded that a hybrid or virtual/on-line option is simply not possible nor reasonable.

This year, is no exception.

We have discussed and considered at length the points raised in the current referrals, in related previous year referrals and similarly submitted referrals regarding WS Conference options. We carefully and thoroughly reviewed and discussed all of the complex and spiritual issues relating to facilitating the needs of our Fellowship to plan, produce and attend the Conference; with the various options presented, these include; costs, travel, practical attendance, momentum, participation, responsibility, coordination, healthy debate environment, time zones, regional rotation(s), continent rotation(s), unity etc. These and similar suggestions have been made periodically over the years, and each time they are made, the Conference Committee actively considers the various suggested nuances for Conference location, structure, days, dates and more.

This year, there is this current referral. Again, our Conference Committee carefully considered all the alternatives and after many months of active exploration and debate we once again conclude that CAWS Conference should maintain its current form, that being an annual ‘in person’ meeting.

We are certain, as our fellowship continues to grow and evolve, this subject may again return for further discussion and consideration, but at this time no further action will be taken.

For ease of reference, we copy again the long response we provided three years ago in response to that year’s group of similar referrals. We find the points referenced therein equally poignant and controlling today:

The following is the response by the WSC Conference Committee to the three referrals listed above.

Thank you for your respective time to make these referrals to our Committee. We also thank you for your service to our fellowship and to the Conference itself. We have studied this matter from several perspectives using logistical and practicalities to direct us on one hand, while also being mindful of our need to respect and balance the Concepts as applied to this entire matter. When we do this, the unescapable conclusion remains that a hybrid Conference is not the best direction for our fellowship or for the Conference itself on an ongoing basis.

60 | P a g e

concerns to members of our Committee directly of by asking additional questions during our report and even during Conference week and since then. It is our desire below to share our experience, strength and hope related to this important matter.

Overview:

There will always be restrictions for anyone to serve in certain capacities. This is true in all civic and service organizatons. Requirements to serve will always make serving not possible or probable for some. (i.e. A person with small or school age children might not be able to attend, and travel restrictions based upon past history are two examples). Further, the cost of doing business is the price all businesses must come to terms with, our fellowship is no different in this regard. Our fellowship embraces and encourages a return to a useful life.

There are many ways to serve our fellowship and it is encouraged that our members engage in service that they are ready, willing and able to perform in the spirit of both the 4th and 9th Concepts.

We cannot and should not attempt to be all things to all people. We serve as we can and if love and tolerance is our code, then acceptance cannot be far behind.

Cost Implications: There have been many comments and questions regarding the cost implications of an online aspect of a future Conference. This topic itself has raised many points of consideration. There is the necessity for us to review and clarify some pertinent ideas and guidance.

The issues and challenges raised by lack of physical attendance becomes immediately clear for those involved with contractual obligations with the host hotel. For C.A. to secure the meeting rooms and services we require from a hotel we are committed to meet a certain amount of room night bookings (o en plus food & Beverage sales).

An online option for 2023, 24, 25 would have a nega ve impact on our already agreed performance agreements with the selected Hotel. 2026 & 2027 negotations are already underway and will likely be finalized just after this year’s Conference in September 2023.

So we are looking at the possibility of a virtual component which could not happen practically for at least 5 more years. Note also please that to attempt to reduce our physical

61 | P a g e

attendance commitments would likely put our group out of the running with hotels that provide such meeting room needs…or the additional cost for meeting room hire would increase substantially and increase the cost of conference by tens of thousands dollars. By moving the Conference out of Los Angeles, to Dallas, we saved over $50,000 per year overall for our fellowship, now, by trying to implement a virtual component, we es mate that a significant portion of that savings could be lost. That savings allows us to continue to discharge program services and carry the worldwide message of hope, faith and courage.

There is another cost factor too, namely, there are significant staﬃng and connectivity expenses to hold a hybrid Conference, as we learned in 2021. There were more staﬀ needed to control the input and output and the varied hubs and individuals. Plus, we had to secure additional monitors and screens to see each other. Also, vote tabulating was diﬃcult as was ensuring that a quorum was always present. Lastly, it should be noted that the one hub in the UK at the Conference in 2021 cost CA world large amount of funds, the exact number has not been ascertained or shared with our fellowship. We es mate that adding these items back in to the cost would exceed over $35,000 in today’s dollars.

We have reviewed the ac vi es and cost implications of the 2021 hybrid Conference and while on the surface it may have looked ‘cheaper’ it actually generated many hidden costs that were eventually put on CA World Services to pay. Of course, we understand that 2021 WSC was a unique circumstance and it was beneficial that we came together in whichever way we could, to allow our World Services to try and regain momentum after such a challenging 2 years. Many of our European members attending online chose to meet at a ‘hub’ hotel and while some of the costs were met by the areas there were additional unbudgeted costs met by WS’s. There was no evidence to show that there was a saving to ‘C.A. as a whole’ and our research actually leans us toward a conclusion that costs were actually increased by having hybrid and hubs yet participation was hindered, even compromised. Due to CAWSO bookkeeping styles at that time, and lack of invited involvement by the Conference Committee (not by their choice), many of the additional costs paid to facilitate a ‘hub’ were hidden and/or not listed against actual WS Conference budgets.

The Right Of Participation:

The argument that small or new CA Areas are being denied the right of participation is not actually the case. The right to participate is open to all C.A. Areas, the opportunity and

invitation is extended to all such areas as long as they meet the basic criteria laid out in our WSM. Areas should not confuse an inability, or unwillingness, to meet a financial responsibility with being denied the opportunity to participate. These same areas do have the right to proxy one or more of their votes to others who might be attending, so that their areas’ voice, conscience and votes still can be considered, even if a representative from that area cannot be in actual attendance during that Conference.

62 | P a g e

The unfortunate truth is that many who could physically attend may be denied that opportunity when a seemingly ‘cheaper’ option is oﬀered of not attending in person and being able to zoom in (or whatever future technologies might be available in any given year). There remains a strong necessity, logistically and spiritually, for all Conference participants to be in the a same location at the same time. In our experience, the vital group conscience the Conference is charged with seeking and then following cannot be found if we aren’t together as one body.

Something o en magical occurs when we debate together in one room that eludes us when participants zoom in from all over.

A Direct Look at our Fourth Concept:

This concept about allowing delegates, oﬃce staﬀ, trustees… to vote in our Conference and preventing one group from having ul mate authority over another.

Delegates, WSO Board of Directors, and WSBT are given not only a voice but a vote. The question is does On line participation enhance that principle? It has been demonstrated that online meetings and participation can be helpful for a meeting that lasts a few hours or less. But when it comes to a mul -day Conference it is much less than effective. The vast diﬀerence in time zones is fraught with challenges over multiple days when it comes to the full and effective participation of members. In our second tradition of the original 12 Step fellowship it was determined “the good is the enemy of the best”. The Right of participation cannot be used to say we are denying participation because of expense. Our 7th tradition speaks to us being self-supporting. Also, we witnessed several times our delegates in Europe and in other locations around the world, losing the ability to reason and stay focused when our floor proceedings went to even 10pm in Los Angeles which was 5 am or 6 am in the morning in Europe and even later in other countries. It just didn’t work.

While it would be amazing to have more participation at our Conference, one must be mindful that the Big Book we use so diligently asks us to consider that God is either everything or he is nothing.

The principles of any successful and effective multi day Conference would beg to have all in the same physical space. While a virtual Conference may seem nice and an easier so er way, Is it what’s best? We have proven that it is not best by our clear personal experience.

The Negative Impact on Small Areas

63 | P a g e

small areas are still provided two votes at the Conference, these votes can be proxied to delegates from other areas who will be attending in the smaller area, or any area frankly, cannot aﬀord to get its delegates to the actual Conference. This is not a perfect solution, but on balance, it presents a fair solu on to those areas whose delegates cannot make it to the actual Conference.

To us, there is still something meaningful and important when all Conference attendees are in the same room at the same time as debate and voting occurs. The collective conscience of our fellowship is more likely to be heard in such se ngs versus having some of our members live with others participating from various locales around the world.

Unity/hub

Also, from a unity perspective, we all do better if we are together to hear and experience debate and then God’s conscience. This is less likely to occur when we are not in the same places.

Some people assert that having hubs helps this unification, even if there are several hubs throughout the CA world. Our experience is to the contrary. While the one hub in Europe was successful at some levels, it was still expensive, the cost of which was absorbed by the world service oﬃce and some of the participating areas. Further, it appeared to several of our members, that the hub seemed to vote as a block on many items. This dynamic is in and of itself disunifying and unfortunate.

Spiritual Balancing:

In our experience, at the Conference level of service, there is o en the need for a balancing of the prac cal and the spiritual. Here, arguments can be made about helping small areas or allowing members with disabilities to participate if there were to be a virtual component. While these arguments are compelling, we must remain mindful of the distinct need to find a collective recognizable group conscience from those in the same room, while eﬀectively exercising the right of decision at the right time during debate and voting/decisions. Both sides present compelling consideration(s). That said, for now, we side with the need to have us all be in the same place for the lowest economic cost overall to our fellowship versus allowing these other suggested factors to detract us from our primary purpose.

Our Committee remains open to a continued study of these dynamic issues. We will do this on an ongoing basis even if there is no ac ve referral on this topic before us. We do note that none of our similar situated fellowships have adopted a hybrid Conference model yet either. We would invite any of you to join our Committee and become involved

64 | P a g e

in future similar discussions which will surely be put forth each year going forward.

NO ACTION TAKEN

Referral # 16828463

Please consider adding a sec on to the RFP process that specifically addresses accessibility options available within the hotel or venue. This would help ensure that our conference remains inclusive and welcoming to all attendees.

Potential questions or criteria could include:

Are there accessible entry doors?

Are accessible guest rooms available for attendees?

Are ramps available (or can they be rented) for individuals who cannot use stairs? This includes

access to the podium or stage area.

Are ASL interpretation or TTY services available locally, if needed?

Are gender neutral public washrooms available?

Is there a designated space that could serve as a sensory-friendly or prayer room?

These are just examples, but incorporating such questions will help us uphold our commitment to being a fully inclusive fellowship–free from prejudice related to age, religion, gender identity, physical or mental ability. Ensuring these accessibility factors are considered during venue selection supports the participation of all members, especially those chosen or elected by their area to attend Conference.

Referral # 16673559

I understand the need for ADA Service Animals at conference. I’m also pretty sure that if we allow one person to bring their pet one year, we will probably see 5 the next. Can we suggest no pets allowed on the conference floor.

Response:

Thank you for your referral. After careful thought and consideration, we have decided we do not disagree. While ADA Service Animals are welcome the Conference Committee will endeavour to get the message out prior to Conference that personal pets are not allowed on the Conference floor during session. However, it is the personal responsibility of each attendee to ensure this is handled prior to Conference so the Committee will assume if there is a pet on the Conference floor it is a service animal, and we will not be spending precious time trying to decipher if it is a personal pet. We also ask that attendees not take it upon themselves to do that either. Love and tolerance is our code and we ask that everyone act as such.

NO ACTION TAKEN

65 | P a g e

CLOSING COMMENTS:

The conference oﬃcers and entire conference committee are excited to be here and working with you to create a successful 2026 World Service Conference.

If you have any concerns during the conference, please see myself, Robyn G (Conference Coordinator) or any member of the Conference Committee.

We are seeking and encouraging new members to join and serve on this committee. It is a wonderfully challenging and fulfilling committee to serve on.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to the fellowship.

Respectfully Submitted:

Rudi V

WS Conference Committee Chair

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AT END OF THIS CONFERENCE:

66 | P a g e

Peter Mcg; Special thanks to Rudi who was not able to join due to a serious medical condition we are grateful he is alive.

He has worked tirelessly throughout the year.

We as a committee has put in a lot of work as evident

96 referrals

Address 13 in committee referral.

178 registered members for conference 62 different areas!

Thanks to the whole committee, especially Robyn G.

Thanks to all the committee.

Lou B; MOTION 54: To amend the wording of Standing Rule 5 Item a, on Page 49 of the current World Service as follows:

a. To be credentialed and carry votes at the WSC, the chair of the body you are representing must submit complete names, complete mailing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and number of votes being carried must be submitted in writing to the World Service Oﬃce 30 days prior to the World Service Conference.

Seconded

Duane M; motion made and seconded. would like to speak to motion?

Lou B; not at this time

Duane M; open for debate. Seeing no debate.

Prepare to vote

Motion passed unanimously

Jay F; Motion 55: The Final 3 Proposals for the 2028-2030 World Services Conference location.

This is from the RFP Sub-Committee of the Conference Committee (Request for Proposals) from

hotels across the United States and Europe to host the C.A. World Service Conference in 2028 &

2029 & 2030. (Attachment 1)

Seconded

Duane M ; Motion made and seconded. Would you like to speak to your motion.

Jay F; yes, speaking in favour of the motion

67 | P a g e

Duane M; open for debate

Jason s; Question – what % of non-north American delegates do not attend the conference

Jay: clarify please

Jason s; how many delegates of them in the uk – how many of them don’t come?

Peter mcg; I did some data based on 2025 of the we take up 50% of ww meetings and send

22% of delegates

Harry ; ques on – what was the thinking around Chicago ?

Jay f; we looked at 19 ci es all over America – except in the east of usa because it was too far.

We looked at a few ci es. Even Toronto, the one in Chicago costs were so much less expensive.

Tai R; The Dublin room cost incl tax and room cost – do the others include that?

Jay F; Yes they all include taxes

Daniel S; when you say tax – are you referring to VAT

Jay F; Yes

Jesse Ga; I would like to make a recommendation to stay in this hotel – they have been so

accommodating, and we have established relationship with them and they are very flexible.

They are always contactable and the relationship is invaluable

Dave B; The data is flawed – there are a lot of people from the UK that cannot attend but it Is not a fair reflection on the data. Basing it on who is here.

Jay F; May I respond

Duane M; Yes

Jay; that’s a great ques on – we discussed this at length and tried to find the best way to make assumptions. There are places that can but don’t send delegates, there are some that can send more but don’t – what do we assume, we can only look at the data of who has been here as fair.

The one year we had a hybrid conference accessible to the world – however we had the same amount of people that are here today. Then people from the USA would go to Europe the first year but then it would get less as years go

Donna K; Speaking in favour of Chicago

Georga R; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Stuart J; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Jesse Go; Question – putting aside the location question – in your opinion – is the best location for conference financially?

Peter Mcg; I am sure you have seen the financials

Jay F; the last time this came up when we moved from LA to here – I was asked the same

ques on. We are here – we are known here, Chicago is cheaper – could be better. Dublin has other opportunities that go beyond. Great customs options. Each has its own merits. Obviously

68 | P a g e

the cheapest is always the best finance choice but if we want to grow the fellowship, Dublin has greater opportunities.

Denise R; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Sheree H; Speaking in favour of Chicago

Duane M; I will allow you to speak for a location , not against it, lets keep it classy

Randy G; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Richard E; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Richard S; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Robyn G; Speaking in favour of Dallas

Melody D; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Seth N; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Axel K; ques on – how many delegates are registered for this conference?

Peter Mcg; 158 delegates

Axel K; How many delegates are NOT from USA?

Peter McG; roughly 28 delegates

Paul McG; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Parti T; Speaking in favour of Dublin.

Nadz L; Speaking in favour of Dublin.

Laurie G; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Kim C; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Peter mcG; firstly my answer to Jesse Go was inappropriate. The cheapest cost effective for my area – is Dublin. My area would save 1 000 – 1 500 dollars.

Jesse Ga – question for Jay – you did the RFP – what were the differences between the different contracts

Jay F; good ques on – Europe they charge for rooms space and not number of rooms / in Europe we cannot get the VAT back. The Dublin contract is different, staggered confirmation % – we would have to have C.A. book the rooms, and then members can book through us. They wont hold us liable for rooms not taken. The contact that is helping us in Dublin is great.

Miranda R; Speaking in favour of Dallas

Harry P; Speaking in favour of

Maarten de H; Point of order – has not specified in favour.

Harry P; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Audz J; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Stu E; Speaking in favour of Dublin

Bryan S; Speaking in favour of Dublin

69 | P a g e

Duane M; we are going to vote now one by one. We will see if there is a majority of one, if not we will run for a top two then vote again.

All those in favour of Dublin

Dublin it is with a clear Majority.

Peter Mcg; MOTION 56: To approve the Conference Committee revised Committee Guidelines. (Attachment 2)

Seconded

Duane M; motion made and seconded. Do you want to speak to your motion?

Peter Mcg; not at this time

Duane M; any debate seeing none. Prepare to vote

Motion passes unanimously

Peter Mcg; Conference puts out evaluation forms we have QR codes please do fill these in as we do use the feedback.

175$ for registration next year we have tried to keep cost down, but cost is increasing. We apologise for that. Thank you all especially for the conference committee.

Duane M; ques on? Please step to the mic

Gary P; Can you tell me why the RFP committee would not accept any bid for a hybrid option attached to it?

Peter Mcg; it was the conscious of conference committee. There is a subcommittee updating the RFP guidelines to allow this. To facilitate the floor making a decision we need to update guidelines and process to ensure it could come to the floor.

Donna K; congratulation that we are having conference in Dublin. I find it ironic that the same group that took the trustees to task about going over the pond, voted for conference to go over the pond

Gary P; I thought I heard you say that hybrid keeps getting stopped in committee?

Peter Mcg; we have ac ve referrals to address RFP guidelines so if a bid is submitted with hybrid option is looked at fairly. At present we don’t have that option with current guidelines.

Jaqueline R; Thank you to RFP. I won’t be a delegate my heart is broken. I will be fundraising to get our delegate there.

Steﬀ N; Fundraising we have ample time to fundraise. We will have some ideas as fundraising is key.

Duane M; Thank you to our active Conference Committee.

70 | P a g e

Break for dinner at 5.27pm

Back in seats for a prompt 7pm start please.

7.04pm Evening session.

Duane M; our 1st order of business is Literature, Chips & Formats.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply