CA WORLD SERVICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING MINUTES
May 22 -24, 2007
Final Approved Minutes
(Approved by WSBT for Distribution on August 27th 2007)
Since this report is a confidential CA document, for members only, it contains members’ full names. This usage to facilitate communication within the fellowship was approved by the 1990 WS Conference. Such confidential use does not, of course, violate in any way our Tradition on anonymity in public communications media (press, radio, TV, etc.).
Page 1
The Quarterly meeting of the CA World Service Board of Trustees, at the Westin Crowne Center, Kansas City, Missouri was called to order at 7:38 P.M. on Tuesday May 22nd, 2007 with a moment of silence followed by the “WE” version of the Serenity Prayer.
Roll Call:
| Lawrence M | Atlantic South Regional Trustee | ||
| Bruce W. | Atlantic North Regional Trustee | ||
| Nicholas L. | European Regional Trustee | WSBT Chair | |
| Tony D. | Mid West Regional Trustee | ||
| Trevor S. | Pacific North Regional Trustee | ||
| Carl W. | Pacific South Regional Trustee | WSBT Vice Chair | |
| Jay F. | South West Regional Trustee | ||
| Bobbie H. | Trustee At Large | ||
| Earl H. | World Service Office Trustee | WSBT Secretary | |
| Hayward H. | World Service Trustee |
Twelve Traditions read with Tradition Seven discussed by Board Members:
Earl H.
I was discussing how I served on this board of trustees with a friend and his wife over dinner. And she immediately said, “Well “our company” can do some fabulous fundraising for you guys”. I had to explain how we have to decline these and have to be fully self-supporting. Other non-profits just don’t get this because that is backwards from how they practice this. I had to explain about the concept of interference and how often when people give something they want to have some influence over how the organization is run or what they are going to do with that donation. I had the opportunity to explain a tradition to someone who was not in the fellowship. This tradition allows us to stay in line with the rest of the traditions. It supports our concept of unity, because if we had outside influences it would dis-unify us.
Concept One read and discussed by Board Members:
Trevor S.
The Northern Alberta area has asked me to come up and do a concept workshop. So I am working on that now. To me that first one seems particularly relevant; it reminds me why we are here. We are not the bosses or the people who run the fellowship we are the people who are here to do the work. They have trusted us to look after their fellowship for them, but they are the ones who are really in charge.
Review of Agenda:
Tony D.
Any one have anything they would like to add?
Page 2
Carl W.
The San Fernando Area issue, but I would like to talk about it off the record. I will find it and send it to everyone.
Tony D.
I am adding 2007.05.06 off the record regarding San Fernando Area.
Jay F.
I have two; the response when an area chooses to not stay in touch with the Trustee, also not participating, or donating.
Tony D.
Adding agenda item-2007.05.07 Response when an area does not participate with World Services.
Jay F.
Revision of master orientation documents to match the current pagination of the WSM.
Tony D.
2007.05.08 Revision of master orientation document
Chair opening remarks:
Tony D.
I hope everyone is available to the committee where they need help, this is a working convention, so please be available. Looking forward to seeing what we can get through here.
Items requiring discussion before the board to board meeting:
Hayward H.
The last time we talked about the book, Patty shared we will do another printing of volume one in January 2008. I am wondering why we are doing that.
Earl H.
I don’t remember that, I know that we were going to print some more volume ones because we were going to run out before the volume twos. I thought it was too be before January. We can put it on the agenda and ask them.
Tony D.
Add agenda item N: re HFC volume one printing.
Jay F.
In the treasurer’s report from Tom, there were several items where we were way under budget and against percentages. Look at the P&L for tomorrow because I have some concerns about it.
Earl H.
Page 3
We are not going to see the vice chair in the board to board tomorrow. She is asking for the WSBT’s help at the auction. So please just read her report so we can support the fellowship during the auction.
Tony D.
I started doing that with Patty a couple years ago, going up to people and personally thanking them. We really need to sell some more Apollo tickets and banquet tickets.
Approval of minutes:
March 2007 WSBT Quarterly meeting
March 2007 WSBT/WSOB meeting
April 2007 WSBT Conference call
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve all three sets of minutes.
Trevor S. – Second
Earl H.
In reviewing the March 2007 minutes, they don’t show who is saying the motion, seconding it, or who is discussing. Accuracy is fine, but I thought I would throw that out for discussion. Did I miss something that said we were going to change it?
Hayward H.
I could put who makes the motion, who seconds the motion. When I receive the transcripts all that information is included. But when we talk about sensitive stuff, I take the names out.
Bobbie H.
I know this happened at some point it was motioned and passed that the names are to be removed. It was after our Hal K. days. We didn’t want it quoted by someone. When I became secretary, if I showed anyone’s name it was only when a motion was made and seconded.
Jay F.
I recall it being different than that. In those days we did not have great transcriptions. So basically someone would share and we would summarize. We had a much more rigorous review process. This is the first I have heard about the names coming out. My understanding was that the names were going in, but you as a Trustee needed to review what you said and could have your name removed or something taken out if you needed. If you say it you say it and if it needs to be removed then we can deal with that later.
Tony D.
I think it is on each and everyone of us to read through what we said to make sure we were quoted correctly or that it reads right. I would be in favor of putting the names in there but that puts pressure on us to make sure we read through it.
Earl H.
Page 4
I agree with you, there is a certain credibility we need to have. We always have the ability to go off the record if we are saying something sensitive.
Nicholas L.
If it didn’t say a name, it might be implied that the whole board said it. We know how it is, we can say one thing but it can be mis -interpreted in an email. I would like to remember what I said and read it with the names.
Hayward H.
Do we include last names of the board? The way it shows now is first name and last initial. I would like to see something about how we do it.
Tony D.
I remember it as we use our last names, but only first names of people not on the board.
Trevor S.
The more transparent we can be the better, to remove this us and them concept. So I say leave it in there. Is there anything legally that says we need to do it one way or the other because we are a board of directors?
Lawrence M.
I was wondering who said what when I was reading it. So I say put the names in it.
Bobbie H.
I went through February 2005 it is a mixture of full names, then going to just saying a Trustee said this. When you get the minutes you need to read them so that we can get in that turnaround time. Don’t wait until they get posted. Can we do a general consensus here, of first name and last initial?
Carl W.
I apologize for not catching that. If you look at the board minutes from 2004, there are first names only. The conference still uses the entire name, are we going to stick with what they do or what we have done in the past? I would say let’s go with what we know and do a close scrutiny.
Bruce W.
I am in favor of having names with each position that person took. It was more a summary of what we spoke about. We talked about the first concept, how is the fellowship going to know what we are doing unless they can look at positions taken by board members and the ultimate resolution.
Earl H.
There is no corporate requirement for this board.
Jay F.
Can you make a timeline of when you need comments back, so that you’re not waiting forever?
Page 5
Tony D.
All in favor of approving the minutes, motion passes with substantial unanimity.
Approval of Record of Online Business between March 2007 and May 2007 quarterly meetings.
Bobbie H.
Motion to approve record of online business between March 2007 and May 2007 Quarterly meetings.
Hayward H. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
WSBT OFFICER REPORTS
WSBT officer reports:
Chair (Tony)
Vice Chair (Jay)
Secretary (Hayward)
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve the WSBT officer reports: Chair, vice Chair and Secretary. Carl W. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
TRUSTEE REPORTS
- Trustee reports (discussion on reports previously submitted for review):
- Atlantic North Regional Trustee (Bruce)
- Atlantic South Regional Trustee (Lawrence)
- European Regional Trustee (Nicholas)
- Midwest Regional Trustee (Tony)
- Pacific North Regional Trustee (Trevor)
- Pacific South Regional Trustee (Carl)
- Southwest Regional Trustee (Jay)
- Trustee at Large (Bobbie)
- World Service Office Trustee (Earl)
- World Service Trustee (Hayward)
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve all the Trustee reports
Bruce W. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
TRUSTEE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Page 6
- WSBT Subcommittee reports – lead member listed first and BOLD (discussion on reports previously submitted for review):
- Conference (Carl, Tony, Trevor, Hayward, Jay)
- Finance (Earl, Jay, Nicholas)
- International Structure & Development (Bobbie, Carl, Hayward, Jay)
- Legal (Jay, Bruce, Nicholas, Carl, Hayward, Bobbie)
- Long Term Planning (Bobbie, Nicholas, Hayward, Bruce, Trevor, Carl, Earl, Lawrence)
- Negotiating (Hayward, Lawrence, Tony, Carl, Jay, Bobbie, Trevor, Nicholas)
- NewsGram (Trevor, Carl, Tony, Bobbie, Jay)
- Orientation (Jay, Tony, Carl, Hayward, Earl, Bobbie)
- Outreach (Lawrence, Bobbie, Carl, Trevor)
- Trustee Election Committee (Earl, Jay, Tony, Carl, Hayward)
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve all WSBT subcommittee reports
Nicholas L. – Seconded
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
TRUSTEE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS
- Trustee Conference Committee reports – lead member listed first and BOLD (discussion on reports previously submitted for review):
- Archives (Lawrence)
- Conference (Carl, Hayward)
- Convention (Tony)
- CAWS 2007 (Tony)
- CAWS 2008 (Trevor)
- CAWS 2009 (Jay)
- CAWS 2010 (Tony)
- Finance (Earl)
- Hospitals & Institutions (Hayward)
- IT (Trevor)
- Literature, Chips & Format (Jay, Bruce)
- Public Information (Nicholas)
- Structure & Bylaws (Bobbie)
- Unity (Bruce)
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve Trustee conference committee reports, excluding CAWS 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 committee reports.
Jay F. – Second
Carl W.
In Bruce’s report I would like to make a friendly amendment to remove the specific names regarding archives.
Bobbie H. – I accept
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously
Page 7
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve CAWS 2007 committee report
Trevor S. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve CAWS 2008 committee report Nicholas L. – Second
Jay F.
Can you give a little more background on what happened with the program chair and the treasurer?
Trevor S.
***Off the record*** they both needed to step away from the commitments.
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve CAWS 2009 committee report
Trevor S. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve CAWS 2010 committee report
Nicholas L. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
Old Business:
Outstanding correspondence:
2007.05.05 Dwayne M. – email received 5/11 also listed under new business.
Tony D.
Do we want to make a committee for this? I would like to get it done this weekend with the due date coming up and the sensitivity of it. I don’t want to get into countering each point. I think we should address how we should achieve unity and a group has a right to be recognized. Who will head this up? Jay, Tony, Carl, Trevor, Nicholas, Earl, Bobbie, Lawrence. I will put update on conference call, but hopefully we will get to this here.
2007.03.10 Trustee roles at conference committee
Jay F.
There was some spirited discussion for this online. I had taken it and put it into one document and sent it off to the committee to look over. I would think that since this will be an orientation piece that we have more time to now take what was talked about and make it into a broad-brush piece saying there is more than one way to do this. We can probably have something to present by the conference call.
Page 8
Bobbie H.
Can we defiantly have this done by the conference so we are all substantially unified on this? We are going to be leading by example.
Hayward H.
Did you send a draft of something?
Jay F.
No it was nothing final, it was like 16 or 17 emails and I put them all on two pages.
Hayward H.
There was something about guidelines sign -off and then something that should go into orientation about how we should act on the committees.
Jay F.
Yes, it is all in there.
2006.02.12 WSBT statements and positions accessible to both WSBT and the fellowship.
Hayward H.
Did everyone get a chance to look at the website?
I would like to make a motion to approve the fellowship feedback webpage.
Jay F. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously. I will remove this from the agenda
2006.02.20 Copyright and trademark protection
Tony D.
Hayward posted a document showing the costs for protection for South Africa (SA):$2400, Hong Kong-$1500 and other countries.
Hayward H.
I posted the numbers; I don’t know how much it is going to cost to get the information that I gave you guys. The lawyer hasn’t billed us on that yet, but it will probably be several hundred dollars. I don’t know how we are going to pay for this protection. I included how much SA has donated since 2005, when they became an area, it’s about $200.
Tony D.
I would like to see this removed from the agenda, we reviewed it and it makes sense from a financial perspective, but it just does not make sense right now. We have one meeting in HK and SA is growing, but I don’t know if it is worth spending $2400 right now.
Nicholas L.
What are we protecting them from?
Page 9
Hayward H.
This is to protect our logo, trademark and our name in the various countries.
Nicholas L.
I don’t think there would be any worry in HK. I find conversation with David really difficult, I sent him an email. I don’t think there is a threat at the moment I would like to agree with that, I do not see any risk or threat if the countries are not protected right away.
Hayward H.
I would like to see it on the agenda and review it quarterly with expansion of the fellowship there is going to be cost. Next quarter there may be more meetings there. We are growing and we need to protect intellectual properties. I do not know how we are going to finance it. Maybe finance can help.
Carl W.
Can we remove this from the agenda and place it on Long term planning and let them look at it.
Bobbie H.
There are other areas that have been part of the protection that gave 200 or less. Let’s make sure we are not saying they have not given enough. We can place it there; just like the earmark is on long term planning.
Tony D.
I do not think there has been any areas that have been that small that we have paid to have the trademark protected. We did the EU, which has a very large fellowship. We did Canada and the US and that is it. Sometimes we have to make a business decision. The reality is that 7 th tradition has a lot to do with it, that is how we get our funding. I am going to remove this and if you want to add it to long term planning that is up to you, Bobbie.
Bobbie H.
It should be on long term planning with copyright and trademark protection for South Africa and Hong Kong.
2006.10.07 Status of Newsgram editor vacancy, what is the job description, what is the process for selection, and when will it be advertised and then filled?
Tony D.
In March the position was filled, we are leaving this on the agenda for the official description and process for selection
Earl H.
I will be emailing you the latest Newsgram guidelines, just received. Also just received was the office board chair report, which I just sent out to the board.
Tony D.
Ok we will come back to this.
Page 10
2006.10.05 Status of Vol. 2 story book
Tony D.
I have shared the information that I have, unless anyone has any questions I suppose we should leave this on as a place marker. Hopefully we can delete it next quarterly. The only concern I have is the moral of some of the people that work at the office as a result of some comments that have been made by particular members of the LCF committee that do not know how to control their typing and send button. I think the bigger issue here is that we really need to address the 12 point literature process, once this book is out. Especially when it comes to books and publishing, I think it is a very flawed system. I think a lot of the steps in the process could easily be handled by the office. Having to go back and forth with volunteers is a system that just does not work.
Bruce W.
I am new to this committee participation in any fashion. I understand why committee members feel so strong about their involvement in this book, because they have been committed to it for such a long time. It represents a great deal of work of many members, so anything they said was probably out of their strong desire to see the book be brought forward timely and accurately. The lines of responsibility here are so tangled, that it complicates the process of bringing any book in a timely way so that it is accurate and meets the needs of the fellowship. This is not going to be the last time we are going to have any trouble. The book would be done by now, I think, if it were put through a cleaner and more orderly process.
Tony D.
Do you want to add an agenda item at this point about a review of our 12 point or publishing process?
Carl W.
Yes. We need to review the 12 point process and our publishing process by reviewing what AA and NA do. There is something really flawed about our process. We were talking about removing the volunteers, especially the typesetting. Our book is something we should have gone to a professional typesetter with.
Tony D.
I have agenda item 2007.05.09 and we are going to add review of 12 point literature process and publishing process. Carl, Tony, Jay, Bruce, and Trevor.
Nicholas L.
For the sake of money and ego it will cost the fellowship a lot of money. I professionally smoked crack I don’t edit books. The LCF committee didn’t even write the stories; they are just editing other people’s stories. It usually says in the book we put ourselves in a position to get our toes stepped on. There are people who are being dragged out of the woodwork who said something about the book and have an opinion on it that have never seen the draft. It is ridiculous and I actually asked them to stop. There seems to be no system in place, the 12 point process seems to be flawed. Someone somewhere has to make the decision to take it out of the hands of the amateurs and put it in the hands of the professionals. I think it is fantastic that we take a stand
Page 11
now and put it on the agenda. I have promised the book so many times, we will put it out by Christmas. We have all the stories. I think it is quite a lot of friction and also if it looks like we keep changing dates it looks like we are greedy for money. I know the book is going to raise a lot of money and it will be a very successful book. What’s the point of submitting stories for the meditation book it won’t come out till 2012 anyway. It took 10 years to get the HFC to where we are now. We really should address as well as getting more professional help if we really want to get a fantastic product. Over the coming of months hopefully not years we will be able to try to help them get from A to B in a more orderly manner that makes sense.
Tony D.
I am going to move on unless your question or statement pertains to the status of the HFC 2 story book. We have already made a new agenda item for the discussion of the process. So if your discussion has to do with reviewing the process I am going to call that out of order at this point. Is there any discussion on the status of VOL 2? I will leave that on the agenda for an update at the August quarterly.
2007.03.11 Clarification of the CA logo in compliance with the trademark law
Jay F.
The issue is the two words “may touch” is a part of the sentence that says “no other text or design element may touch or overlap or show through behind the logo other than a solid color” That’s where some people said if you had your design next to the logo that was a bad design. Some people from world services let that comment ride. I talked to a trademark lawyer and she said that the words “may touch” do not have to be in there, just over lap or show through keeps the integrity of the logo in tack. This was just one persons opinion. The original motion was a referral that came from the board from the year before we joined the board. It got missed one year and was put in the 2004 WSM ver batum and there was no discussion on it. I could not find any more that someone typed up and it was approved by the board and a referral was sent in and it finally got passed. If we want something more formal we should have someone who does this for us, get the official words “may touch”, but I do not think there is a reason to be there.
Bobbie H.
What doesn’t need to be in there?
Jay F.
Take out the words “may touch”.
Bobbie H.
You think that may touch and overlap are redundant?
Jay F.
No I think that they are different. Leave over lap in and take may touch out.
Tony D.
So then we are saying it is ok to have something butting up against, but not overlapping it.
Page 12
Bobbie H.
Where did this generate from?
Jay F.
I got several comments and questioned about it, so yes I brought it to the board.
Bobbie H.
Until this got in here we never had a fix for it. Then we got this we were not having any problems people. I have seen logos that are really in violation. I have a problem with us taking it out, it is fixed. It is now saying that we are holding to the highest degree some kind of respect for our logo. You can go to Colorado and see Co -Ca -Co, Colorado CA Convention, just the CA, no circle, no hope faith and courage. You got to see this. That is a violation as far as I can figure out but no one said a word.
Tony D.
So where are we at? Jay clarified this. Do we want to make a motion or remove this?
Bobbie H.
We are not doing anything with this right?
Tony D.
I am going to remove this if there are no objections.
2007.03.13 trustee and delegate sobriety requirements
Tony D.
We made a motion at the last quarterly, it passed. Hayward and Bobbie were going to craft a referral. Status update at May quarterly, then at the conference call a referral was submitted, motion was made, passed. Then there was a motion to re-consider and then a motion to table until this quarterly. I am taking it off the table.
Carl W.
I made the motion to re-consider because I think it was a real close vote and I didn’t like the way it went down. As far as the referral I would speak in favor of the referral. And I think we did talk about what to do in the smaller areas. Who do not meet the standards of this increase in sobriety time. That’s up to the service body itself. I think that’s what the referral was saying. Cocaine Anonymous are starting to grow up. We are going to be 25 this year. It’s time to stop living in the flying blind period.
Nicholas L.
My experience of suggested clean time is the requirement of a year; you get someone with 9 months who screws up. They go back to the sponsor and back to the guy who screws up and says we told you so, stick to the manual and they get really upset. It might make the people who can’t come up with anyone with 5 years, like the newer areas feel less than. I am still of the opinion that I would like to back it up from 10 years a bit. And the motion to be a delegate is two years. From two to five is very big jump when thinking of percentage increase. We are growing up, but
Page 13
more years doesn’t always mean the best. Might feel that if they were put forward but didn’t have the years, they might decline because they did not have the years and would feel less then. That is part of my disease that I am less than. I would run rather than face the fear. I have been at an awful lot of elections where people don’t quite have the time and they do go for it.
Bruce W.
The 12 steps say they are suggested and it does not really mean take it or leave it. It means this is what we have to do. In my region of the country, and I am only speaking of the areas that I have some familiarity with there. If the change is made and it is suggested that the delegates have five year or more there is going to be a smaller portion of people who will be interested or will participate. What is the problem that this is trying to fix? Is our fellowship afflicted by immature or un- recovered delegates or trustees? I don’t see it as a problem. It is not about the years, it is about the quality. I think it is a solution that is not necessary. I think it complicates the ER more than my own region.
Tony D.
I do not get a vote, but I would certainly vote for this. Maybe my region is off the wall but, when we read suggested we do not read between the lines. If I look up the word in the dictionary it is pretty clear what the word “suggested” means. Nicholas what was the most recent area from the ER to come to the conference?
Nicholas L.
Spain
Tony D.
How long did those people have sober?
Nicholas L.
Year or two years.
Tony D.
And they had no problem electing them even though it says two years for a delegate, they still elected them as delegates. So what would change-nothing? If you have a new area, it is suggested, and nothing would change. A lot of these new areas I have seen especially from the ER have not had the two years, but they have come with enthusiasm and have been welcomed with open arms. For the areas that have a little maturity, I don’t think there is anything wrong with our fellowship growing. I too started well under the 10 year mark. I think our fellowship is growing and we need to grow with it. If there is a new meeting that starts up in a certain part of my region and they do not have the sobriety time of two years for treasurer they just do it. I have seen very immature delegates at the conference, have there been any incidences, no. The new areas have got an outstanding welcome. Also if I am having those issues of not feeling welcome, then I need to do some work-its not CA’s responsibility to coddle me. Again this is a referral that would go to S&B, so they would have their say and then it would go to the floor and they are our bosses.
Bobbie H.
Page 14
I want to make a motion to have the referral reflect that the Trustees have seven to eight years and the delegate three.
Tony D. We did not do this very technically. You are adding a friendly amendment then. Does anyone object to the friendly amendment?
Jay F.
I do not understand it.
Tony D.
I have a problem with the range thing. At the last quarterly when we talked about that somewhere in between was a good comprise, but we decided to have it at 10 and 5 so that S&B might work it a little bit and the conference might work it a little bit.
Bobbie H.
I would like to make a friendly amendment that instead of 10, it says 8 and instead of 5 it says three.
Carl W.
I object. After everything is said, what you guys fail to realize. When you all go to the regional assembly you are the ones who are reading from the manual. You are the ones explaining to the members’, if they don’t meet the time requirement . We are not going to send them anyway, that is the same way we did it in our meeting. I was a GSR at 6 months, even though it was suggested that they have a year. I was a delegate at 18 months also. We are the people who at the assembly’s, we say this is what we meant when we said this at the meeting.
Jay F.
I went back and looked at what the draft of the referral was and there are two parts. The first part is about the sobriety requirements for the delegates, it does say from the manual “it is further suggested that delegates have two years of continuous sobriety” the motion was to change that to five. The other one about the Trustees the word suggested is not in there it says now “a minimum of five years of continuous abstinence from cocaine, ect. at the time of the election to the slate. The term suggested is in one and not the other.
Nicholas L.
I like what Carl said that it is our job to sell it, but they have to buy it. Say some freak of nature and an addict can be a Trustee at four years and you’re saying that is alright. When it says suggested I know it means suggested. I am making a friendly amendment to put suggested in front of the 10 years.
Tony D.
Any objections?
Bruce W.
I will object, I want to be heard now. I think there is a reason why it is not there.
Page 15
Nicholas L.
I think this is big stuff, I think this should go to the floor and I think it will be big discussion.
Bruce W.
The way I learned statutory construction, how you interpreted the language of the law that is passed by somebody, is that words or the absence of words is significant. There is a mandatory requirement for the Trustees and it is suggested for the delegates. I think the solution is to suggest some intermediate compromise.
Trevor S.
There are few people who know what S&B are going to do with this. The room will be split and they won’t go for it if they do not have substantial unanimity. Knowing S&B, give them some leeway-saying please consider increasing the minimum sobriety possibly this and leave it at this. They are going to do all this anyway.
Tony D.
I am not terribly married to this it was just something I have thought about for a long time. As far as S&B, I am not afraid of any committee. If I vote for something here it’s because it is what I feel is right for CA. There are some particular people on S&B that feel that it is their manual. That is not correct; this manual belongs to the fellowship and belongs to the conference. I just think it is time we grow up a little bit.
Bobbie H.
I don’t think that is what Trevor or I were saying. We don’t want S&B to kick it back; we know it is not their manual. I don’t disagree with the growth process. We are just trying to make it attractive so that it works for everybody. It is time to grow up.
Tony D.
Are you making a friendly amendment?
Bobbie H.
4 and 8
Tony D.
Anyone have any objections where delegate would be suggested 4 years and Trustee would be 8 years, without the word suggested?
Bobbie H.
I think it should be fair across if it is suggested it should be for both.
Tony D.
Yes, but someone has already objected to adding that.
Jay F.
You said most of it; we are not here to worry about what S&B does. I care what the conference does. I do not care if it is split and they present it to the floor or they don’t. We can’t act that way
Page 16
and worry about it. This does not mean we can not be smart or we don’t think about response. I think we have an obligation to as leaders in our fellowship as concept 9 talks about. It is a referral to S&B, but it means that our board has come to some reasonable substantial unanimity about it.
Hayward H.
I am feeling 7 and 3. It is a friendly amendment.
Tony D.
OK that is 7 for Trustee and 3 for Delegate. Any objection to that?
Carl W.
I do.
Earl H.
I would like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his eloquent speech on this topic.
Carl W.
Suggested 4 years to Delegate and required 8 for Trustee.
Tony D.
The motion on the floor is to submit our referral with a friendly amendment of a suggested four years of continuous sobriety for delegate and a minimum of eight years continuous sobriety for Trustees.
Motion passes unanimously.
Let’s start at 8:30am tomorrow.
We will adjourn for tonight.
****BREAK FOR NIGHT****
Tony D.
Good morning everybody we are going to resume under old business-outstanding correspondence.
2007. 05.05 Dwayne M Email-received 5-11-07
Tony D.
Jay has posted a draft and then a second draft, everyone have a chance to read that?
Bruce W. – Motion that we accept the second draft.
Bobbie: Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
2007.03.10 Trustee roles on WSC committees
Page 17
Tony D.
Jay also posted a document on this, every one have a chance to read that?
Bobbie H. – Motion to approve draft two
Carl W. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
2006.10.07 Status of Newsgram editor vacancy
Tony D.
Earl posted a document last night, every one have a chance to read that?
Earl H.
Do we need a motion?
Tony D.
No I guess not, we would just ask for something. Any one have any questions or concerns on the document we want Earl to take back to the WSOB?
Earl H.
It is in a current draft and we will turn it into a final. We wanted your input.
Jay F.
Has Cynthia seen it?
Earl H.
I believe so.
Tony D.
We will remove that from the agenda then
2007.04.01 Ultimate authority-Russell
Tony D.
Nicholas posted the document; did every one get a chance to read that? Any changes or motions?
Nicholas L. – Motion to approve the document
Bobbie H. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
2007.05.10 Drug Court attendees
Bobbie H.
I spoke to Kathy Jo and she has worked it out and she can take that week off if we need her to represent the WSO. Now we have to decide if we are going to approve Kathy JO going instead
Page 18
of Patty. In consistency, since Carl has already been and we are looking at someone who has done it before and cause Jay is rolling off. I never went, last year Carl went instead.
Earl H.
Do you feel confidant in having the most experience of all three?
Carl W.
No I would prefer if Jay went and I joined late. I could do that, would be no problem.
Bobbie H. – I make a motion that the attendees be myself, Carl and Kathy Jo.
Earl H. – Second.
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
2007.05.09 Review of the 12 point literature process.
Tony D.
Just a quick note, I think obviously that is going to take a little time and thought. Earl is going to get us some information. They have an agenda item on the office board agenda. He will get that to us. Other than the document we will get from Hayward that is all we can accomplish here.
Bobbie H.
What about this orientation thing from Jay that we were just putting in our notes?
Jay F.
There is no rush to finish it tonight. I would love to get some comments; we do not need it until September.
Tony D.
For the new Trustees, if there is something that you wished you would have known nine months ago that we didn’t cover. Once you have done it for a while it becomes common sense and you forget to talk about it in the orientation.
Jay F.
Maybe we can talk about it at the conference call.
Bobbie H.
Maybe add in there to not go to area meetings unless invited.
Tony D.
Let’s break for lunch and come back later for group inventory.
Bobbie H. – Motion to accept this SR14 document to be submitted in time for the delegate mailings.
Carl W. – Second.
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
Page 19
Jay F. – Motion to adjourn this quarterly
Bobbie H. – Second
Tony D. – Motion passes unanimously.
Page 20
For all attached reports and documents see: 2007-05-22-24-WSBT-Quarterly-Minutes-Final.pdf