CLOSING REPORT
C.A. WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE 2010
LITERATURE, CHIPS & FORMAT COMMITTEE REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND OPENING COMMENTS
The Literature, Chips & Format Committee continues to have a consistent international presence with members from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, who have afforded our committee a broad and fresh perspective. We welcome two new members to our committee this year and our committee is engaged and ready to work throughout 2010-11 to fulfill our committee’s mission. We enjoyed rich, passionate discussion on four 2009 post-Conference referrals, and 18 referrals submitted at this year’s Conference. We are excited and prepared to continue our mission to facilitate the expression of our Fellowship’s hope, faith and courage through the writing of material for distribution.
We reviewed our projects chart during committee breakout and reestablished our “front-burner” projects as follows:
Approved Page 57
| Project | Year of Last Conference Action |
| 12 Step Workbook | 2004 |
| 12 Steps & 12 Traditions book | 2003 |
| Crank/Methamphetamines Pamphlet | ? |
| Meditation Book | 2003 |
| Self-Test for Cocaine Addiction Pamphlet | 1992 |
| The 7th Tradition Pamphlet | 2008 |
| The First 30 Days Pamphlet | 1992 |
| We Can Recover (Reading) | 2000 |
| Meeting in a Pocket | 2010 |
We have scheduled our first bi-monthly conference call and will continue to welcome new members.
2010 -11 Committee Introductions:
Chair: Jeannette Johnson
Vice Chair: Kellie Federici
Co-Secretaries: Jason Laurence
Mike Seden
Publications Liaison: Cynthia Cronkhite
Trustee: Trevor Scheible
WSOB Liaison: Elizabeth Schmidt Saldebar \Tom Phelan
Additional Members:
Julie Polok
James Parris
Approved Page 58
Julie Schwindeman
Keith Froher
Simone Talton
Siobhan Amey-Ayer
Susan Doch
Kurt Lynn
Mike Averill
Larry Baker
Audz Jeffries
Ernest Martin
COMMITTEE WORK THAT RESULTED IN MOTIONS
- MOTION: To approve the revised LCF Guidelines as set forth in Attachment Second.
Kevin Murphy: would you like to speak to the motion?
Jeanette Johnson: Not at this time.
Motion passes with unanimously.
- MOTION: To approve the suggested C.A. Book Approval Process as set forth in Attachment B to be effective on all current and future CA publications. Second.
Kevin Murphy: Would this then be added to the LCF Guidelines?
Cynthia Cronkhite: Yes.
Kevin Murphy: speak to motion?
Cynthia Cronkhite: as you can see this is a lengthy and complicated process. It is our hope with the process in place, future projects will be prepared more quickly.
Approved Page 59
Glen Tucker: Was this approved last year?
Cynthia Cronkhite: This is an entirely new process.
Michael Higgins: speak against the motion. After Point 4, this process never brings the publication back to the body or CA as a whole. It can go all the way to Point 17 without body seeing it again.
Rose Jones: Point of Information – is the 8th step approval process different than the 17 point process?
Cynthia Cronkhite: I’m not sure what you are talking about – possibly the PI process?
Kellie Federici: speak in favor of the motion. This was not just put together overnight. It was prepared with great detail and thought. It is impossible to bring an entire work back through SR14.
Jason Laurence: a book that hasn’t been published that has been handed out brings copyright issues into play and it can be very expensive. Susan Bredau: isn’t it appropriate to speak for or against motion?
Kevin Murphy: Yes and I have been lax.
Randy Groen: speak against motion. My understanding is that after the concept it does not come back to Conference and there is no overall delegate input, something that would allow 2-3 delegates in every region to participate in reviewing. The idea of recovery text for CA which was approved 3 years ago. This committee would be prepare a text without any approval from the Floor.
Bryan Seid: if this is approved, would current publications in the works be grandfathered?
Cynthia Cronkhite: the intent was that it would apply to current and future works.
Alan Shields: every pamphlet and book has to be signed off by a Trustee, true?
Cynthia Cronkhite: True.
Michael Higgins: Point of Inquiry – when Trustee signs off on book, is it on content or traditions violations?
Approved Page 60
Cynthia Cronkhite: There are a couple of places where sign off is required. Draft reviewed just as a pamphlet for tradition violations and then signed off again prior to going to print.
Nick Alexander: Point of Information – for publications longer than 25 pages, could the committee submit a workbook in 25 page increments to the floor. Cynthia Cronkhite: If project in entirety is 25 or more, it would be subject to this process.
Jeannette Johnson: speak in favor of motion and would like to remind of the body that the committee is made up of delegates who process in the creating, developing, editing material distributed to fellowship. We do have a voice of our fellowship in our committee, as well we have discussed other options for sharing with the conference overall and we aren’t there yet. We welcome referrals for other options. This is how we work, this is what we know.
Peter Olsen: speak in favor of motion. This is a huge committee which Trustees attend and we have Trustee review.
Richard Shafer: speak against the motion. This outline skips a very important process and this is this body and I believe this is of the utmost importance of the process.
Nick Alexander: speak against the motion while I understand the intent, I am reminded of Concept 1. That is who we are.
Alan Shields: is it possible to implement into process of book to keep the fellowship informed where the Trustees are signing off on this so that Delegates are informed through Delegate mailing?
Cynthia Cronkhite: in the past we report to the Conference where we stand. If we need to prepare more frequent reports, we could do that.
Ian Young: we are talking about the process in which a book is approved. Will this allow you more autonomy for allowing the book to be in my hand more quickly?
Cynthia Cronkhite: Yes and would not have to stop and create the process as we go.
Approved Page 61
Bryan Seid: Friendly amendment – add at end of motion – to be effective on all current and future CA publications.
Cynthia Cronkhite: we accept.
Wesley Blount: is the challenge about bringing back to conference because of the length.
Cynthia: the amount of material and there is no way to ensure that it wouldn’t be produced in volume. It is about protecting the content and the resources necessary to distribute.
Barbara Nelson: did HFC I & II approval process come through this body?
Cynthia Cronkhite: perhaps the Chair could speak to HFC?
Kevin Murphy: to my knowledge it did not. Possibly the table of contents was approved.
Cynthia Cronkhite: we were concerned about this HFC II and we brought the information to the floor and both times the it was passed with substantial unanimity.
Kevin Murphy: there was great concern about distributing the book because it was done electronically and there was many problems with that distribution. Rose Jones: speak against the motion. Understand the concept but at this time that the fellowship as a whole has a right of decision.
Nick Alexander: Point of Information – did this Conference floor vote to approve the HFCII without seeing it?
Cynthia Cronkhite: Yes. We voted to prepare a book and then we voted on a table of contents.
Gary Parker: Call to question. Second.
MOTION: To approve the suggested C.A. Book Approval Process as set forth in Attachment B to be effective on all current and future CA approvals. Second.
Motion passes with substantial unanimity.
Randy Groen: 5th Concept Statement – the idea behind the concept as explained over the years was the feasibility of, the research of, feedback, when the concept was approved. It made sense that we might look at it. This
Approved Page 62
guideline changes the word concept to approval. To apply this process to a concept that was passed in previous conferences, just isn’t in the spirit of that concept approved back then. I don’t have a problem to working this so that the body has the opportunity to approve.
Kevin Murphy: we are suspending the committees report and breaking for lunch.
Kim Sherwan: would all members of the TEC give me a few minutes in the
Malibu Room, I would greatly appreciate it.
Kevin Murphy: We are now breaking for lunch. Please be back at 1:30 pm.
LUNCH BREAK
Kevin Murphy: Please take your seats. It is 1:36 on Saturday and we are back in session. I’m told there was one 5th concept statement regarding the last motion.
Michael Higgins: We took this back as SR 14, we shared it with every home group. Now that this process is here we’re not going to show it to everybody. It could happen we could do something about it. Let’s look at this process and seeing it before it went out.
Richard Schafer: Motion to rescind. Second.
Kevin Murphy: This requires 2/3 vote.
Richard Schafer: Based on the 5th concept made and previous discussion, I believe it is most important for this body to reconsider the motion passed and what it does not take into consideration. It skips this body.
Alan Shields: I speak in favor of this motion. After hearing the 5th concept I would change my vote.
Nick Alexander: Parliamentary inquiry. Can we debate the motion?
Kevin Murphy: Yes.
Kevin Alexander: I speak against the motion to rescind. We are not having a book this year so this could go into a referral and it could be brought back. We don’t need to take the time to craft that response right here. Kellie Frederici: Would a motion to refer be in order?
Kevin Murphy: No.
Jennifer Searl: I’m in favor of the motion. We are a small delegate here and to put it into the hands of a smaller group does not seem right. Wesley Blount: Do we have a quorum?
Kevin Murphy: Yes.
Patrick Potter: We made a book. I think the conference needs the ability to view it with a new set of eyes. We should be able to review information and make decision.
Approved Page 63
Simone Talton: I speak against the motion. When the product was conceived it was with the idea that anybody can join the yahoo group and learn about it. We welcome you to join our committee. But on this floor it’s a terrible waste of time when you can use the resources that are available.
Duane Miller: Point of information: This has to go to a professional publisher, correct? Wouldn’t there be professional editors involved? Cynthia Cronkhite: There is a point that addresses that, yes.
I speak against the motion to rescind. The conference should vote out of facts, not fear. As it stands now, the approval process only applies to pamphlets, not books. We were trying to follow that process with the books. Without this book approval process in place, there is not guidance. If you want something added, please write a referral for us to address.
Rose Jones: I speak strongly in the favor of this motion because of the friendly amendment states the present and future book will be able to go through this process.
Ben Lackey: Call the question.
Kevin Murphy: Motion passes with 2/3 vote. Now to vote on the main motion. It will take a 2/3 vote. In the opinion of the chair it did not receive 2/3 vote so the motion to rescind fails.
- MOTION: To add the following Conference-approved literature to future printings of Hope, Faith & Courage Volume II:
- A. is also for the GLBT Addict
- Yes, You Can Start a C.A. Meeting
- Do’s and Don’ts of 12th-Step Calls.
- The timing of adding this pieces into translated versions of the HFC II is to be left to the WSO.
Second.
Kevin Murphy: Would you like to speak to your motion?
Susan Doch: Not at this time.
Robert Lyles: I speak against the motion. I agree in principle. The French population has been waiting a long time and this will set it back. It will need to be re-typeset.
Aurora Lopez: I have a question, if you add the readings or pamphlets to future printings, would there be an additional cost?
Elizabeth Saldebar: I think it’s just a few more pages. My educated guess is it will be nominal.
Susan Bredau: Has the LCF considered the ramification of including every new piece of literature into HFC and how that might affect corrected versions that this body may bring forth?
Approved Page 64
Susan Doch: There is ongoing proof reading. We know it’s not perfect. Cynthia Cronkhite: HFC does not include all the pamphlets. We felt these were an important part, but there was some discretion.
Bryan Seid: If this motion becomes effective, that would not affect the way the process for how the French version is produced?
Elizabeth Sadelbar: I think as we want the French version to be complete, it’s not typeset yet. We don’t have those translated first, so yes it would slow down the process but we could facilitate it.
Kevin Murphy: The question is does the motion mean the French book will be delayed?
Elizabeth Saldebar: Yes.
Scott Keaveny: I think the inclusion to future printings will broaden to reach out and help.
Wesley Blount: I speak against the motion. The French version shouldn’t be held up over this.
Elizabeth Saldebar: I speak for the motion. Once we are complete, we need to put a moratorium on changes, it changes everyone, for a period of time. It costs the fellowship money. I think it could work. There are changes still needed. I am told the French version is complete so excuse me for that.
Bryan Seid: I speak against the motion after finding out there will be a delay. Print the book. This is not detrimental to the book itself. They are available at a meeting. The delay I speak against the motion as written.
Melissa Lewis: I speak against the motion. We have lots of HFC books ready to sell right now that we should get rid of first before we worry about the next printing.
Jennifer Searl: I speak against the motion, we don’t have 2 of these available to the fellowship yet.
Valerie Cote: I speak against the motion. In Quebec we have many members, they have never seen the first book. Now we are waiting for the new version. I have to explain there is no book. We only speak French, we don’t have the first version, and the second one we had it on a key, completed, no more typeset, everything was ready to print. Why are we going to wait another year without books. It’s very important for the French people to read the book. I learn from that book and it helps me. So why they cannot have the chance to do the same thing and we have to wait.
Nick Alexander: I’d like to offer a friendly amendment. The timing of adding this pieces into translated versions of the HFC II is to be left to the discretion of the WSO.
Susan Doch: We accept.
Approved Page 65
Siobhan Ayer: Can we get a response from the office as to whether we can get a go ahead on the printing in French and not have to wait so that they can have a book?
Elizabeth Saldebar: Yes.
Kevin Murphy: Seeing no further debate, prepare yourselves to vote.
MOTION: To add the following Conference-approved literature to future printings of Hope, Faith & Courage Volume II:
- A. is also for the GLBT Addict
- Yes, You Can Start a C.A. Meeting
- Do’s and Don’ts of 12th-Step Calls.
- The timing of adding this pieces into translated versions of the HFC II is to be left to the WSO.
Kevin Murphy: The motion carries with substantial unanimity.
- MOTION: Pursuant to Point 12 of the C.A. Pamphlet Approval Process, Motion to approve the “Cocaine Anonymous Self-Test” as set forth in Attachment C.
Second.
Kevin Murphy: Did this go out in the SR 14?
Jason Laurence: Yes.
Kevin Murphy: Would you like to speak to your motion?
Jason Laurence: Yes. This piece has been here before, there were several changes made. The idea, based on numerous referrals, to get in line with the singleness of purposes and not singleness of drug. It has been looked at in great detail.
Ira Land: This document has been changed so much, it not longer resembles a pamphlet from CA. It is my opinion, by my count, almost 25 additions to the test about alcohol or drinking. It appears to me redundant to say that cocaine, alcohol or other drugs be added. In my opinion changes it to not a self-test for cocaine, but cocaine and alcohol.
Alan Siegel: I speak against the motion. We are not cocaine, alcohol and all other drugs anonymous. All the changes in here do not work for me.
Rose Jones: Thank you for your hard work. I would like to add a friendly amendment. In all the sentences that have alcohol and other drugs, read, and all other mind-altering substances.
Kevin Murphy: Does the committee wish to accept amendments from the floor?
Jason Laurence: One moment. The answer to that is no.
Nick Alexander: I’d like to make a motion to amend that each line item when we use the word cocaine we substitute it with cocaine and all other mind altering substances.
Approved Page 66
Cynthia Cronkhite: I believe amending literature from the floor is out of order.
Kevin Murphy: We don’t amend from the floor vote it up or down.
Bryan Seid: Motion to refer to committee. Second.
The reason I’d like this referred back, as one of our catch phrases with our own stuff. What is ours needs to be portrayed in all we do. When you see that phrase, cocaine and all other mind altering substances, I know which one they’re talking about. I would like to refer to the committee to produce the literature to where CA as a whole seems to be going to.
Cynthia Cronkhite: I speak against the motion to refer. This has been in committee for a number of years. We have gone through our process and this piece is in keeping. If it’s referred back, I don’t see that it will be different.
Nick Alexander – Parliamentary Inquiry – we cannot amend from the floor? Kevin Murphy: No.
Jason Laurence: It’s to achieve what is suggested. We feel it does represent what we are trying to do. To separate the documents to address each substance is a huge number of documents.
Teresa Reed: I’m against referring to committee. I think it’s time we move forward, thank you.
Jason Laurence: When the SR 14 mailing, it went out for review and nothing came back.
Jennifer Schieble: I am speaking against referring this back to committee. We need to do this now. And the LCF needs to get this out. Ben Lachey: Call the question.
Kevin Murphy: The motion passes with noted opposition satisfying the 2/3 requirement. Now prepare to vote on the motion to refer committee. The motion to refer back to committee
Motion fails 52-63.
Kevin Murphy: Since the motion failed, we go back to the original list for debate on the original motion.
Melissa Lewis: speak in favor of motion. I am a proud member of CA who has never seen cocaine. I had to learn what it meant to be an addict. I speak very in favor of the motion because it opens it up to “all other mind altering substances”. Brian Tenenbaum: speak in favor of motion. I love the way you guys handled this and I want it now.
Marty Douglas: I have been watching what has happened to this piece. Cocaine didn’t take me down. This piece, how our fellowship is, is all inclusive. Ben Lachey: Point of Order – speak in favor or against.
Marty Douglas: speak in favor of the motion. When it was suggested that we remove the word “cocaine”, a small piece of me wanted to do that but don’t take the word “cocaine” out of my fellowship.
Kellie Federici: speak in favor of motion. Being member of committee and seeing the trials we have been through and we have tried every possible way, but from a literary aspect, it doesn’t always read well in a question form. In order to remain inclusive, these words seem to best describe our fellowship without
Approved Page 67
using the term “cocaine and all other mind altering substances”. Our tag line is really “We’re Here and We’re Free” and I don’t believe that this would be any different if it went back to committee.
Eric Thorn: speak against the motion. The title is confusing to me. Going to let me know if I can come in.
Siobhan Amey-Ayer: speak in favor of motion. This committee has done a ton of work getting this to where it has gotten. This piece is for the newcomer and after we have come here for a while, we know who we are and what we stand for. The newcomer does not. This speaks to all of it and there is no room for confusion. Whatever you did, you belong and we love you.
Cynthia Cronkhite: speak in favor of motion. The title was changed because this is either going to be in literature or PI rack and we wanted it to be eye catching. The spirit is not really about whether or not you are an addict, but whether or not CA is right for you. It is interesting that we get comments on wording that has already been approved by the fellowship and it already out in our literature. It is very easily identifiable content for the newcomer. We suggested this language as a compromise and our WBOT approved this language.
Bill Olmstead: speak against this motion. I don’t remember a lot when I first came in but I remember taking this test. This was the first test that I had passed in years. The way the test is worded now, I would still pass.
Nick Alexander: speak in favor of the motion. Because the piece we already have printed is way worse than this and we have tried every other way to amend to get to some language that I like, but if this floor is going to decide to create this new piece or keep the old one, then I will take this piece. It was those words “and all other mind altering substances” that saved me.
Ben Lachey: speak against this motion because I came through here, I understood the phrases and text, I just didn’t want to accept it. We have asked this committee to do some things and they haven’t done it. If we push some literature through because we have tried and tried, we should speak to what this body says and take in consideration.
Keith Froher: speak for the motion. We are not trying to take “cocaine and all other mind altering substances” out of this pamphlet. It is in there already. In opening title it is stated. The next 25 questions refer back to that and we end with it. The original one does suck. The addicts don’t understand it.
Glen Tucker: Parliamentary Inquiry – can a motion be made to suspend the rules to get this piece to where the Conference can accept it so that we can move on?
Kevin Murphy: In theory, a person who has already been recognized could make a motion to suspend the rule barring amendment, then we could have an amendment, and then we could do all those things. In theory.
Keith Perkins: speak against the motion. The self test as it exists is not perfect. CA isn’t perfect. This self test has problems in my perspective as does existing one. We sent a matter back to S&B that had to do with this same type. Sonya Stevens: Call to question. Second.
Approved Page 68
Kevin Murphy: Motion with some opposition passes with substantial unanimity. Prepare yourselves to vote on the main motion.
MOTION: Pursuant to Point 12 of the C.A. Pamphlet Approval Process, Motion to approve the “Cocaine Anonymous Self-Test” as set forth in Attachment C.
Kevin Murphy: We are probably going to need to count this vote, so let’s just start that way. Motion passes 94-27 which is substantial unanimity.
Rose Jones: 5th Concept Statement – last night I heard about the getting away from “sober” and moving toward “sobriety”. CA saved my life and I love my fellowship and I don’t understand why it has to be all or nothing and why we had to pass this and not take back to committee and consider “cocaine and all mind altering substances.”
Kevin Murphy: At this time, we will take a short break.
BREAK
Kevin Murphy: Everyone please take their seats and come to order. We have a couple of LCF motions to get through and at this rate, we should be done by Monday. It is 3:17 pm and we are resuming from our break.
- MOTION: Pursuant to Point 12 of the C.A. Pamphlet Approval Process, Motion to approve the revised version of “We Can Recover” as set forth in
Attachment D. Second.
Kevin Murphy: Would you like to speak to your motion?
Kellie Federici: We Can Recover is a revision to an existing piece prepared from referrals and input over the last few years and it is easier to read aloud. Kevin Murphy: any other debate?
Cynthia Lauletta: Friendly amendment?
Kevin Murphy: No.
Jeannette Johnson: Parliamentary Inquiry – when would an amendment be in order?
Cynthia Cronkhite: Point of Order – the effect of the motion would be to make 20 changes to last the piece. We would not know whether a friendly amendment would be in order.
Kevin Murphy: if it is really small change, it can be made under housekeeping. Earl Henderson: speak against the motion however, that you have made a lot of changes of Attachment D especially on the first page but in the last strike about taking away my “horrors” and give me “horrifying experiences.”
Rose Jones: MOTION to suspend the rule barring amendments for this motion only. Second.
Kevin Murphy: Takes 2/3 majority. Not debatable. Motion fails 66-38. That is not 2/3 majority.
Approved Page 69
Ian Young: Passionate as I am, may I ask why the Committee chose to remove the last line on first page striking the reference to God and leave reference to Higher Power?
Kellie Federici: There are many references to God, but the line was slightly redundant and didn’t read well. If you hear how the sentence reads without it, it sounds better. There are 7 references to God throughout the reading.
Ian Young: speak against the motion because I feel it unnecessary to strike “In short, a God.” No one comes into CA to find God and that to me is one of the features of this reading that makes it OK as newcomer to find God.
Jane Sisson: speak against the motion. This last year, we had mass confusion in our meetings about what we can read, there has been so much emotion involved. It will be traumatic to go back to my meetings and tell them that we are changing it again.
Alan Shields: speak in favor of the motion. It is a wonderful change and the right direction of CA standing on its own.
Carl Warlick: speak against the motion. I’m old school. Prefer Chapter 5. I still like reading original form of “Who’s a Cocaine Addict?” A man in a meeting the other day read this piece in a meeting when he read “this is a spiritual, not a religious program” and he cried. The little subtle changes are OK but when you put some bite into it, you take away from the fellowship what we are getting familiar with. I would ask the committee to look at it with a spiritual eye instead of a literary eye.
Cynthia Cronkhite: speak in favor of motion. History of this piece. This piece has been the subject of many referrals over the years. Last year, we took this back to committee and thoroughly examined the piece. The new wording in paragraph 3 is a more natural lead into the steps. Paragraph after steps – we aren’t taking God out. We are just making it less redundant. Next paragraph “horrors” is misread and the message gets lost. Horrifying experiences made it much clear. If people would take the time to read this through and not look for what is taken out but what remains, they will see that this is what we are all about.
Mike Schelin: If it’s not broke, why fix it? Lot of debate in my home group about reading. I can have a God of my understanding. It doesn’t have to be a Higher Power.
Dot Thompson: speak in favor of motion. I have never quite understood how you get to the steps and this is much clearer.
Cynthia Cronkhite: Parliamentary Inquiry – if committee wanted to partition this reading by paragraph, would that be acceptable procedure?
Kevin Murphy: There is a procedure that a motion that can be divided into parts.
Not debatable. Requires a majority vote and cannot be reconsidered.
Cynthia Cronkhite: Should we withdraw the motion and then represent in parts?
Kellie Federici: I would like to withdraw the motion.
Kevin Murphy: There are several objections.
Approved Page 70
Peter Olsen: speak in favor of motion. We have something 7 people on average in our meetings of all nationalities and invariably they stumble especially the line after the 12th step. I see no dilution of the reading with the changes.
Rose Jones: MOTION to send back to committee. Second.
Kevin Murphy: Motion is debatable. Would you like to speak to your motion? Rose Jones: I would like to send back to committee because we have heard a lot of the group conscience on the floor and there are some revisions that could be made. Brought back to the floor and taken care of more expediently.
Kellie Federici: speak against the motion. We have a vehicle to repair this without having to go back to committee for a whole year. We have spent quite a bit of time on this and we can come to an agreement today. We want to get this in the hands of the fellowship.
Nick Alexander: Parliamentary Inquiry – if we refer to committee and they work on it during dinner, can they bring it back again? Kevin Murphy: if there is time, sure.
Jason Laurence: speak against the motion. Once again, this piece has come to the floor, discussed, many referrals put forward, presented by SR14. I believe we have the best fit in reference to all the referrals that have come in to our committee. We cannot accommodate everyone’s opinion.
Nick Alexander: speak in favor of the motion. I believe this motion can be crafted better by the committee. If they can work on it and bring it back and then we can have a better collective conscience.
Bryan Seid: if motion passes, will the committee bring this back in sections so that the Conference can see the full document before next year? Kellie Federici: Yes.
Mike Seden: speak in favor of this motion. We have chopped it up and spit it out, we are willing to do this one more time.
Sara Bauer: speak against this motion. This committee has worked hard on this piece.
Alan Shields: ditto what Sara said.
Stu Estebo: speak in favor of motion. We have reading that stands on its own as it is. Used everyday all around the world. There is no rush to make the revisions. It’s not too much to ask this committee right now to do it right. I hope that this fellowship that becomes the flavor of the month club with our readings. I believe we should really temper how often we change these readings. When doing so, do it as rarely as possible.
Simone Tarlton: speak against the motion. We are all here for the same reason. This floor is asking for perfection and we will never get this until we accept what we have. This is our best and most honest effort and should be regarded as such.
Scott Keaveny: Call to question. Second.
Kevin Murphy: all in favor of closing debate? Motion passes with substantial unanimity.
Motion to refer back to committee passes with noted opposition.
Approved Page 71
REFERRALS THAT RESULTED IN MOTIONS
Referral #6334
To amend the “Who is a C.A. Member?” Revise the first paragraph as follows: Please remove “those who casually referred to themselves as drunks,” the reason being having removed the line, “calling ourselves stoners, tweakers, junkies or just plain dope fiends” it would be logical to remove those who called themselves drunks. Why is it ok to call yourselves drunks but not stoners, etc. I believe this piece needs to be consistent and removing the line in question doesn’t change the intent of the reading.
MOTION: To strike “those who casually refer to themselves as drunks,” from the fourth line of “Who is a C.A. Member?” The modified paragraph would read as follows:
While the name “Cocaine Anonymous” may sound drug-specific, we wish to assure you that our program is not. Many of our members did a lot of cocaine; others used only a little, and some never even tried coke. We have members, who drank only on occasion
those who casually referred to themselves as drunks, and others who were full-blown alcoholics. Lots of us used a wide variety of mind-altering substances. Whether we focused on a specific substance or used whatever we could get our hands on, we had one thing in common: eventually we all reached a point where we could not stop. Second.
Kevin Murphy: speak to your motion?
Michael Averill: not at this time.
Kevin Murphy: Would anyone like to speak to this motion?
Stu Estebo: speak against the motion. I like the reading as it stands. My removing this particular line, begins to blur the line between the different stages. Earl Henderson: speak against the motion. Every time we make a change in our readings and we have to go back to all the reading formats and change them out for all these literary nuances.
Kellie Federici: when the referral first came to us, we were confused too. After discussing with the maker of the referrals, we came to understand. We took out stoners, tweakers, junkies last year but left the drunks in.
Scott Keaveny: speak in favor of the motion. This committee is doing what the fellowship has asked them to do instead of taking no action. On one motion we are screaming “why are we putting in alcohol” and the next one we are mad they are taking out “drunks.”
Teresa Reed: Some of us qualify as addict/alcoholic. That’s how the newcomer can relate. It brings the humor back into a serious situation. We should leave some things alone.
Approved Page 72
Carl Warlick: speak against the motion. Alcohol has always been prevalent in my life. This is an all-inclusive fellowship and everywhere you talk about alcohol, you want to take it out. We are not a drug specific program. The newcomers may have not done a lot of crack but they are tweakers who drink a lot of alcohol. Michael Averill: speak in favor motion. This makes this sound good and consistent.
Ian Young: I speak against the motion and this is rhetorical. I read this reading and it is powerful. One of the ways of explaining how inclusive it is by addressing the progression of alcoholism. When we read it there’s a story. You’re destroying the character of it. Gives me the ability to laugh at myself. We do have members that didn’t use cocaine at all. If you look at the PI, most cocaine addicts associate with alcohol as well. We are doing ourselves a disservice. We are destroying the essence and the spirit of this reading.
Peter Defaffaele: My opinion is we need to put a reading in and stand by it. Why do we have to change because someone doesn’t like it. We need to stop changing every year and stay the same, that’s how we grow. We don’t grow because we make everyone happy. Right now let’s live with something and stick with it.
Rose Jones: Why fix something that isn’t broke. I speak against the motion. My Area is just getting used to the idea of not reading How it Works. If we change the other readings it makes us unstable.
Ben Lachey: I speak against the motion. I went to my area and passionately pleaded with them not to change a reading. I don’t have the heart to go back to them this year and ask them not to do it this way.
Randy Groen: I speak against the motion. My understanding of the referral process was for the opportunity for members in our fellowship is to have a voice. This is the fellowship’s desire. A referral is a person’s desire to have something looked up. That’s not our voice. I would appreciate if the committee could hear our voice. I love A Voice that can be submitted in a referral, but we don’t want to change it, we want to run with it for a while.
Cynthia Cronkhite: At this time we would like to request to withdraw our motion. Kevin Murphy: Must be unanimous. There are several people who object so we will continue.
Deborah Giles: I speak against the motion. I was one of those people. Simone Talton: I speak for this motion. The words casually referred to themselves like stoners and tweekers and other derogatory term is demeaning and our language should be better. We looked at the word drunk and decided this is derogatory reference to someone that it could kill them and that was our intention.
Vonya Quarles: I speak in favor of this motion. Not because I care about AA, I’m under the illusion that this is CA. I think I’m here to serve CA. I found out my purpose here is to serve my area the best I can. For that reason I speak in favor of the motion. I agree with what was said against the motion and would like to see consistency in the literature.
Jason Laurence: Call the question. Second.
Approved Page 73
Kevin Murphy: Motion passes by 2/3.
Jason Laurence: Parliamentary inquiry – Is it possible to read the paragraph with the strike language out of it?
Kevin Murphy: We are about to vote, and I have read the motion as written.
The motion fails.
REFERRALS OR ITEMS TABLED UNTIL NEXT YEAR; AND ITEMS THE COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE WORKING ON THROUGH THE YEAR
Referral #6654:
Have the LCF create monthly chips, i.e.: 4 & 5 months, 7 & 8 months, 10 & 11 months.
RESPONSE: This has been placed on our list of items to be worked on throughout the year.
Referral #6414
Referral 6414 is respectfully submitted to the LCF Committee. The referral itself is in italics. The remainder is simply supporting information / ideas / suggestions should you find them useful.
This referral is a request that the LCF Committee take a group inventory of itself in the spirit of assessing how well the committee helps the Conference to fulfill its purpose and to identify what action(s) the committee could take to improve the committee’s ability to better help the Conference fulfill its purpose.
Should the LCF Committee opt to take no action on this referral either at the 2010 Conference or as a post-Conference activity throughout the 2010 / 2011 year, please be kind enough to cite the LCF Committee’s reason(s) for not undertaking such action in the LCF Committee’s closing Conference report.
Rationale (aka debate):
As individuals we undertake a personal inventory to uncover and discover things about ourselves and begin the process of growing spiritually. We continue to take personal inventories to perfect and enlarge our fit spiritual conditions.
Many CA Groups find that taking a regular inventory is healthy for the Spiritual well being of the Group and to assess how well the Group is fulfilling its primary purpose. Inventory helps the Group:
- Have a clear sense of itself and its primary purpose
- Gauge its success in fulfilling its primary purpose
- Evaluate its ability to successfully carry its message
- Ponder whether it is it right sized in its perception of itself
Approved Page 75
- Appraise its role in contributing financially
- Consider how CA is improved by the group’s existence
Extending the self-examination practice of inventory to the District and Area has also proven to be a effective means to keep these bodies focused, efficient, effective, and on track Spiritually.
“A business which takes no regular inventory usually goes broke. Taking a commercial inventory is a fact-finding and a fact-facing process. It is an effort to discover the truth about the stock-in-trade. One object is to disclose damaged or unsalable goods, to get rid of them promptly and without regret. If the owner of the business is to be successful, he cannot fool himself about values.” [Alcoholics Anonymous, pg. 64].
The Big Book uses the metaphor of a business inventory as a means to underscore its suggestion that there is value in the inventory process. Then it applies the concept of taking an inventory to the personal level as a means to recover spiritually. Most CA members would agree the process of taking inventory has personal value. The Conference and its committees are the ‘business’ of CA and applying inventory at the ‘business level’ of CA becomes more than a simple metaphor; group inventory will help keep CA from going ‘broke’ spiritually, financially or in other ways. Don’t we owe the Fellowship that effort?
There are those who would argue that taking inventory at the level of Conference committees or the Conference itself is not necessary. They might argue that AA or NA don’t do this. When faced with such flawed reasoning, it might be fair to consider the size of CA’s membership relative to these other Fellowships and ask, if we are not in some need of improving ourselves, our methods, our effectiveness then why is CA’s membership comparatively so much smaller? If the answer is that there are simply fewer cocaine addicts than alcoholics or addicts in general then an inventory might cause us to ask, is it really efficient, effective, and in the best interests of CA as a whole to support and maintain the very large infrastructure that CA presently has in order to sustain our much smaller Fellowship? Undeniably, these are difficult questions. No one is suggesting that the inventory process will necessarily be easy though it may be.
Some would argue the inventory process is too cumbersome to perform at the Conference committee level. Is it too burdensome if the process helps us improve such that we reach out and save ten more lives this year than we did last year? Can this committee be a small part of that improvement or is it perfect as it is? Tradition Two in Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions offers for consideration that sometimes the good is the enemy of the best; is this committee functioning at it best? Consider Tradition Two again – “For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express
Approved Page 75
Himself in our group conscience.” Does this committee specifically consider how well it functions by taking a group conscience (i.e. a group inventory)? If God expresses Him/Her Self in the group conscience then where is God in all this if there is no group conscience?
Others will point out that a referral similar to this was submitted at the 2008 Conference. They are right. The referral was submitted to a single committee for action. Effectively, no action was taken. That submission unwisely placed a very vital point of consideration in the hands of just a few people to be decided on everyone else’s behalf. That is not stated to say those individuals did anything wrong but rather to say that you most likely did not have any voice in making that decision. Now you have a voice. It is important to note that the Conference membership changes yearly and the deliberation of any individual referral may have different outcomes in any given year as different members with different ranges of experience consider a referral’s subject matter. Given this fact, and to account for the reality that sometimes it takes a long time to effect change, it is entirely proper to submit referrals as frequently as every year.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. This has been placed on our list of items to be worked on throughout the year.
REFERRALS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN MOTIONS
Referral #6480:
Suggested opening for “We Can Recover.” for the purpose of cogency, flow and cohesion;
(pagr1)
“Welcome to Cocaine Anonymous. We are all here for the same reason – our inability to stop using cocaine and all other mind altering substances. The first step toward solving any problem is admitting that there IS a problem. We move form the problem of drug addiction to the solution of recovery with the Twelve Steps of Cocaine Anonymous.” (parg2: no changes beyond current strike of “cocaine and”.)
(pagr3)
“We wish to assure you that there IS a solution, and that recovery IS possible. It begins with abstinence and continues with practicing C.A.’s Twelve Steps of Recovery.”
RESPONSE: The committee worked on this reading during last year’s Conference and throughout the year. This part of the reading was addressed in great detail and the outcome of that work is represented in the SR 14 draft, June 2010 Delegate mailing. After considering the referral the committee’s consensus was that no other changes were needed.
Approved Page 76
Referral #6649:
In the reading “We can recover” take out “we didn’t come here to find God.” It is a negative statement in the opinion of people from my area.
RESPONSE: The committee worked on this reading during last year’s Conference and throughout the year. This part of the reading was addressed in great detail and the outcome of that work is represented in the SR 14 draft, June 2010 Delegate mailing. After considering the referral the committee’s consensus was that no other changes were needed.
Referral #6131:
That a new reading be adopted called “Unity”. Taken directly from our pamphlet “Unity.” (see attached) Can this be adopted as a CA approved reading for inclusion in suggested meeting formats.
We have found this reading useful, particularly in H&I or newcomer heavy meetings, because it offers inclusion no matter what you primary substance of misuse.
(attachment):
UNITY READING
Unity is a common bond that transcends all differences. We’ve discovered no matter how different our circumstances or the paths that brought us here, we all suffer from the same disease: addiction.
We admitted our lack and accepted that we could not recover alone. The strength and direction of our recovery is found in our unity.
We are people who might never have mixed. Addiction and recovery are the threads that bind us. We relate to such feelings as grandiosity, insecurity, jealousy, and false pride and are reminded we are all alike. By sharing our experience with other addicts and working the Twelve Steps of C.A., we come to know humility, security, acceptance, and self-worth.
Through applying the Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions, we grow in love, tolerance, and respect for each other. This spiritual growth allows us to rise above prejudice, regardless of religion, ethnicity, economic status, age gender, or sexual orientation, to carry the C.A. message. Though we are different, we are the same. Regardless of the author, we share the same story.
RESPONSE: We are delighted you are inspired by this particular passage. The meeting format currently contains a number of optional readings. At this time, we do not believe it is appropriate to add material that is available elsewhere. In the spirit of Tradition 4, we support each group’s right to choose its own readings
Approved Page 77
from the Appendix List of WSC Approved Literature contained in the World Service Manual.
Referral #6133:
Re: motion to add the following to future Hope Faith and Courage Volume 2 and potentially other C.A. literature: “C.A. is also for the GLBT Addict.” The word “also” infers to me that the GLBT addicts are an “add-on” being “allowed” to “join” normal ie straight members of the fellowship. Inclusion should, in my feeling, be inherent, not an “also.” I would not expect literature, for example, to say “C.A. is also for the Black Addict.” I would also suggest that all C.A. literature express that C.A. welcomes all people irrespective of race, creed, gender, or sexual identity. “Sexual Identity” being preferable to “sexuality” as it includes transgender. I would also propose including such a statement in a reading, eg “Who is a C.A. Member.” I have often heard homophobic and transgender phobic comments in meetings and such a reading might remind members that the only requirement is a desire to stop using/drinking and of our spirit of tolerance.
RESPONSE: A large number of referrals had been submitted requesting that a piece of this nature be made available. The LCF was mandated on that basis. The title of this piece was discussed in great detail on the 2009 Conference floor, with particular reference to the question you have raised. The outcome of that discussion is represented in the pamphlet as published. We believe the last paragraph of “Who is a C.A. Member?” adequately address the issue of inclusivity.
Referral #6134:
To discontinue production of the readings “C.A. is also for the GLBT Addict” as it is non-inclusive. The spirit of tradition three that we are inclusive to anyone with a desire to stop using.
RESPONSE: A large number of referrals had been submitted requesting that a piece of this nature be made available. As such, the Conference approved this pamphlet at the 2009 WSC.
Referral #6338:
That all C.A. literature is approved by the World Service Conference ONLY.
RESPONSE: All C.A. literature is approved by the WSC as per Point 12 of the LCF Pamphlet Approval Process.
Referral #6456:
Approved Page 78
I would like to see “There is a solution” added as a piece of C.A. approved literature-starting on p. 25 of BB-beginning with “There is a solution”-continuing through and ending with “and were willing to make the effort” on p. 26.
I mean a reading for our preamble. I understand that a reading this we would need to say “alcoholic.”
RESPONSE: The Meeting Format currently contains a number of optional readings. At this time, we do not believe it is appropriate to add material that is available elsewhere. In the spirit of Tradition 4, we support each group’s right to choose its own readings from the Appendix List of WSC Approved Literature contained in the World Service Manual.
Referral #6477:
Please consider change the last line of “Who is a Cocaine Addict” from We were addicts to we are addicts
RESPONSE: The content of this referral has previously been addressed and it was concluded that as the main body of the piece is written in the past tense it would not be grammatically appropriate to make this change.
Referral #6209:
To have a new reading called “Being of Service.” We need people to step up and do service. If we had this as a reading, I think it would encourage people to step up. It is taken directly from the pamphlet so I hope its transition to a reading would be simple. (see attached)
(attachment)
Being of Service
In addition to finding a spiritual way of life, recovery is about changing negative aspects of our personalities into positive ones.
We came into the program with big egos but little or no self esteem. We thought we were better than other people yet at the same time felt less than. We were people who took from others and abused friendships all our lives. We had no concept of doing anything for anyone without the thought of some kind of rewards. By the sheer grace of our Higher Powers, we have found several ways of unlearning such behavior in the program. One way is to be of servie to the Fellowship ot Cocaine Anonymous. We discovered that the best way to serve God was to serve our fellow humans and we found humility in the process. Our self-centered behavior was gradually replaced with the attitude of service. We learn that service is about gratitude and learning how to contribute to our lives and the lives of others.
Why be of Service?
Approved Page 79
*To give back what was so freely given to us
*To take on a commitment as a symbolic way of making amends
*To meet other recovering addicts
*To learn how to be a part of a team
*To learn humility be doing something selfless for someone else.
*To learn skills or teach others what we know.
*To learn responsibility
RESPONSE: We are delighted you find this passage inspiring. The Meeting Format currently contains a number of optional readings. At this time, we do not believe it is appropriate to add material that is available elsewhere. In the spirit of Tradition 4, we support each group’s right to choose its own readings from the Appendix List of WSC Approved Literature contained in the World Service Manual.
Referral #6320:
Any time we use language that describes cocaine, alcohol, or any other language that describes something we might have used to get loaded (Not our Name!!!). We use OUR!!! Language “cocaine and all other mind-altering substances.” That is who we are! I understand that sometimes this might make our literature, “incorrect” (grammatically sorry), but this is the foundation of our fellowship and our literature (i.e. steps, traditions). It can unite our literature, and a vast majority of people don’t have to agree about the word cocaine.
RESPONSE: Wherever possible we try to use the language ‘Cocaine and all other mind- altering substances’. When we feel it is necessary from a literary perspective to use other wording, we are always mindful of C.A.’s Steps and Traditions.
Referral #6338:
Please include the usage of the words stoner, tweakers, spotting, dodgy, addict in the reading Who Is A C.A. Member. As I have been informed that these words reflect the International status of Cocaine Anonymous.
RESPONSE: Words that are not understood internationally were removed. It is not our intention to add words which may not be understood or that may quickly become obsolete.
Approved Page 80
Referral #6659:
Remove the words “Cocaine Anonymous” from the reverse of all C.A. coins so that the Anonymity of fellowship members not be inadvertently jeopardize or compromise.
A.A. coins, for example, do not contain the words “Alcoholics Anonymous.”
RESPONSE: The coins are created for use within the Fellowship. It is an individual’s choice whether or not to display them publicly.
Referral #6690
Please consider creating new piece of literature – “Stories of the Delegates” by soliciting stories and experience, strength and hope of delegates at this meeting, people with time in this program, with a strong message of sobriety to share.
Response: The LCF does not currently have the resources to take on another project of this magnitude. We would encourage you to make use of the Newsgram which is always looking for articles.
Referral #6715:
We would like to see a pamphlet done on medacation in recovery. There are a lot of are members that need to take meds and are losing members with mental health and we need to open the doors to these individuals.
RESPONSE: We believe this has already been adequately addressed in the C.A. pamphlet entitled “…And All Other Mind-Altering Substances”.
REFERALS OR ITEMS REFFERED TO OTHER COMMITTEES; WSO OR WSBT
Referral #6389:
That individual meetings may read C.A. adapted excerpts from the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.
RESPONSE: This referral was referred on to the Structures and Bylaws Committee.
Referral #6210:
To approve the attached polish version of Who is a Cocaine Addict. We have had three different members work on this reading who all speak English and
Approved Page 81
Polish. They all agree this is a good translation. It is also the intention to put Hope Faith & Courage in polish as a part of the CA logo. These three works are included in the attached translation. (attachment available at committee level.)
RESPONSE: This referral was referred on to the World Service Office.
Referral #6633:
Instead of stickering the whole page “How it Works” I consider put a disclaimer sticker on front page to address this rather than defacing the book.
RESPONSE: This referral was referred on to the World Service Board of Trustees.
Referral #6703:
I would like to see an application to download the HFC I and II onto my phone or computer. You could charge $2.99 just like the Big Book of A.A. and people would buy it. Let me know which committee would handle this and how long it would take to get this going. Also, if you need to make changes such as “How it Works” you can always update the application.
RESPONSE: This referral was referred on to the World Service Office.
Referral #6204:
Is “How It Works” still a C.A. approved piece of literature.
RESPONSE: This referral was referred on to the World Service Board of Trustees
NEW COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AS OF THIS CONFERENCE
Chair: Jeannette Johnson
Vice-Chair: Kellie Federici
Co-Secretaries: Jason Laurence and Mike Seden
Publications Liaison: Cynthia Cronkhite
WSOB Liaisons: Elizabeth Schmidt Saldebar & Tom Phelan
CLOSING COMMENTS
Your WS LCF Committee looks forward to working together via e-mail and conference calls throughout the coming year. If you see a piece on our projects chart that you’d like to work on, we could definitely use your help. The more of your ideas and input we receive, the more the finished product will help reflect
Approved Page 82
the diversity of our fellowship. Please remember to let your Areas know the work our projects chart contains and anyone throughout our Fellowship is welcome to participate. Thank you for allowing us to be of service.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannette Johnson
LCF Chair
Kevin Murphy: Before we get to questions, a laptop charger was found in the LCF room. A pair of glasses was left in conference office. Any questions for the LCF committee?
Bill Hood: 6669 remove the name of CA from coins. I can give you several examples how coins can get inadvertently get lost. Can you address inadvertently which is not a choice?
Keith Froher: If it’s lost it doesn’t break anonymity.
Bill Hood: The coin is in the pocket and others see it. Identifying the coin as theirs could break their anonymity.
Bryan Seid: Where will I find your list, chart that contains what you worked on.
Jeanette Johnson: It’s in the opening report.
Trevor Schieble: If you look in the Trustee minutes come out, the LCF trustee attaches that chart.
Nick Alexander: Referral #6320 talks about anytime we use the phrase cocaine, alcohol, drugs, the referral maker asked we use cocaine and all other mind alter substances, while I understand it might not be grammatically correct, can you look at it when it comes up again?
Jeanette Johnson: We will take all the feedback to committee.
Kevin Murphy: Thanks to the LCF committee. It is now 4:34 we will come back in 10 minutes.
BREAK
Kevin Murphy: everyone please take your seats. It is 4:50 pm on Saturday and we are back in session. Next up is the Convention Committee.
Approved Page 83