Page 1 of 22
Cocaine Anonymous World Service Conference
Friday, September 3, 2004 – Day Three Daily Summary
Serenity Prayer
Roll Call-149
Quorum- 99
Bryan S. – Motion to suspend the rules to hear a Motion out of order.
Motion Passes.
Bryan S. – Motion:
Add to standing rule #12 the following sentence:
Referrals or items that did not result in motions, that are tabled until next year, items the committee will continue working on through the year, or referred to other committees; world service office, or board of trustees need not be read into‘ the record, however questions may be asked about any part of a committee s report. Second.
Mark T. – Friendly Amendment: to be effective immediately.
Motion to add to standing rule #12 the following sentence:
Referrals or items that did not result in motions, that are tabled until next year, items the committee will continue working on through the year, or referred to other committees; world service office, or board of trustees need not be read into‘ the record, however questions may be asked about any part of a committee s report.
Effective Immediately
Motion Passes Unanimously
The Standing rule will read:
All main motions shall be read to the conference before voting. The tally shall be announced for all counted votes upon request from the conference floor. Referrals or items that did not result in motions, that are tabled until next year, items the committee will continue working on through the year, that are referred to other committees; world service office, or board of trustees need not be read into the record, however questions may be asked about any part of a committee s report.
Kim S. – Read statement to Conference regarding opportunity drawings Insert Statement
Teri K.- Reads statement regarding ratification of the Pacific South Regional Trustee’s Removal
Page 2 of 22
Motion to accept the following as the 2005-2006 budget for the CAWS internet Committee.
| Travel Hotel | 300.00 |
| Travel Transportation | 140.00 |
| Travel Meals | 160.00 |
| Telephone | 50.00 |
| Donation | -200.00 |
| Total: | 450.00 |
Second
David L. Parliamentary inquiry was there a guideline handed down from the finance committee two or three years ago regarding this?
Brian T. – We passed a referral on that subject. What we passed was that the best person for that position should serve as chair.
David L. – My concern is that in the spirit of rotation the person who is chairing a committee is not necessarily the most experienced.
Tony D. – The Internet Committee has taken on new projects – I speak in favor of this motion.
John W. – I speak against the motion because it is setting precedent.
Jay G. – Speaks against the motion – line item 200.00 listed as a donation.
Brian T. – I speak in favor of the motion. It has come to finance twice. We support the best qualified person for the position, for CA as a whole.
Kevin M. – I speak in favor of the motion. There are times when it is needed to have a non-delegate chair.
Hal K. – Speaks against the motion – in the spirit of rotation.
Patty F. – I speak in favor of this motion – I believe that money in this situation should not be on the minds of the committees while they are choosing their leaders.
Leon M. – Speaks in favor – as a former Trustee, I believe in doing what is best for the fellowship. We are mindful of budgets and stuff. This is not the first time we have had to hold over a chair, as the best qualified person for this position.
Shane M. – Speaks against the motion – It would seem to me that the internet committee could chair the committee from his own home, from his own computer. Bryan S. – Call the question.
Page 3 of 22
Motion passes with minor opposition
Motion to accept the following as the 2005-2006 budget for the CAWS internet Committee.
| Travel Hotel – | 300.00 |
| Travel Transportation – | 140.00 |
| Travel Meals | 160.00 |
| Telephone | 50.00 |
| Donation | -200.00 |
| Total: | 450.00 |
Second
Motion Passes with some opposition.
Chair – Reminder of limiting debate, mindful of informed group conscience. Ginger L. – Motion to accept the following 2005 – 2006 budget the caws PI committee.
Second
| Outside Printing | 100.00 |
| Travel – Hotel | 300.00 |
| Travel – Transportation | 200.00 |
| Travel – Meals | 100.00 |
| Postage | 150.00 |
| Telephone | 50.00 |
| Total | 900.00 |
Ginger L. – Speaks in favor of the motion.
Billy H. – Speaks in favor of the motion. I believe we need to have budget to allow us to have a non-delegate Chair
David L. – Point of information – How many members are on your committee?
Ginger L. – 18
Brian B. – Speak against the motion with the number of members with the committees. I have done some number work and I come up with 1660.00 spent for non-delegate chair travel expenses.
Vinny M. – Call the question
Second
Motion carries with substantial unanimity
Page 4 of 22
Motion to accept the following 2005 – 2006 budget the caws PI committee.
Motion Passes with minor opposition.
Minority Opinion – Rick D.
A few years ago we were asked to cut our budgets and be mindful of the money. Now we pulled a convention in Calgary, cited money issues and yet here we are spending money. I do not think it is prudent.
Sherri H. – Motion to accept the 2005-2006 Caws LCF committee budget Second
Sherri H. – Speaks in favor of the motion.
Bryan S. – Point of information – Where is the increase?
Sherri H. – We spent more money on phones and we adjusted our numbers to reflect our actual expenses.
Bobbie H. – Why is the bill so high?
Sherri H. – We had 10 Conference calls and we have members all over the world.
Pilar R. – Speaks in favor of the motion.
I believe the committee is doing what we asked them to do. We should choose our leaders wisely.
Kevin M. – In favor of the motion. This committee has been very active. Its work has to be done through out the year. What you got for $1,200.00 was 18 people working together all over the world once a month on behalf of CA.
Tony D. – Point of Information: Could you provide a brief recap of why the phone bill is so high?
Sherri H. – That is a very large question.
Explanation by Brian T.
Call the vote
Second
Motion passes
Page 5 of 22
Motion to accept the 2005-2006 CAWS LCF committee budget.
| Printing | 150.00 |
| Other | 100.00 |
| Postage | 100.00 |
| Telephone | 1250.00 |
| Total | 1600.00 |
Motion Passes
Harrison J. – Motion to approve the 2005 – 2006 for the CAWS H and I Committee
| Outside Printing | 100.00 |
| Postage | 100.00 |
| Telephone | 1250.00 |
| Total | 1600.00 |
Second
Harrison J.-Speaks in favor of the –motion.
Elizabeth S.-Point of information will this dissolve the H and I video script account in
the CAWSO budget?
Harrison J. – Yes.
Clarice F. – Point of information – regarding the $2000.00 for special projects.
Harrison J. – International outreach.
Don L. – I speak in favor of the motion
A check for 650.00 came to CAWS for H and I but did not get to H and I because of the $2000.00 cap.
Jackie S. – Speak against the motion- Sadly I have experience of these countries and we have no budget to travel to these regions.
Karen L. – I speak against the motion. We are doing all we can to do outreach and any one in a Hospital or Institution can write a letter and
John W. – Speak against the motion – We have had financial difficulties in the past and we usually never use the monies in our committees‘ that we were given these are hard costs not soft costs. I am all for H and I but I don t believe this is prudent.
Greg B. – Point of information – I am confused – I’d really like to know what the special projects are?
Nick L.- I have started negotiations, with Robert from Sweden and I am about to start with Hong Kong. We are going to reach out with the video and we need translation. We need professionals.
Page 6 of 22
Postage, Phone calls.
Bryan S.-–Point of information – Elizabeth asked a question about a budget line item. Brian T. –Yes
Kevin M. Speaks against the motion.
There is lots we‘ can do for international outreach for $2000.00. Jackie could visit more countries. I don t believe it would be prudent to spend the money this way. I am not happy about the sequestered funds. I think those funds should be moved somewhere else.
Mike G. – I speak in favor of this motion. This money was earmarked for H & I and I believe it should stay in H & I . I am passionate about H & I. I want it to be used for our primary purpose and I believe the $2000.00 for outreach (special). The next time we ask the fellowship for money for a special purpose we may not get it
Matt T.-Speak in favor of the motion. Heidi Jonathan- I am wondering if that is a capped amount and what would happen to any funds over $2000.00 that came in for H and I.
Terry M. – Call the question
Second
Motion Passes
Harrison J. – Motion to approve the 2005 – 2006 budget for the CAWS H and I
| Committee. | |
| Outside Printing | 100.00 |
| Postage | 100.00 |
| Telephone | 225.00 |
| Other | 250.00 |
| Special Projects | 2000.00 |
| Total | 2675.00 |
Motion Passes with substantial Unanimity
Brian T.
Motion to accept the following for the 2005 2006 for the CAWS Finance Committee
| Telephone | 50.00 |
| Travel –Hotel | 100.00 |
| Travel-Transportation | 200.00 |
| Travel Meals | 160.00 |
| Total | 710.00 |
Second
Elizabeth S. – I speak in favor of this motion.
Motion to accept the following for the 2005 2006 for the CAWS Finance Committee
Telephone 50.00
Page 7 of 22
| Travel –Hotel | 100.00 |
| Travel-Transportation | 200.00 |
| Travel Meals | 160.00 |
| Total | 710.00 |
Motion Passes with minor opposition.
Rick H. – 5th Concept Statement
It is made clear in Bill Wilson’s writing on Concept 7 and 10 that the WSBT has a legal right of veto over the actions of this Conference, and that“ that right should ”rarely be used. It is also made clear that, in regards to this Conference, ultimate authority does not reside with the Board of Trustees, but with this Body through its right to direct, censure, or reorganize the Board.
Concerning the Trustee’s decision to remove the 2006 World convention from Calgary, I believe they took an improper course of action that is made evident by its result: rumor, controversy, disunity.
And that is the feeling of my heart.
Legally, my opinion is as simple as this, and based upon the clearly proper course of action as outlined, not in Concept 10, but Concept 7 (page 31):
“. . .if the Conference were to pass any measure so ill-considered‘ or so reckless as to seriously injure, in the judgment of the Trustees, A.A. s public relations or as a whole, it would then be the duty of the Trustees to ask for a conference reconsideration. In event of a Conference” refusal to reconsider, the Trustees could then use their legal right to veto.”
It was clearly the Trustees duty to ask the Conference to reconsider its decision to hold the world Convention in Calgary, and the right to veto would not come unless the Conference refused to do so.
It is my opinion that the Board of Trustees did not rise to that duty, and thereby caused harm to the Calgary fellowship, the Canadian fellowship, and the fellowship of cocaine Anonymous as a whole.
Steve M. – Motion to suspend the rules to consider an item of new business out of order; specifically‘a motion to appeal the 10th concept decision of WSBT with regard to Calgary s bid for 2006.
Seconded.
Page 8 of 22
Chair – Statement of the facts: If this motion fails the motion to appeal the decision will be heard as new business on Sunday; if the motion fails at this time and if it is brought on Sunday and if it is successful, then we will have two cities that have a successful bid in one year.
Motion to suspend the rules to consider an item of new business out of order; specifically‘ a motion to appeal the 10th concept decision of WSBT with regard to Calgary s bid for 2006.
With some opposition the motion carries with substantial unanimity.
Steve M‘. – Motion to appeal the 10th concept decision of WSBT with regard to Calgary s bid for 2006.
Second
Steve M. – Speaks in favor of the motion. Does not see what the threat ‘was to the fellowship. I believe that the financials could have been met. Why can t we overturn this and let it come back to Calgary again. I believe that it would be as feasible to go to Canada as it is for them to come to the US.
Kevin –M. – Parliamentary inquiry. Is this under Conference Charter 4?
Chair Yes. If this is supported by 2/3 it is a directive to trustees to change the decision. Jay F. – Speaks against the appeal. Sorry the decision was made, but for the reasons that were set forth previously, the Trustees made the decision they made. Additional questions, what is the status of the Calgary committee presently. The Calgary chair and secretary were removed by area. There is a question whether there is a hotel. There is concern that there may not be sufficient meeting space. The main reason the decision was made was so this floor could decide, at this point, on another city. If we waited, we would have been faced with issue of deciding on another city without Conference voting on it. We had to make the decision when we made it. We invite the appeal and the scrutiny to be accountable, but we do have to make tough decisions. I have seen the 10th concept invoked only a few times, so we do use it sparingly. We do stand behind the letter and the decision and this decision was not made lightly. I urge the body to trust the people put into place when the conference is not in session. Help us to move on and learn from this experience.
Don L. – Speaks in favor of the motion. I am disappointed that in the Trustee minutes…I feel like I was lied to, because in the minutes the crossing the border issue was discussed and that it was an issue, but it is not referenced in the letter.
Brian B. – Speaks against the appeal, with a lot of reservations. Believes that the way the decision was made was wrong, but the decision has been made and the damage is done. How do we deal with the situation as it stands? I do not believe that the decision at this date can feasibly be taken back. It is too late. We need to move on. We need to move on and grow from this.
Page 9 of 22
Howard J. – Speaks in favor of appeal. I have experience on a convention committee. I believe that both the process and the result of this decision was extremely flawed. It appears that it was rushed into, and not thoroughly considered. They spoke with each other about it but did not talk to Calgary about it. They should have let them address the questions. The Board and Committee should have discussed the issues together. We have had a World Service Convention in Canada. It was not that well attended or financially successful, but it was truly amazing. If we go to Canada, you will truly be amazed. Regarding the concerns, where were those when the convention was awarded? It should have been addressed previously. We would get a whole new place for the convention. Each of the arguments was based on lack of or misinformation. The financial position they were in…was the same as previous conventions. To do something of this magnitude was unfair to Calgary and this World Service Conference. This conference‘ voted to support Calgary. When they have problems, we should help them. Let s make amends and give it back to them
Bob C. – Speaks against the appeal. We are about the business of CA World Services. Spirituality is a part of the deal, but this is about the business. I do not believe that the Trustees have lied to you. We need to consider what is going on now. What happened when the decision was made and why it was made. Was the decision in the best interest of CA as a whole. Not whether it was fair or unfair. We‘ need to look at the facts at the time. In CA, we want to defend the underdog, we don t want to speak badly about people. There is no nice way to say that the Convention should not be in Calgary. Regarding the border and customs, there are issues. (Comparison to AA regarding number of felons in the fellowship to that of CA.) This was a very hard decision. They had a convention and it was not successful. This is a business decision on where to have a convention. If we had just broken even on the last world convention we would be $20,000 in the hole. All of the Trustees were miserable‘ about the decision, it was a group of people making a tough decision. Why wasn t it considered on the Conference floor? How many people would have brought bids to the Conference floor if we were in that same position now? What we need to understand is we are not talking about fair and unfair. Things change. We are talking about a major fundraiser for CA. We have been in the red for four years or more. We are making decisions about making money for CA, not losing money for CA. We have given them support and given them deadlines. They did meet the deadlines, but at the same time, they had an unsuccessful convention and almost had a no vote for supporting the convention. We need to support the Trustees. I hold the Trustees to a very high standard and I do not see anything to condemn them for. It was a tough and miserable decision, but they made it in good faith. They did what they felt was best under the circumstances. If we say it needs to go back to Calgary, you have already heard what happens if it is not financially successful. This Conference and CA will feel the impact. We have history of not having money. Best case scenario, it will push us back into that hole. This was what was best for CA and World Services as a whole.
Greg B. – Speaks in favor of this motion. I heard that it was painful, and I know that we have had difficult times, but we have survived those times. This fellowship is based on
Page 10 of 22
spiritual principals and I feel spiritual pain about the way this happened. God is either everything or nothing. If we change the decision back I believe that we will come. If we make this decision then we have the responsibility to really support this and we will make this happen‘. We will have a demonstration of faith. Whatever happens, that will be God s will. All the logical arguments have a tinge of fear to it, and I choose not to live my life like that.
Jim H. – Speaks in favor the motion to appeal. I respect‘ the Trustees and have gotten to know them when working on the last convention. I don t agree with this …decision that was made. Statements… in the letter regarding why the decision was made I know it was not made lightly but know that today there is information that might have changed that decision. The World Service Office has a net gain of $20,000, which they did not have at the time of the decision, and there was $35,000 from the convention. At two years before the LA Convention, there was no fundraising being done. Regarding the hotel, LA did not have a hotel at this Conference two years prior to its start date. Regarding committees, the Pacific North will support the convention effort. Regarding‘ felons and crossing the border, it works both ways. The last convention wasn t successful, but we grow from our experiences. LA overcame the experiences of Irvine. We promote unity in the fellowship. What will separate and kill us is money. God will show up. We have passed motions and come back and changed them. We need to make an informed group conscience based on facts.
Greg U. – I speak in favor of the appeal. Misinformation, rumor and falsehood have been discussed on a number of topics, but I want to say, as someone from Calgary, the last convention,“ the” 5th annual convention, profited $400. This has been called unsuccessful . No one has approached me to ask about this. Each of the other four conventions have also been successful financial. As the treasurer, the budget was given to us, but was rejected as being unrealistic. I was handed a budget and was told to say that I worked with the WSO on the budget. We met the deadlines, jumped through the hoops. We did what we were supposed to do. We asked for help. This would be an opportunity‘ for Canadians who cannot cross the border to come to a world convention. I don t see that same concern and love for the people who may…not live in the United States. Canada, like Scotland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong we are like them. It was heart warming to welcome them into the fellowship. Now, we are hearing debate against committing $2,000 in H&I outreach internationally. I may not have some of the skills to bring to floor, and our trustee helped us with this. Except for my trustee I have not had a trustee ask if I need help, though I know I too can ask. I asked to expand on the… statement read over the phone, which is the first time we heard of the concern…
Vinny M. – Speaks in favor of the motion. I understand that the decision was made based on a financial decision. There are a lot of ways to make money. This is not about making money. I know that is a concern, but there are other ways of making money. We could do the World Donor Program, and that would make a significant amount. 5th Tradition states that we are here to carry the message. If this fellowship goes broke, I will still be at a meeting with others. I have been to Calgary and they have great meetings, great support. It seemed like a success to me. Crossing the border to Mexico
Page 11 of 22
is also difficult. AA had to take a chance and expand their borders. I know that as a member of that region I will give them my full support. If we give them a chance, we can make it happen.
Bryan …S. – Speaks in favor of the motion. References a flyer that if I skip lunch once a month I was the vice chair of the convention in Irvine and, though they say it was a fiasco (it made approx. $10,000), but there are people sober/clean today. There were hotel issues, but they put on the convention nonetheless. Reads from registration from another fellowship regarding crossing the border.
Billy H. – Speaks against the appeal. No one is more of an advocate of the small fellowship than I. When I saw the 10th concept statement, I waited for a response from Calgary, and saw none. There is a lot of finger pointing. I too am sorry and asked what I can do to be helpful, but I had to learn about responsibility. The fact of the matter is we were in the red. My Trustee has had to pay her own way to North Carolina. I was given suggestions on how to have an event in my small area. We financed it by asking for help. I love and respect the people from Canada. I would love to go to Calgary, but this is not the time. Why were the Area chair and secretary removed? The concerns were not all financial concerns. Put something in front of me that has depth and weight. I would love to support this, and I hope to have something in Canada in the future.
Trevor S. – Speaks in favor of the motion. Regarding the concerns on ability to host and put on a convention. I have worked on three of the Alberta Area conventions. We did lose money as of the last day of the convention, but we did sell shirts after, and had an overall financial success. Hotel availability, the hotel that we were going to use, it holds probably 6000, so we have lots of room in Calgary. We have lots of hotels, we have lots of space. We put on a world class event every time we have a chance. Regarding the chair and secretary, they were removed for not showing up. We have other people that can and would step into those positions. The entire Pacific North stood up and said all you have to do is ask. Chairs can be from other areas. Call us and we will do what we can.
Danny H. – Speaks against the motion. I believe that love and support lacking in the decision ‘is not what this is all about. This is an informed business decision. It is the Trustees business to make informed business decisions. There is disarray and that concerns me. No one has answered the questions, but use their emotions. You have to have a group of people with a level head to make some of these tough decisions.
John B. – Speaks against“ this“ appeal. I have to remember the“ job“ that has‘ been delegated to me. I have heard sorry shared and I would rather say sad, but‘ I m not going to talk a lot about how I feel. I appreciate the indulgence. I feel like I m reliving a really traumatic event. Being on the‘ negotiating committee, I need to inform you so you can make an informed decision. I m sad to be called a liar. That is not how I operate. That is not me. My‘ job is as chief contract negotiator. Regarding the hotels, they are beautiful. I m sorry if you feel that I am unapproachable, I am here. The hotel actually turned us away. They had an opportunity to book another group and the hotel said, if
Page 12 of 22
they can get another group, they were going to take it. I do this work from my office. The hotel could not accommodate us for what we need. We could get the convention center. At what cost, I do not know. I worked hard to take this event to‘ Calgary. I love you and I am doing what you ask me to do. Reliving this is hard. I can‘ t wait until you can see the minutes so you can see what went into that decision. Don t you think it is interesting to see how few Trustees are in line to speak on this? Up until that time I was working on the hotel, regarding putting on the convention there, now. I will do the deal, but in my expert…opinion it would be very difficult. I said my recommendation would be to proceed as if With all the challenges, we found a way to do the deal, with half the convention going on in one hotel and half in another. It has now been a couple of months and I have not heard from the committee. I understand that the hotel liaison has called the hotel and told them that there was not going to be a convention. I love you and I do have your best interest at heart. Regarding the border crossing, even AA dedicated a whole web page about it. When we wrote the statement that we sent/read‘ to you, we tried not to drag out all of the deficiencies. Just because the Board of Trustees group conscience ended up like that does not mean that we did not consider those things. I love Canada. No matter what happens in all of this, as was shared previously, all I have to do is share my story with another addict. If this passes, it will not be insurmountable, but it will be a VERY hard time. I know that when the Trustees acted, we had the best, most current information that we had at that time. Where are we now. I was trying. I was! It is not about the Pacific North and it was not about Calgary. In my expert opinion, I think we are tremendously challenged to do the hotel in Calgary. If we decide to do that, I will work hard at it. I really would. Please do not call me a liar in the process of doing it. I will be practical about doing that. God will take the reins and we will finish this up and He will speak through the group conscience.
Terry D. – Motion to call the question.
Second.
With some minor opposition, the motion carries with substantial unanimity. –
Brian B. – Parliamentary Inquiry. Will Chair ask for abstentions. They did not count toward the vote total.
We are counting by hand, specific numbers.
Motion to appeal the 10th concept decision of WSBT with regard to Calgary‘s bid for 2006.
For 38; Against 97.
The motion fails.
Stacey K. – Doughnuts Committee, taking contributions.
Page 13 of 22
Chair- Announcement
Howard J. – Rise to a point of personal privilege Clarify for the record that Utah was invited to submit a bid for 2006 , we were already in the process of a bid for 2008. We did not withdraw our bid and we felt that if Calgary was unable to serve, Utah wished to step up.