CA WORLD SERVICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
RECORD OF ONLINE BUSINESS BETWEEN QUARTERLY MEETINGS
November 2008 – March 2009 FINAL-APPROVED, March 2009
Since this report is a confidential CA document, for members only, it may contain members’ full names. This usage to facilitate communication within the fellowship was approved by the 190 WS Conference. Such confidential use does not, of course, violate in anyway out Tradition on anonymity in public communications media (press, radio, TV, etc).
Page 1 of 24
Monday, November 17, 2008
*MOTION by Willie B.: To approve the transfer of $15,000 from the money market account to the operations account. Limit discussion and debate to two (2) days. Second by: Joy H.
Discussion:
- Willie: There was a motion passed at the 11/13/08 board meeting to transfer 15,000 from money market account to operation account.
This motion is to cover payroll and other outstanding bills that checks were signed.
We have a check from the UK that hasn’t cleared of approx 7,500.
Donations that were being processed for deposit totaling approx 4,000.
So there will be around 12,000 going into operation account, but money is needed now.
I have asked for 7th tradition and contribution program donations totals since last transfer.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Motion passed.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
*MOTION by Nicholas L.: to Move the date of the WSBT quarterly meeting to March 6 – 8, 2008. Second by: Joy H.
Discussion:
FYI) Original date (February 20-22, 2008) created a conflict for one of the trustees work schedule.
Friday, November 21, 2008
*MOTION by Willie B.: Call the vote. Second by Kim S.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Main motion passed.
Friday, November 28, 2008
*MOTION by Willie B.: to approve written response to referral 5858 as edited/corrected.
Second by Richard S. No discussion.
Thank you very much for your referral regarding the process of electing members to service positions. We appreciate your thoughtful input.
Referral #5858 – Refer to WSBT
This is a 2-part referral – (1) that Cocai ne Anonymous adopt AA’s Third Legacy policy of when in case of a tied vote regarding voting someone into a service position (i.e.…Trustee) that the 2 names are put into a hat to ensure we have someone to fill that position and (2) that the
Page 2 of 24
voting process regarding the voting in of Trustees is done with anyone who wants to be present to witness this process, making it totally transparent and not behind closed doors.
The World Service Board of Trustees recently addressed similar concerns/questions at the Trustee Quarterly meeting this past August. Our meaningful, reflective, and constructive debate regarding this topic resulted in two motions that we put forth to the members attending the World Service Conference also in August. Both motions passed.
*Motion to amend #2 of the Trustee Election Process, found on page 43 of the 2008 World Service Manual:
- All voting will be done by secret ballot. TEC members have the choice of either voting for one candidate or voting for none of the candidates. Abstentions are counted as votes for none of the candidates will not be considered a vote, and the election will be affirmed by two thirds of the voting members.
*Motion to amend #9 of Trustee Election Process, found on page 43 of the 2008 World Service Manual:
9) FOURTH BALLOT: If no candidate receives 2/3 vote on the first three (3) ballots, the top vote receiving candidate is put up for 2/3 ratification vote. For ratification purposes, TEC members have the choice of either voting “yes” or “ no”; abstentions are counted as “no” votes will not be considered a vote . If that candidate receives the required 2/3 vote of voting members, then that person is the elected Trustee. If not, the same procedure will take place with the 2nd top vote-receiving candidate
In the both motions, we address that those choosing to abstain will not be considered a vote. In essence, if there are 18 voting members on the TEC, but only 12 actually cast a vote (non-abstentions), then the candidate will only need 8 of the 12votes to be elected trustee.
During our crafting of the motions, the WSBT firmly took into consideration Concept 9, which addresses these concerns… “ Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them are at tall levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety” Therefore, trust the process and the consciousness of the group, which is God’s will. The Board also took into consideration and equally understands the members concerns if a Regional Trustee is not elected, and collectively feels that with this new verbiage no Region shall go without a trusted servant to assist members with anything that affects C.A. as a whole either internally of externally. We are concerned with all things that may endanger the existence of our Fellowship or limit our growth. Thus addressing the voting method, which continues to evolve, will hopefully insure growth and consistency of the fellowship.
Additionally, the Board considered that we are guided Concept 10, “ Every service responsibility should be matched by an equal service authority — t he scope of such authority to be always well defined whether by tradition, by resolution, by specific job description or by appropriate charters and bylaws”, which gives us a further understanding of the process and how the importance of how we elect our leaders with those who have been entrusted with that service responsibility. Those members of the fellowship that serve to the TEC are elected by their
Page 3 of 24
Areas, and or Regions. They represent their fellowship and are aware of the great task at hand. With the presents of a higher power, those on the TEC are guided to humbly consider the best interest of C.A., and those it will serve. The Trustees that are seated on the TEC also embrace the spiritual essence of the experience. The most transparent element of the experience is that a higher power is acting on behalf of C.A. Electing trusted servants to positions of service should not be taken lightly, and should be done with much thought and respect.
Overall this is the suggested thought process of all service ship. All of us that are actively working Step 12, “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs” should trust the process, and always place principles before personalities.
Thank you again for your referral. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel to contact us again.
Servicing with love and service
World Service Board of Trustees
Motion passed.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Richard S.: I request a 5th concept statement on the motion for referral 5858.
The referral 5858 specifically requests the 3rd legacy from the A.A. service manual which calls for the “God hat” (I found AA to call it “The Hat” to be adopted (my recollection is that this was previously in our voting procedure and was removed); While the voting procedure changes in this response address the 2nd part of the referral and should always allow for a successful candidate to be chosen, it does not address the 1st part of the referral 5858.
Tradition 2 states: For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
I believe this voting procedure specifically is an area where we say “trust the process” but we have removed trust from this part of our process, I believe the Third Legacy procedure is not complete if it is not whole.
Concept 9 states: 9. Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them are at all levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety.
“The Hat” in the AA World Service Manual has the 5th ballot as going to the hat; CA’s procedures stop at a 4th ballot and has left positions vacant.
I would like to see this referral 5858 have a response that also addresses the first of the two specific requests.
Documents referenced:
CA World Service Manual 2008 (reflecting CAWSC 2007)
AA World Service Manual 2008 – 2009 page S21 Thank you all for your patience. ILAS -Richard
Thursday, December 04, 2008
*MOTION by Joy H.: to reconsider the response to referral 5858. Second by Richard S. Discussion:
Page 4 of 24
Joy: As Richard pointed out the first part of the Referral was not addressed. So I believe we need to make sure our responses cover the entire.
Willie: I am against the motion to reconsider: I do believe the response addresses the referral thoroughly and is sufficient.
Hayward: I’m going to have to call Richard’s second on this motion out of order. (Richard voted against the original motion). So in order to proceed with this motion to reconsider the response to referral 5858 I will need someone else to second the motion.
Hayward: Looks like the motion to reconsider the response to referral 5858 fails for lack of a second.
Motion failed.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
*MOTION by Willie B.: to approve the written responses to referrals 5794, and 5821.
Second by Lawrence M.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Joy H.: I make a friendly amendment to change the paragraph below.
We understand the need to be inclusive and have heard many concerns about the name, but eventually, overtime, we come to understand it is not the drug or drink that is our real problem; it is the disease of addiction. (and alcoholism). We will continue to look at additional way(s) to attract the addict who still suffers without changing the name that it has had for 25 years.(over 26 years).
Willie B.: accepted
Lawrence M.: accepted
Hayward H.: If there are no objections to these changes I will consider them accepted by unanimous consent.
Thank you for your referrals regarding your thoughts on changing the name of Cocaine Anonymous.
Referral 5794 & 5821
Change the name of Cocaine Anonymous (CA) to Cocaine and All Other Mind Altering Substances, but still use the letters C.A. To be known as Cocaine and all mind altering substance (CA).
First and foremost at this time the WSBT is not considering the changing of our fellowships name. It would be a monumental task. It is important that we understand the procedures that it would take to change the name; it would take the written permission of three quarters of all the groups in Cocaine Anonymous. There are trademark issues, and incorporation laws as well to take into consideration. Not to mention we currently have thousands of our publication: “Hope, Faith and Courage: Stories from the Fellowship of Cocaine Anonymous” circulating the World. This would not only be a monumental task, but a rather costly one as well.
We trust that currently Cocaine Anonymous is already expressing a singleness of purpose not a singleness of substance through the wording of our First Step, “We admitted we were powerless over cocaine and all mind-altering substances – that our lives had become unmanageable”, as
Page 5 of 24
well as our Third Tradition, “ The only requirement for C.A. membership is a desire to stop using cocaine and all other mind-altering substances”. The Conference also has approved a pamphlet entitled “And All Mind Altering Substances” which s tates the following…
“SO WHAT DOES “AND ALL OTHER MIND-ALTERING SUBSTANC ES” MEAN? It means that it is the collective experience of the members of Cocaine Anonymous that addiction is a problem not limited to any one substance. It means that C.A.’s Twelve Steps are not drug-specific, and that Cocaine Anonymous is not a drug-specific fellowship. It means that it doesn’t matter to us if you drank or what type of drugs you used; if you have a desire to stop, you are welcome here”!
We understand the need to be inclusive and have heard many concerns about the name, but eventually, overtime, we come to understand it is not the drug or drink that is our real problem; it is the disease of addiction and alcoholism. We will continue to look at additional ways to attract the addict who still suffers without changing the name that it has had for over 26 years. We will continue to share the program of recovery through the process of working the Twelve Steps. It is our belief that the name “Cocaine Anonymous” has br ought inclusive values to its fellowship and members and will continue to strive for single of purpose not substance.
Maybe it can be summed up like this:
“Cocaine Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem, and help others recover from their addiction”.
Serving with Love and Tolerance,
World Service Board of Trustees
Motion passed.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
*EMERGENCY MOTION by Kim S.: to approve the August 2008 WSBT minutes, and the August 2008 Board to Board minutes, with limited discussion and voting to take place within 24 hours of this date, 12/11/2008, as to have said items available for the December 2008 mailing.
(Please note that Online business from May to August (June and July motions) were included in previously approved Online minutes.)
Second by Joy H.
No discussion
Friday, December 12, 2008
Motion passed
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Hayward H. – WSBT Chair, called for an Emergency Conference Call for December 14, 2008, 10am PST
Agenda
- WSO positions
Page 6 of 24
- AA permissions
- WSBT minutes status
- Response time for discussion and voting online
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
*MOTION by Randy G.: to approve the attached response to the question of earmarking.
Second by Joy H.
Revisions per Hayward, accepted by board.
From: Cynthia C.
Subject: Earmarking
To: wsbt@ca.org
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:04 PM
Dear members of the WSBT:
I’m writing to ask the Board to give its opinion on the issue of earmarking. Based on the discussion at the 2008 Conference, it’s clear to me that many members of the fellowship are confused as to what just earmarking is, and I think having something in writing from the WSBT would be very helpful.
The term earmarking first came to my attention at the May 2004 quarterly, when we had to make the difficult decision to return a very generous donation from CAUK because the funds were earmarked for trustee travel in Europe. The minutes from that meeting contain detailed discussion, but they don’t specifically address some of the issues that came up at the last Conference. In your response to this letter, I would appreciate it if you could address the following:
How would you define earmarking? Can earmarking happen at the group, district, area and regional levels, or is the concept specific to World Services?
Does the current WSBT believe earmarking is inappropriate? If so, please include references to specific Concepts and/or Traditions to support your position.
Does use of the H&I can constitute earmarking? What about funds raised at events like Celebrate Around the World? Is there a way to make use of these proven fund-raising methods without earmarking those funds to a specific purpose, in order to avoid local fellowships sitting on large quantities of money which could be used to finance other needs?
I realize you’re about to head into a quarterly meeting, and that it may take more than 30 days to reach a group conscience on your response. I’m fine with a longer timetable; my hope is to have something out to the fellowship well in advance of the next Conference, perhaps as an article for the NewsGram in addition to your minutes. Thank you for your time and attention to this issue —
Page 7 of 24
Dear Cynthia,
A quick glance at the definition of earmarking – “t o reserve or set aside for a particular purpose” (www.dictionary.com) – holds no real threat in and of itself. A gener al fund of monies in any organization with consistent monthly bills, payroll, anticipated budget expenditures covering a variety of planned expenses, etc. make earmarking, by this definition, part of its responsible fiscal behavior and success.
A second and more specific definition of earmarking – “funds or capital that are set aside to pay for a specific project or event – – – especially when used in certain congressional settings” (www.investopedia.com) – is possibly more dangerous in its application t o this question. A congressional act of passing a bill that included earmarked funds to be received from its mandated revenue sources and setting aside those funds to be spent a certain way may be standard practice and acceptable in government scenarios. But in CA, this practice would not be acceptable for a number of reasons.
Even though CAWS does not pass “legislation”, CAWS cannot mandate that our groups, districts, areas and at the regional levels raise funds, send them to CAWS and earmark them for any CAWS identified purpose. Our tradition number two “- – – – leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern” would not let CAWS act in that manner. Therefore any such effort by CAWS to do so would violate a tradition and be discouraged.
The autonomous nature of our groups’ structure would not permit CAWS mandating that our groups, districts, areas and at the regional levels raise funds, send them to CAWS and earmark them for any CAWS identified purpose. Our tradition number four “each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or CA as a whole” would not let CAWS act in that manner. Therefore any such effort by CAWS to do so would violate a tradition and be discouraged.
The obvious nature of tradition seven “- – declining outside contributions” would not allow CAWS to accept any individual gifts of magnitude from a member of our fellowship or any funds at all from outside our fellowship to be earmarked for any CAWS identified purpose. Therefore any such effort by CAWS to do so would violate a tradition and be discouraged.
In a trustee response in 2004 regarding its return of funds to the UK that were earmarked for European Development, the letter read – “ – – After careful review, discussion and prayer, however, the World Service Board of Trustees has decided that the 1000 pound contribution of the funds by the UK Area which was earmarked for European development cannot be accepted. We, unfortunately, cannot find any way to have the funds taken into the general accounts of the WSO and then segregated for this specified use. The reasoning is many-fold: 1) if the WSO were to accept these funds as earmarked, then other individuals, groups, districts, or areas might start segregating or earmarking their respective donations – we would be hard pressed to draw a line of where to allow earmarking or not; 2) if earmarked funds were to be accepted, this practice might then lead to diminished un-earmarked funds to the point that there would not be sufficient general un-earmarked funds within which to operate; 3) areas or districts which were perhaps better off would be inclined to send even more earmarked funds in under the guise perhaps of
Page 8 of 24
attempting to gain “clout” in the affairs of the fellowship.; and 4) there is and might remain some uncertainty of what constituted “European development or Trustee travel” and possible disagreement of how and when the funds might be able to be withdrawn and by whom – this uncertainty invites continued controversy at many levels. – – “
So if defining what earmarking IS when it comes to CAWS does not clear up the matter at question, it is also important to define what it IS NOT.
Responsible guidance and suggestions are NOT earmarking under any definition. When it comes to issues regarding the financial behavior of any groups, districts, areas and at the regional levels as to their fundraising efforts and fiscal responsibility, CAWS can only give guidance and suggestions (i.e. *1 – that excess funds at any lev el should be distributed under a 70/30 Plan, *2
– that Celebrate Around the World should be a world wide annual event to assist in funding delegate participation at the Conference, *3 – that funds collected from the optional use of an H&I Can should be spent according to the intent of its donation, *4 – that groups, districts, areas and at the regional levels should understand the application of a Prudent Reserve and move their excess funds forward, etc.). These are not issues of earmarking, but issues of responsible guidance and experienced suggestions approved by the World Service Conference, being careful to consider the group conscience of the fellowship and establishing committees to serve both. The CAWS’ responsibility for such committees and for the guidance these provide is manifested through tradition nine “- – – may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve”.
In a trustee response in 2007 regarding fundraising, the letter read – “- – Creative methods to generate seventh tradition are acceptable to operate our service boards and committees. It is necessary to raise funds that allow areas to create budgets which address the needs of H&I and delegate travel requirements; as well as all other Area responsibilities. It has no conflict with Tradition 7 as CA is fully self-supporting through our own contributions.
In reference to Tradition nine, areas can create committees such as H&I, Unity and other committees within their structure to help carry the message to the addict who still suffers and use this as another avenue to promote unity and growth in the local fellowship. Each Area may choose to budget for their standing committees to perform their duties. The idea of an H&I can is another choice that an Area/District or Group may choose to utilize in their local venue for their members to donate in order to raise funds. – – “
We hope this answers your question(s) regarding the definition of earmarking as it relates to CA.
ILAS, 2008 World Service Board of Trustees
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Motion Passed.
Page 9 of 24
Monday, December 22, 2008
*MOTION by Joy H.: to approve the response to Referral 5817. Second by Richard S.
Referral #5817 – Refer from committee to the WSBT.
Our Area bylaws conflict with 12 Concepts & 12 Traditions. How can we as an Area conduct our business without violating 12 Concepts & 12 Traditions if our Area service Board does not want to recognize this problem and continuously state that our bylaws supersede the Concepts & Traditions. Some of us understand that any Area bylaws should be formed under Concepts & Traditions and bylaws. Should not conflict with such. Our ASB goes against this.
Response:
The World Service Board of Trustees appreciates and understands bringing concerns regarding a situation involving the 12 Concepts, 12 Traditions and an Area’s approach at handling their business. At this time the WSBT does not have an opinion on the matter referenced and does not feel that we can have a position regarding this referral. We can have the Regional Trustee contact this Area, and assist with educating them regarding the potential conflict, and further, help them to resolve the situation with an informed group conscience. We will forward your thoughts to the Regional Trustee.
(POST RESPONSE) It is our understanding that the Area Bylaws are being restructured to have no conflict with the 12 Concepts and/or 12 Tradition.
Discussion
Randy: As this has been seconded, I am concerned that our response would say that “At this time the WSBT does not have an opinion on the matter referenced and does not feel that we can have a position regarding this referral.”
Our own manual recognizes the primary function of this board to:
- To deal with matters, both inside and outside the Fellowship, which affect the continuation of C.A. growth.
- The guardians of the Twelve Traditions.
The bylaws referenced, until changed, are not in line with the traditions and concepts adopted by this fellowship. Where would a member bring this situation for help if not this board?
I understand there is an effort to resolve this and I wouldn’t support any action that would get in the way of that effort, but I do believe we have an opinion. Response below with strike-out of text to be deleted. I like that it was written not to be punitive and recognizes the efforts toward resolution – if revised.
“The World Service Board of Trustees appreciates an d understands bringing concerns regarding a situation involving the 12 Concepts, 12 Traditions and an Area’s approach at handling their business. At this time the WSBT does not have an opinion on the matter referenced and does not feel that we can have a position regarding this referral. We can have the Regional Trustee contact this Area, and assist with educating them regarding the potential conflict, and further, help them to resolve the situation with an informed group conscience. We will forward your thoughts to the Regional Trustee”.
Page 10 of 24
(POST RESPONSE) It is our understanding that the Area Bylaws are being restructured to have no conflict with the 12 Concepts and/or 12 Tradition.)
Willie: I would like to say that this referral is vague and does not cite specific violations and any response should be to ask for more specifics. We are responding not knowing whether the area bylaws are in violation or not.
Hayward: I think that the secretary should provide the subcommittee the contact information of the referral maker and they get more clarity to address what Willie stated below.
Lawrence: I think Randy and Willie have some good points, go along with you suggestion Hayward.
Joy: Talked with the maker of the referral this morning and she will send us per Willie’s request the information spelled out.
Randy: Hi all – the referral itself is vague but the issue is not new. Joy told us at the quarterly that there were issues and suggested we let them try to work it out. I agree with that but don’t think we should make it sound as though we aren’t aware of what “maker” is asking about. The bylaws allow the Vice-Chair to appoint Committee Chair positions – this is the main issue at hand. The maker of the referral knows that at least two trustees are aware of this and we need to just respond to her accordingly
December 29, 2008 – Hayward requested additional in formation from the maker of the motion to help with the decision process. Hayward calls for table of motion until further info comes in. Hayward indicated that the maker of the motion has responded, and will get additional information to the board after the first of the year.
Monday, December 29, 2008
*MOTION by Willie B.: to table approval of the response to referral #5817 until maker of the referral provides the board with update/additional information. Second by Lawrence M.
Motion to table passes.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Due to a work conflict of a member of the WSBT…
Hayward: It looks like the conference call should be rescheduled to February 1st 2009 @
10:00AM PST.
Friday, January 9, 2009
*Motion by Willie B.: To transfer budgeted line item 500558 bookkeeping costs (program services) to Admin. 600658.
Second by Lawrence M.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
As there was no discussion, Hayward called the vote.
Motion passed.
Page 11 of 24
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
*Motion by Willie B.: to approve the purchase of 4 desktop computer systems and 1 laptop for the office, not to exceed $3300, and transfer $8100 from savings to operations to pay final payment of French translation of HFC II $4800 plus the $3300. Second by Joy H.
Discussion
Richard S.: I would like to know the discussion and or information provided for the expenditure considering we (WSBT) were told in October that we may want to consider not meeting in L.A. for our quarterly due to available finances, what changed for this expenditure?
Willie B.: Richard, if I understand you correctly, we were not told that we may not have funds available for our quarterly, but we may want to consider not having one so we may have the trustee retreat Patty has been talking about and using those funds for that. Any conversations that has transpired have been with the WSBT and in our quarterly we (WSBT) decided to have our February quarterly, because we didn’t feel a retreat would happen and most felt that combining something with the convention may be a better idea (at least that is what I took away) but there has been no other conversations either individually or with the WSOB, so I am not clear about this question and what it has to do with this motion.
Richard S.: The retreat funds are a separate item (financial event line item) approved by finance and WSC 08, from what I was told by Patty, I will follow up and check on this.
I referenced the WSBT quarterly funding discussion based on my recollection of funds / expenditures being discussed in the October session of Patty’s meeting with us, I was specifically asking for information that was or was not discussed about expenditures for this new office equipment at the office board meetings.
I would have to speak against this motion based on the expenditure for 4 computers and 1 laptop totaling 5 computers when there are only 4 office workers using older computers and no information, estimates or accountability on the labor expenditure for changing out any older computers, for any new installations with networking, application installations and transfer of email and data files necessary.
>Willie B.: All information was put to the TNC and I posted some information, there was no other discussion, and there are 5 stations work workers Tony, Yvette, Susan, Taffy and Patty and I believe Patty will utilize the laptop so she may also use it on the road, at home since she is only part time and not have to tie up her personal computer, right now she is using her own.
Richard S.: My position has not changed from speaking against the motion.
Continued discussion: Responding with information;
CAWSO shipping – Tony’s workstation is new, approximately 2 months old and all the hardware was provided from Neopost under a current contract.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Willie B.: Call for the vote Second by Joy H.
Hayward H.: Let’s make this easy on us all. If nobody objects to calling for the vote please vote now on the main motion.
Randy G.: Before I vote on the motion as I understand it –
Did we get any information or feedback as to Tony’s current machine’s age? I thought there was an email identifying his being fairly new.
Page 12 of 24
And did we get feedback as to whether there will there be additional charges involved with these machines (labor and/or software) that are not part of this request?
I just want to make sure I didn’t miss the answers to those concerns prior to voting.
Hayward H.: This was taken from Richard’s earlier email:
CAWSO shipping – Tony’s workstation is new, approximately 2 months old and all the hardware was provided from Neopost under a current contract.
The system that Tony presently uses should only be used for shipping purposes and is not a cawso asset.
I believe that is why we are purchasing a system for the shipping department. the total cost for all the systems will not exceed $3300.00. the office will install, network and has all software’s for these systems.
Sorry not to have brought this up earlier.
Willie B.: Hayward I just left the office and the set up is as follows Patty will get the laptop, with docking station, Taffy will get a desktop
Yvette will get a desktop, Susan will get a desktop and the 4th desktop will be placed in Taffy’s office to replace the one that is being used by the bookkeeper and should be used at some point replacing the server. Tony will not need a system. >Hayward H.: Thanks for the follow-up.
Richard S.: With the information provided that the computer and software installations including networking and data transfers would not be adding any costs out of the range of normal operating expenses, I was able to change my position.
Thank you Hayward and Willie for your added efforts in providing the specifics.
Main motion passed.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
*Motion by Joy H.: motion to approve the response to a CA member with concerns regarding the Antelope Valley District.
Second by Willie B.
Subject: Message from the Trustee Feedback Form
To: WSBT@ca.org, webservant@ca.org, cawso@ca.org
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:25 PM
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by () on Sunday, January 11, 2009 at 20:25:04
Name: Gail T.
City: Lancaster
StateProvince: California
AreaRegion: Pacific/Joy
Subject: Marathon and treasurer and activities chair
Page 13 of 24
Message: We are having elections on Jan. 17, 2009 at 10:30am at 44911 Yucca Lancaster. The chair Steve F. and Co-Chair Robert S. keep changing the time and they are trying to appoint people when we have enough will member to fill these position. We want the election to go according to the bylaws set forth from San Fernando Valley CA. Steve is trying to run a dictatorship and we aren’t having it. If he was in the process he wouldn’t be trying to run shit he is not in the service anymore and we are not his army troops. Sober living people need to be trained prior to taking on these events. We have enough money issues as it is. We need your help asap. Please come. Your presents would be appreciated.
Response:
Gail,
Thank you for your concerns regarding the Antelope Valley District.
First Issue: Time of the District Meeting – It was suggested by the Pacific South Regional Trustee to change the time of the district meeting as it was running over into the time of the Noon CA meeting. So, the new chair of the district followed that advise and moved the meeting time to 9:30 AM.
Second Issue: Appointment of members to positions – The Pacific South Regional Trustee attended the Antelope Valley District meeting and no member was appointed to any position. Elections were held and there was a group conscience on each position that needed to be filled.
I hope this answers any concerns you have regarding the elections of service positions at the Antelope Valley District Meeting of CA.
ILAS,
WSBT
Discussion
Hayward H.: I didn’t see any references to their bylaws. Is the meeting time revised in the bylaws now? Do their bylaws state that all committee positions are done by election or appointment by the vice chair? I feel in the response these things should be specifically referenced.
Joy H.: They did not have by-laws until the meeting on the 17th of January. They adopted the WIECA’s by-laws. Meeting time was voted on at the last district meeting and was announced over and over again at all their CA meetings. All positions are through elections only, no appointments. Actually if you read the email all Gail wanted was for me to be there. Thought a written response was appropriate.
Hayward H.: Thanks for the update, I’m good with it.
Randy G.: With Joy’s response to Hayward’s question and the recognition that a response from the trustees is actually voluntary, I would like to call the vote please. Second by Lawrence M. Hayward H.: Please let’s make it easy on us and now vote on the main motion.
Main Motion passed
Page 14 of 24
Thursday, January 22, 2009
*Motion by Randy G.: to approve the written response to “children at meetings.” Second by Willie B.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 at 01:10:47
Name: Kate B.
City: Denver
StateProvince: Co
AreaRegion: SW
Subject: children at meetings
Message: We’ve started a closed CA meeting (the 1st, so far as I know, in Colorado). We meet as a closed meeting 3 nights a month, and an open meeting 1 night a month. Needless to say, there is controversy! The question has come up whether or not to have children attend even the open meeting. While we are concerned that this could exclude members w/ small children who need help at that time and have repercussions affecting CA as a whole, we are also considering the needs of ALL addicts at that meeting who also desire to have clear access to the message given. Some of our members are developing their parenting skills and haven’t had much experience helping their children behave appropriately so there is sometimes a lot of disruption. Heck, some of us still cannot behave appropriately! We have a system in place to ensure no newcomer w/ a child is turned away, they can go to a different room in the facility w/ 1 or 2 gender appropriate home group members to talk 1:1 (12th step). Most of us individually would watch a child or meet 1:1 with a CA member (even if they’d been around a while) in a different room at the facility if a parent notified us of their need to talk with an addict, and really could not get any child care. I believe God speaks in our Group conscience, but I’ve also experienced being blocked by self and not know it! As it stands now, we are asking that no small children be in attendance at any of our group’s meetings. There are 3 open meetings w/in 3 miles of our location within 2 hours of our meeting time. That was a consideration in our discussion.
What is your collective experience w/this issue, and do you believe this is harmful to the fellowship as a whole?
WSBT Response:
Thank you for your concern regarding children attending CA meetings (open and/or closed). Though the CA World Service Manual does not address the subject directly, there is some guidance to assist us in responding.
Tradition 4 – Each group should be autonomous, except in matters affecting other groups or C.A. as a whole.
There are two types of meetings defined in the CAWSM – open and closed.
MEETING/GROUP TYPES:
OPEN: Attended by C.A. members, their families, friends and other interested people.
CLOSED: Attendance is limited to C.A. members only.
Page 15 of 24
By definition – Open meetings can be attended by all and only group specific restrictions would keep anyone of any age or gender from attending. Closed meetings are inherently restricted to members and only children identifying as members should be attending closed meetings.
Most important is the application of the traditions relating to the group’s decision.
Every CA group has the ability to establish the format and general structure of their meeting. This has produced the variety of meetings that have been proven to enhance our fellowship’s recovery – not detract from it. From gender specif ic “stag” meetings, open/closed meetings, etc., groups have established attendance guidelines according to their own group conscious.
Tradition 1 – Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon C.A. unity.
Tradition 2 – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
Tradition 3 – The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using cocaine and all other mind altering substances.
Tradition 5 – Each group has but one primary purpose — to carry its message to the addict who still suffers.
These traditions also play an important part in any group’s decision regarding format and structure. In cases when groups are considering attendance related restrictions, it would be important that the group consider 1, 2, 3 and 5 in their decision. Examples of considerations might be – If meetings without such restrictions ar e nearby and timely – If care is taken to welcome all and direct them to the appropriate location or provide supplementary support – etc. When the group takes these considerations into account, their group conscious is then informed and considered appropriate.
Specifically addressing children attendance, it would be important to also recognize any facility mandated specific rules (some treatment centers, churches, etc have their own rules that need to be followed regarding children).
The fellowship of CA continues to grow and many members with children – well behaved or not – deserve the opportunity to hear and participate i n our message of hope. If a group keeps this in mind in their decision and decides that their format provides a positive atmosphere for our message, then a group can establish preferences for attendance.
ILAS –
WSBT
Discussion
Robert L.: Good Job, I believe it covers all the bases.
Seeing no one else is discussing it. I would like to call the question.
Hayward H.: Is there a second Second by Richard S.
Page 16 of 24
Hayward H.: If nobody objects or has any other concerns please vote on the main motion at this time.
Main Motion passed.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
*Motion by Nicholas L.: to approve written response to correspondence from Russell S.
Second by Lawrence M.
Response:
Dear Russell,
Thank you for bringing your concerns to The WSBT regarding the matter of donations and fund raising: the questions you pose challenge us in many ways.
Russell writes:
Can I ask that you (WSBT) can give me a response to these questions….
In what seems to be a growing trend for CA ‘fundraising’ events how can we accept entrance monies from friends and/or family members who are not members. If the entrance fee is including a ‘profit’ to raise monies for CA any non member would therefore be contributing to our finances therefore we would be accepting outside contributions.
(1)At conventions where registration fees help us put on the event (and raise monies) how do we deal with friend and/or family members who wish to attend? Do non addicts register at CAWS conventions, do we take their money.
(2) If an interested Doctor/Priest attended and went to registration would/should/do we take their money. (CAUK PI invites guests from the community and do not charge).
Whilst the number of non members attending events may be minimal there are monies coming into CA through such “donations” (?).
(3) Can the WSBT please clarify accepting monies from non members at CA fundraising events,
(4) Can the WSBT consider putting a statement of sorts (for guidance) clarifying accepting monies from friends/family.
As you see from the above, several questions, the same question.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the above, I await your response. ILAS, Russell
In response to these questions we refer to Tradition 7 in all its inherent weight and experience.
Tradition 7 states – Every CA group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.
Page 17 of 24
The WSBT trusts that we all agree about the meaning of this tradition, and yet we continue to see the misunderstanding of this tradition by some members of our fellowship. We also trust that each of us makes informed decisions regarding potential contributions, or donations and that we act in the best interest of the group, district, or area. Those decisions can only be reached through education. Each of us must remain diligent to the potential dangers that can present themselves when soliciting or accepting gifts and donations from outside sources.
Questions 1 and 3:
(1)At conventions where registration fees help us put on the event (and raise monies) how do we deal with friend and/or family members who wish to attend? Do non addicts register at CAWS conventions, do we take their money.
(3) Can the WSBT please clarify accepting monies from non members at CA fundraising events,
With regard to your question about entrance fees to a CA event; we do not regard this as a meeting nor do we positively vet people who buy our services. Entrance fees fall under the heading of Services or Goods. Referring to the AA guidelines…and their wisdom.
AA Guide lines from GSO
“Self-support. Based on A.A. experience shared with G.S.O., committees have found it best not to solicit for outside donations of any kind. This is in keeping with our A.A. principle of self-support. (This does not pertain to ordinary business negotiations with the facility where the event is taking place.)”
Non addicts may register with Co-Anon if they wish to attend the convention; it is suggested that Co-Anon refer to the CA World Service Convention Committee Guidelines regarding the options in handling their money. We (CA) do not request a statement of membership when booking for CAWS at this time.
Question 2:
(2) If an interested Doctor/Priest attended and went to registration would/should/do we take their money. (CAUK PI invites guests from the community and do not charge).
If a professional (priest, police or doctor) was interested in attending an event, we would direct them to the Public Information Committee. There they would be provided with information, pamphlets, and an opportunity to ask questions regarding the purpose of our fellowship. They would not be required to register for such an event.
Question 4:
(4) Can the WSBT consider putting a statement of sorts (for guidance) clarifying accepting monies from friends/family.
Again we refer to Tradition 7, we are fully self-supporting, Cocaine Anonymous does not accept donations and or contributions from outside sources, ie: friends or family. We feel this is statement enough.
Page 18 of 24
We hope this response answers your questions and clarifies our policy regarding donations, contributions, and services/goods. Should you have further concerns do not hesitate to contact us again.
In service WSBT
Motion passed.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
- Motion by Nicholas L.: to approve response to Russell regarding CAWS 2012 Convention correspondence. Second by Lawrence M.
Friendly amendment by Kim S. –housekeeping and mino r changes. Accepted by Nicholas L. and Lawrence M.
Russell writes:
Dear WSBT
I would like to raise an issue in which I believe the WSBT and/or members of it are misguided and in effect are misleading the membership within the CAUK Area. This is in regard to the submission of resume’s for 2012 World Service Convention Chairperson.
On our successful bid to host the 2012 convention we (CAUK Delegates) went through the task of informing our membership and sending out guidelines and resume forms for positions on the 2012 committee. We took time at our ASC to explain the process and spoke to DSR’s/District Chairs/GSR’s at length to encourage participation in this process. Emails on various service loops were sent out on a regular basis, phone calls were made to ‘elder statesman’ and ‘service junkies’ asking for their help and also encouraging them to consider submitting resumes. We gave ourselves sufficient time to allow the transfer of information. The conclusion of our endeavors was a modest amount of resumes, these resumes shone with our memberships experience and attributes.
We all did our jobs, we took the actions, and the outcome was (I believe) Gods will…..
2 members had asked to be considered for the position of Chairperson and as clearly stated in the WSCCC Guidelines our ASC went through the process of ratifying the resume’s. 1 was ratified and 1 was declined. I strongly believe that the process of Area ratification is one of importance (hence it’s in the guidelines); the reasons for not ratifying one of the resumes were simple although difficult to voice. The ASC were given the opportunity to speak about submissions and then voted, we did what was asked of us as best we could, we all did our jobs, we took the actions, the outcome was (I believe) Gods will. There was no ‘agenda’ to interfere with the selection process or actually choose the 2012 Chair, that wasn’t our job; our job was to ratify resumes for chair.
The CAUK Delegates met and discussed at length as to whether to re-circulate the resumes for the position of Chairperson and at that point (in my opinion) an attitude of ‘how will this make us look’ began and what I believe to be unhealthy (yet well intentioned??) interference
Page 19 of 24
began from other areas of our world services. The Chair of WSCCC contacted us (as I’d have expected and wanted) to ask if we could do more to raise awareness for the positions and we explained our efforts, he concluded we had done all we could. Our Regional Trustee (with the WSBT prompt???) began to get involved and ask us to revisit the resume submission process, and at that point prompts to ‘adjust the lights, the ballet, the scenery…’ began. Members who had no desire to serve as 2012 Chair started to consider filling out resumes just to fill the quota…….that is (in my opinion) wrong and a blatant disrespect for the integrity of this selection process. This ‘interference’ is still going on, with the use of misinformation and fear to push members (selected members) to try and submit a resume. I am greatly concerned when a member of WSBT states that conference ‘may’ consider reviewing our ability to host 2012 because we don’t have enough resumes, that is manipulation by feeding fears to change outcome…..if conference were to act like that I’m sure it would again be Gods will. I ask that the WSBT members stop this unhealthy and misleading ‘guidance’.
CAUK is what it is, its as large and as strong as it is, what was given is what we have….anything more would be a dishonest representation of CAUK. Do I believe we can host a kick arse World Convention….absolutely.
CAUK want to host 2012, that’s why we submitted a bid….an honest bid, that’s why we collected resumes from members wanting to serve, that’s why we took the process of ratification seriously, and that’s all we can do at this moment.
I ask that the WSBT (and members within it….former and present) at this point ‘LET GO and LET GOD’
I hope the love and respect I have for CA is clear and concise, the respect I have for all our services including the WSBT is great. I have gratitude for our abilities as a fellowship. I would like this posted to all members of WSBT. Responses are welcomed.
In loving service
Russell
Response:
Dear Russell,
The WSBT greatly appreciates you bringing your present concerns to us at this time. The matter of choosing appropriate leaders especially of a World Service Convention Committee is of great importance to The Board and the Fellowship as a whole and should not be treated lightly. By following the suggested guidelines (compiled from past experience) we can hope to arrive at a point where the best candidate for the position is elected.
In answering your questions we shall reference the Trustee Guidelines, The Traditions and Concepts of Cocaine Anonymous and our Charter bringing our collective experience to the table.
In answer to “we have done our job please don’t interfere”, “let go let God”.
Referencing Concept 2:
Page 20 of 24
When, in 1955, the AA groups confirmed the permanent charter for their General Service Conference, they thereby delegated to the Conference complete authority for the active maintenance of our world, services and thereby made the Conference–excepting for any change in the Twelve Traditions or in Article 12 of the Conference Charter–the actual voice and the effective conscience for our whole Society.
Exactly as Doctor Bob and I earlier had found it necessary to delegate a large part of our active authority to the Trustees, so have the AA groups since found it necessary to delegate these same powers to their General Service Conference. The final say–the ultimate sanction in matters of large importance–has not been given to the Trustees alone. By the Conference Charter, confirmed at St. Louis, this authority is now delegated to the AA groups and thence to their Conference, a body which is a representative cross section of our entire Fellowship.
Referencing Concept 9:
Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them, are at all levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety. The primary world service leadership once exercised by the founders of AA must necessarily be assumed by the Trustees of the General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous.
The Conference debated long and hard on this matter and concluded that 3 nominations minimum 2 were required for the service position of Chair of the WSCC. Conference has spoken and as the Board is the effective voice of the Conference throughout the year it is our duty to encourage adherence to their wishes. Guidelines are only effective if followed and the Board on behalf of the Conference is empowered to encourage and guide as they see fit.
And from our Guidelines / Charter:
The WSBT does NOT govern. Its nature is that of custodian only, providing guidance.
The only interest of the Trustees is to serve the best interest of our Fellowship. They are given such authority by and through the World Service Conference.
The WSBT, like the World Service Office, functions as an entity apart from the program. All actions by the WSBT are guided by the Traditions.
- The Conference recognizes that the Charter and the Bylaws of the World Service Board are legal instruments; that the Trustees are thereby fully empowered to manage and conduct all of the World Service affairs of Cocaine Anonymous.
The World Service Convention Committee Chair position falls under these guidelines and further to these we are guided by the full weight of Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. Tradition 1
Tradition 1 Short Form
- Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity
Tradition 1 Long Form
- Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. AA must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward.
Page 21 of 24
Our whole AA program is securely founded on the principle of humility — that is to say, perspective. Which implies, among other things, that we relate ourselves rightly to God and to our fellows; that we each see ourselves as we really are — “a small part of a great whole”? Seeing our fellows thus, we shall enjoy group harmony. That is why AA Tradition can confidently state, “Our common welfare comes first.” “Does this mean,” some will ask, “that in AA the individual doesn’t count too much? Is he to be swallowed up, dominated by the group?”
No, it doesn’t seem to work out that way. Perhaps there is no society on earth more solicitous of personal welfare, more careful to grant the individual the greatest possible liberty of belief and action. Alcoholics Anonymous has not “musts.” Few AA groups impose penalties on anyone for nonconformity. We do suggest, but we don’t discipline. Instead, compliance or noncompliance with any principle of AA is a matter for the conscience of the individual; he is the judge of his own conduct. Those words of old time, “judge not,” we observe most literally.
Tradition 2 Short Form
- For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving GOD as HE may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
These traditions speak to us about unity and the “ group conscience” the expression of God’s will via
The Conference floor and when not sitting the Trustees acts on its behalf.
So as principle guardians of the traditions The Trustees very nature is to encourage and guide as mandated by the Conference.
We hope we have addressed your inquiry fully, however should you need further guidance please do not hesitate to contact us again
In love and service The WSBT
Friday, February 20, 2009
Motion passed
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
*Motion by Trevor S.: to approve the response to referral #5771. Second by Nick L.
Referral # 5771 – Referred from S&B committee
“I ask that third legacy voting procedure is adopted by TEC.”
Thank you for your referral to the WSBT.
The Trustee Election procedure never fails to bring about a healthy debate. As a board, we deal with this process on a regular basis, and have, as recently as the 2008 World Service conference, brought forth motions to help improve the way it all works.
Page 22 of 24
*Motion to amend #2 of the Trustee Election Process, found on page 43 of the 2008 World Service Manual:
2) All voting will be done by secret ballot. TEC members have the choice of either voting for one candidate or voting for none of the candidates. Abstentions are counted as votes for none of the candidates will not be considered a vote, and the election will be affirmed by two thirds of the voting members.
*Motion to amend #9 of Trustee Election Process, found on page 43 of the 2008 World Service Manual:
9) FOURTH BALLOT: If no candidate receives 2/3 vote on the first three (3) ballots, the top vote receiving candidate is put up for 2/3 ratification vote. For ratification purposes, TEC members have the choice of either voting “yes” or “ no”; abstentions are counted as “no” votes will not be considered a vote . If that candidate receives the required 2/3 vote of voting members, then that person is the elected Trustee. If not, the same procedure will take place with the 2nd top vote-receiving candidate.
In the both motions, we address the problem of those choosing to abstain: this action will not be considered a vote. In essence, if there are 18 voting members on the TEC, but only 12 actually cast a vote (non-abstentions), then the candidate will only need 8 of the 12 votes to be elected trustee.
During our crafting of the motions, the WSBT firmly took into consideration Concept 9, which addresses these concerns… “ Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them are at tall levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety” Therefore, trust the process and the consciousness of the group, which is God’s will. The Board also took into consideration and equally understands the members concerns if a Regional Trustee is not elected, and collectively feels that with this new verbiage no Region shall go without a trusted servant to assist members with anything that affects C.A. as a whole either internally of externally. We are concerned with all things that may endanger the existence of our Fellowship or limit our growth. Thus addressing the voting method, which continues to evolve, will hopefully insure growth and consistency of the fellowship.
Additionally, The Board considered that we are guided Concept 10, “ Every service responsibility should be matched by an equal service authority — the scope of such authority to be always well defined whether by tradition, by resolution, by specific job description or by appropriate charters and bylaws”, which gives us a further understanding of the process and how the importance of how we elect our leaders with those who have been entrusted with that service responsibility. Those members of the fellowship that serve to the TEC are elected by their Areas, and or Regions. They represent their fellowship and are aware of the great task at hand. With the presents of a higher power, those on the TEC are guided to humbly consider the best interest of C.A., and those it will serve. The Trustees that are seated on the TEC also embrace the spiritual essence of the experience. The most transparent element of the experience is that a higher power is acting on behalf of C.A. Electing trusted servants to positions of service should not be taken lightly, and should be done with much thought and respect.
Page 23 of 24
The Election process will continue to be worked on in years to come, however, we as a board feel that the present guidelines for the TEC work. Guided by a loving god, we, as a fellowship, will always continue to grow.
In Love & Service,
WSBT
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Motion passed
Monday, March 02, 2009
*Motion by Trevor S.: to approve written response to Russell regarding statements in the HFC II. Second by Robert L.
Russell writes:
Dear WSBT
Can you please clarify for me the statement on page xvii in HFC2 that states ‘cocaine is possibly the most addictive substance known to man’ and if CA should be making such statements. I didn’t think we had opinions on outside issues. I await your response with patience.
Love, Russell
Response:
Russell,
Thank you for your inquiry to the WSBT. One of the many responsibilities of the WSBT is to stay vigilant in making sure all our prior materials remain current in both format and language. This is one example. As we grow as a fellowship, the ways in which we operate and function changes. This is a natural progression. The method used to create our material changes over the years as well. Our current 12 point approval process has only been in place the past few years. While it would be wrong to say that past conference actions were flawed or incorrect, we can certainly look at this example and see the maturation of Cocaine Anonymous as a whole.
Currently, the statement in question is being reviewed and discussed for updates and changes by the LCF committee. As with all our written material, everything is subject to change, or revision. Recently, LCF has undertaken the task of making our entire literature non-drug specific. This would include the revision of such statements as you have noted. Our 10th Tradition tells us “Cocaine Anonymous has no opinio n on outside issues; hence the C.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy’. The LCF Committee will continue to work to provide C.A. with the best possible tools to carry our message. In Love & Service,
WSBT
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Motion passed
Page 24 of 24
| WSBT – Minutes of Online business – FINAL-APPROVED | 25 |
November 2008 – March 2009
25 of 24