May 18 – 20, 2009 – WSBT Quarterly Meeting Minutes

CA WORLD SERVICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING MINUTES

May 18 – 20, 2009 – APPROVED

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 1990 WS Conference. Such confidential use does not, of course, violate in anyway our Tradition on anonymity in public communications media (press, radio, TV, etc).

Page 1 of 220

May WSBT Quarterly Meeting May 2009

Hayward: Welcome everybody; to the WSBT Quarterly Meeting. Today’s date is May 18, 2009. The time is 9:03am mountain time. We are in beautiful Boulder – Denver, Colorado. Would you all please join me in a moment of silence followed by the serenity prayer? Let’s have roll call starting at my left:

Willie Bailey: World Service Office Trustee
Richard Schafer: Trustee at Large
Nicholas Lynn: European Regional Trustee
Trevor Scheilbe: Pacific North Regional Trustee
Lawrence Matlock: Atlantic South Regional Trustee—WSBT Co Chair
Robert Lyle: Atlantic North Regional Trustee
Randy Groen: Southwest Regional Trustee
Joy Hutcheson: Pacific South Regional Trustee
Kim Sherwan: Midwest Regional Trustee—WSBT Secretary
Hayward Hunt: World Service Trustee—WSBT Chair

The reading of the Twelve Traditions by Trevor.

Hayward: Read and discuss tradition 8, which is Cocaine Anonymous should remain forever and nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers. Is there any limited discussion on this tradition? Does anybody have any thoughts on it? Nope. Ok we will move to the Concepts. Same as last time, just some short discussion and everybody grab one. Who wants to go first?

Nicholas: Concept 5—Though out our World Service structure traditional “Right of Appeal: ought to prevail, so that minority opinion will be heard and personal grievances receive careful consideration. I remember I first heard that and I didn’t really know what it meant and I came to Conference and then someone got up—and I thought, when I first heard it, it was your ability to bitch and moan and complain about stuff. Then I heard it properly used which someone brought something to the table that hadn’t been discussed and it was his right to bring it up and make a statement and say all though you voted this way I don’t think you mentioned this and I feel a little upset that this didn’t get mentioned is would just like to say. Once someone made the statement then someone has to go backwards because some more information that hadn’t been brought up.

Page 2 of 220

The Chair either cut debate or something. He hadn’t had a chance to bring it up. So what he was bringing info—members bringing information that he thought being either misdirected or misheard or information that hadn’t been brought to the debate rather than complaining about the way the debate and the motion ended up. When I first heard it, and I didn’t ask for a response or anything, I thought there was somewhere you could go moan if you didn’t like what happened. When I heard that it was different for them I say it at Conference working, I really liked it, that maybe the discussion wasn’t quite long enough in this aspect and someone could mention that and then that maybe go away, look up the wording in the dictionary—redress—rather than recant or complain about. I realized it was very subtle and it’s up to the Chair to help work on that. It’s nice that any member, any service structure can say something if they don’t feel it’s been debated properly or someone’s not brought something to the table, or they get extra information, or they are out of the room or something like that. I still think it gives everyone an opportunity to join in and if they feel that something has been skipped over or no address, can now give that service structure the opportunity maybe to go back if they want it or move on and just let that statement stand. I remember one personal experience and I was at the UK area and they decided to give them dear self’s seven votes each. I brought it to the table that two dear self’s turned up and 14 votes and there are only 13 of the members are GSR’s. DSR—two people would have more power could block anything. Then I had to let that go and move on. That’s the way they went, but I was allowed to voice that opinion and I did let it go after six months a situation arrived and they rethought it. I was able to put that on the table and let it get off my chest and move on without insulting them. Thank you.

Trevor: Concept 9 for me has always been my favorite one. As I think that when it works well it’s wonderful, but I’ve seen it so many times that it doesn’t. And it is really at in all levels, whether it’s my home group or whether it’s us as a Board, or the Conference or whatever. A good example, back home they have the attitude that if your new and you’re at an area or district meeting that must mean you want to Chair or Vice Chair position at that meeting. So they try to elect people in. They invited me to come to the last area meeting to say we are having some problems and the problems that they were having was that the Chair, who it was his area meeting that he got elected and this would have been his first time chairing it, he had gotten loaded and didn’t tell anybody and the Vice Chair who that had just been elected, it would have been his second area meeting ever, he had decided to get married that weekend, which I guess is valid excuse, and the Treasurer had quit because they didn’t quite have anywhere close to a year so they had all these problem going on and it’s like well if he would have read the requirements and try to follow through with some of those you might not be having so many problems. We talked about it and I helped them to rethink some stuff and they got what I would consider to be a pretty decent core anyway of people that want to do it, that have some experience and that know what they’re doing. I think that for us it’s especially vital here because my opinion is that people at

Page 3 of 220

this Board have probably the greatest amount of ability to impact the fellowship on a large scale. I think that is a very important—especially moving into the TEC season in our next quarterly to keep that in mind. Especially this position because it is a World Service Trustee and we need to keep in mind what that persons role is and make sure we are looking for the best possible person to fill that role. Not that anybody can step in and fill Hayward’s shoes. It’s very important that we are always, for anything, looking for the best possible person rather than just, you know. What sometimes I see what happens I call it the new blood syndrome.

Joy: Concepts 1—the final responsibility and the ultimate authority for CA World Services should always reside in the collective conscience of our whole fellowship. I love that. I am a firm believer in the group conscience. I am a firm believer that once the group conscience has spoken that’s what we should be following. That’s what I trying to instill in my region and they are starting to get it—that’s the ultimate authority for CA. The collective conscience of our fellowship is my favorite.

Lawrence: Concept 3—as a traditional means of creating and maintaining a clearly defined working relationship between the groups, the Conference, the World Service Board of Trustees, and the service corporation, staff and committees and does insure their effective leadership, it is suggested that when endow each of these elements of World Services with a traditional “Right of Decision.” I was on the service manual and it said within the scope of their definitely defined or normally implied responsibilities, all Headquarters service corporations, committees, staff, or executives should also be possessed of the right to decide when they will act wholly on their own and when they refer their problems to the next higher authority. And then it says this “Right of Decision” should never be made an excuse for failure to render proper reports of all significant actions taken; it ought never be used as a reason for constantly exceeding a clearly defined authority, nor as an excuse for persistently failing to consult those who are entitled to be consulted before an important decision or action is taken. I was thinking about we are making new procedures for the office on the financial reports report Delete and financial things and ask them to be Asking that they be submitted in a timely manner, so we can look at them and their review the reports Their right to a decision doesn’t give them the authority not to give us the reports and things on time and when they make changes at the office to. Also confer with us before that. Let they make major changes to the office structure and not inform us know, not just that after they are doing it, not just do it before then because we need those reports to look over some we are the principal planners, we need to know what’s going on financially with our company, we need to know what’s going on have been made. As the principal planners we need to be informed to make the proper decisions.

Page 4 of 220

Randy: Number 2—when, in 1955, the A.A. 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—accepting 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. For me that concept as a Trustee and I agree with not only what Joy said about the collective conscience by agreeing with the importance of the position of Trustee by Trevor, but that concept for me gave me freedom as a Trustee to exercise the elected responsibility given to a Trustee to interpret those issues that come in front of us against what the Conference has laid out. We are never in a position where we have to take our personal opinion into any question. We have a Conference that has already laid out a guideline. They have laid out a manual. They have already spoken. It has been hashed out, hashed over. It’s already down on paper. That being a fluid piece of work is freedom for us. We talked earlier, and even in some of our sharing, that sometimes our answer is, this is what it is according to the interpretation of the Trustees and if you would like to have something changed there is a process to go do that. For me that’s freedom, that I don’t have to take a position because I feel it so. I have a document. I have a wealth of experience of these men and women that are in this room and I understand that I was elected to be responsible to that document and the actions of the Conference. That’s freedom for me. I am no longer all tensed up about it: oh my God, oh my God what am I going to say, I don’t have to it’s already been said I just need to apply interpretation that I was elected to apply and give them the answers back that are already there that they just can’t see.

Willie: 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. Reading from the Concept book: nearly all societies and governments of today exhibit serious deviations from the very sound principle that each operational responsibility must be accompanied by a corresponding authority to discharge it. When you were talking about having the finances and having all of the reports that we need to take a look at, that’s very important because we have given our responsibility to our subcommittees to make sure that we willing enough before get in this room have a lot of this stuff to actually take a look at. I’m looking at it when it says “a serious deviation” has been exhibited throughout and how do we get back to the responsibility and the authority being one of such that people that are placed in these positions of responsibility be given the authority to get the work done.

Kim: Concept 11—While the Trustees hold final responsibility for CA’s world service administration, they should always have the assistance of the best possible committees and service board, staff, and consultants. Therefore the composition of these underlying committees

Page 5 of 220

and service boards, the personal qualifications of their members, the manner of their induction into service, the system of the rotation, the way in which they’re related to each other, the special rights and duties of the staffs and consultants, together with the proper basis for financial compensation of these special workers, will always be matters for serious car and concern. This concept reminds me that—although we work collective as a board here—if it wasn’t for the expertise of any of us—use that word very loosely, expertise—but our passion for any one special committee, or those that we serve to that serve to LCF or Convention or Conference or IT whomever. Those folks I’ve come to rely on not only personally but obviously in further directing Cocaine Anonymous and their growth. When it come to those that work at the world service office, keeping in mind in the further as we choose to fill those positions and how their qualified based on concepts nine and ten, putting them into position and having them financially compensated for their qualifications and expertise for passion for what they want to do and that we really do need to look to that with a great seriousness and care and concern. Just looking at some of our discussion previously regarding those that come and want to serve and yet find difficulty in fulfilling that, we have to always be mindful of those two concepts that come before this and relate them all together.

Robert: Concept 4—throughout our Conference structure, we ought to maintain at all responsible levels a traditional “Right of Participation,” taking care that each classification or group of our world servants shall be allowed a voting representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must discharge. When I read that I think of our tradition number two— 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. The right of participation allows ownership in different levels of service that we all collectively own the fellowship. We all have a right to be heard, not for just Trustees but the directors, and the paid directors they have ownership into our fellowship. We need to remember that. We have to allow people to believe like we do. They have a right to say what they need to say as long as their problem is concepts and traditions; we need to work together, everyone to feel ownership into our wonderful fellowship.

Hayward: Concept 7, I look at this one as the relationship of the Conference to our Board. The Conference recognizes that the Charter and the Bylaws of the World Service Boards are legal instruments: that the Trustees are thereby fully empowered to manage and conduct all of the World Service affairs of Cocaine Anonymous. It is further understood that the Conference Charter itself is not a legal document: that it relies instead upon the force of tradition and the power of the CA purse for its final effectiveness. The Conference has given us full legal authority to run the affairs of our fellowship, this Board, not the WSOB Board. Sometime it’s forgotten by the other Board who thinks they run everything, what they do is, we want to do

Page 6 of 220

what we want to do and will tell you only what we want you to know. They always are trying to keep us in the dark but this concept acknowledges that without the backing of the Conference, and through the funds and support of the local groups, we really can’t do anything.

Richard: 8—the Trustees of the World Service Board act in two primary capacities: (a) With respect to the larger matters of over-all policy and finance, they are the principal planners and administrators. They and their primary committees directly manage these affairs. (b) But with respect to our separately incorporated and constantly active services, the relation of the Trustees is mainly that of custodial oversight which they exercise through their ability to elect all directors of these entities. Perfectly follows up on 7. While it does let us know what we do, it does bring us back to the fact that reminding us that we are the custodians. That’s our focus.

Hayward: Chair’s opening remarks: I think everybody is doing a great job here. I would like to just stress that when we do our reports either for subcommittees or for responses and other work that comes out of subcommittee make sure all the members buy off on it. If they don’t answer an email in a couple of days, you can consider that as, it looks good to me. Then it’s sent to the Board for overall approval and posting on the helpdesk website. I just wanted to add that in. It looks like things are getting better with communication between this Board and the office. Do you feel its ok? Good. That’s about all I got on that. We’ll do the best we can do with this information, what we don’t complete we’ll move it online. Review of the agenda. Let’s go down to new business. Is there anything missing from new business? Probably from emails I missed or something.

Willie: Do we have director ratification?

Hayward: Yes, that’s new business item 2009.05.04.

Willie: Ok.

Joy: What’s 2009.05.06?

Hayward: Nothing yet. If we have anything to add we will add it in there.

Kim: I have 04 as ratification WSOB director nominee, correct?

Hayward: Yes.

Kim: 05 are LCF literature pieces to be approved?

Page 7 of 220

Hayward: Yes.

Kim: 06 are referrals to be written by the WSBT?

Hayward: Ok, let’s add that in everyone. What was it now, referrals?

Kim: Referrals to be written by the WSBT. I have as 07 as well. I have formations of districts and voting rights/to achieve balance/parity. That would be Nicholas’ request.

Hayward: Who’s…?

Kim: That’s Nick.

Hayward: So 05.06 was your item?

Kim: Yes.

Hayward: The next one is…

Kim: 08

Hayward: Nicholas’ item. Is there any more?

Kim: Yeah, I got Trevor’s’ as 08.

Hayward: 2009.05.08 is abstinence?

Kim: Yes.

Joy: And then 09 would be ratification?

Kim: And 09 is ratification of WSBT Trustee numbers. That was called by Hayward.

Hayward: Anybody got anything else?

Richard: Move all of them online?

Hayward: All of them?

Page 8 of 220

Richard: Yeah.

Joy: Could you tell us where we are now, where we are going to be?

Kim: I believe that’s in old business.

Joy: Is that in old business?

Hayward: What? Which one?

Joy: Did I put that—I thought I asked for it in new? Is it in old?

Hayward: You said something about finances; I thought that was for the Board to Board.

Kim: Yeah.

Willie: You did put that in the Board to Board.

Joy: We need to under new for us too, I believe.

Hayward: Ok, so you want that as number nine…

Joy: Because after we meet with the Board to Board we should probably need to talk about where we are and how do we fix where we are at.

Hayward: Ok, so 2009.05.09 for Joy is—what’s the title?

Joy: Financial status of CAWSO Inc.

Willie: That’s the 09-010?

Richard: 09.

Hayward: For 09-010 or just presently?

Joy: Present. We’re at the end of our year.

Hayward: Present.

Page 9 of 220

Joy: Present. We can also look at the other one if you would like too.

Hayward: I will put Joy on there. So, that means the last one is moved to 05.10.

Robert: Hold on, I got one from PI. I haven’t got the printed email from Tom. I have a PI thing.

Hayward: Ok, you can add it in anytime you want.

Robert: Ok.

Hayward: Ok, anybody else got any questions, additions, any comments on the agenda? The next item is, items requiring discussion before Board to Board meeting. I got an email from Patty a few days ago that I sent to Willie that John’s not going to be here at the Convention. He got a new job and it’s really taking up his time. He sent out an email about that saying it’s been ten months without a job so he’s kind of a one man show and that changes things for him. He didn’t say anything about stepping down or anything, he just said he wouldn’t be here for the Convention. He is supposed to send Willie a report. I don’t know if you’ve seen anything yet. You can check your email on a break or something here.

Randy: Ok.

Hayward: That’s about it. Anybody have any questions or additions for the B2B meeting? This agenda came from the March Board to Board; we just moved what should have been updated to this new agenda. And I would like to thank Kim and young Lawrence for helping me stay on top of these agendas.

Hayward: We are at approval of minutes. New motion to…

Joy: Motion to table minutes of November 2008 WSBT WSOB Board to Board meeting.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion made and second to table the minutes of the November 2008 WSBT WSOB Board to Board. Please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? All opposed? Motion tabled.

Joy: Motion to table minutes of March 2009 WSBT quarterly meeting.

Trevor: Second.

Page 10 of 220

Hayward: Can we add the…

Joy: Yes we can. I motion to table minutes from March 2009 WSBT quarterly meeting and minutes of March 2009 WSBT WSOB Board to Board meeting minutes.

Trevor: Still second.

Hayward: Motion made and second to table the March quarterly and Board to Board meetings of March 2009, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Next motion, Trevor.

Trevor: Can I say something without it being a motion?

Hayward: Yeah.

Trevor: For those of you that don’t know, the foot pedal is here. I managed to get it back so tomorrow morning I going to bring it down and I’m going to present it to Hayward and he can do whatever he wants.

Hayward: I’ve got all the files, all the audio files and I’ll transfer them on to your laptop.

Joy: Can we put them on a disk?

Hayward: Do you have a disk?

Joy: I’ll make sure we get one. I have an external hard drive. Can we put it on that?

Hayward: A what? A thumb drive?

Joy: External hard drive.

Hayward: Yeah that’s fine. We’ll put it all on there.

Joy: Then I can switch it and put it on Barbara’s laptop.

Hayward: Right.

Joy: Instead of putting it on my office laptop.

Page 11 of 220

Hayward: Let’s move on.

Joy: Next motion? I motion to approve minutes of the April Conference call 2009 WSBT.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion made and second. Is there any discussion? Richard.

Richard: I have a concern that in the minutes it wasn’t reflected that I called the Chair and let you know the status that I was having some medical stuff done and that wasn’t put in the minutes.

Hayward: At the beginning of that I put it in there. I thought I put that in there on the phone.

Trevor: I know it was talked about.

Hayward: Yeah, I brought it up.

Richard: I didn’t see it in the minutes.

Hayward: The ones the Kim circulated?

Richard: Correct. The one I saw was MIA.

Hayward: That was talked about later on but not at my opening comments. Did you see my opening comments?

Richard: I per ridged them. I will recheck.

Hayward: Can we go back and take a look at that. So that’s for March.

Trevor: It says here on the last line of your Chair announcements.

Kim: It says Richards out until after April 22^nd.

Hayward: Yeah, that was my comments on that. Are you ok with that?

Page 12 of 220

Richard: I am but I would prefer MIA be removed since it was absolutely I was not, I was in communications with the Chair.

Kim: I think there was a comment made later in the minutes that I saw. What page is that on Richard?

Richard: Joy was attached with it.

Kim: What page is it on?

Richard: I don’t know. Unless you all still think it was MIA while being in contact with the Chair, then let it stand.

Joy: We can remove MIA. I don’t think I said MIA.

Kim: What page is that on?

Richard: Hold on. It is on—just search MIA.

Hayward: I think it was down when we were talking about the…

Richard: The Trustee, the DRP report.

Hayward: Right, so it’s down there.

Joy: You can remove that. I think I asked a question.

Hayward: Ok.

Kim: Time out until I find it.

Richard: Trustee to DRP, DRPD report.

Kim: Do you have a page number?

Richard: I’m sorry, I do. It is page 4 of 10.

Kim: 4 of 10?

Page 13 of 220

Richard: Sorry, that’s actually…

Kim: I have 20 pages.

Richard: I’m looking at it the cut and paste of our minutes—in our agenda, sorry. I wasn’t actually looking at the—I don’t have the other document open.

Kim: I will make a note of it. I don’t know where to look for it. This is on the April Conference call?

Richard: Right.

Hayward: So are we straight? Is there any other discussion on that? Ok, seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Next, approval of the record of online business.

Trevor: Motion to approve the record of online business between March 2009 and May 2009.

Willie: Second.

Hayward: Motion made by Trevor, second by Willie to approve the record of online business between March 2009 and May 2009 quarterly meetings. Any discussion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes.

Trevor: Motion to approve WSBT Officers reports.

Richard: Second.

Hayward: Motion made and second to approve the WSBT Officers report. Any discussion on any of the reports?

Joy: Can you put on the tape who actually is seconding that motion, please.

Hayward: Ok. That was Richard. Trevor made the motion and Richard second the motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. All these next reports and all of our subcommittee reports—I kind of like us to go

Page 14 of 220

through them because I want to poll and make sure that we have all—that the secretary has all of the reports.

Kim: Kim here that’s K I M. All reports have been received as of today.

Hayward: All of the Trustee reports?

Kim: All of the Trustee reports have been received as of today.

Hayward: Ok, I will take a motion now to…

Trevor: Motion to approve the Trustee reports.

Randy: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Randy to approve all the Trustee reports. Is there any discussion on any of the reports? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Next, I want to ask Kim, what about all the subcommittee reports?

Kim: All WSBT subcommittee reports have been received as of today.

Hayward: Ok, I will take a motion to…

Trevor: Motion to approve the WSBT subcommittee reports.

Joy: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Joy to approve the WSBT subcommittee reports. Is there any discussion on any of the reports? Richard.

Richard: My report I was noted by Trevor that I need to make an amendment to my list of agenda items. I would like it to be known that…

Hayward: Which one is that?

Richard: Long term planning.

Hayward: So you are going to edit that.

Page 15 of 220

Richard: I’m going to add that one agenda item if that’s acceptable to everybody is the only amendment. It’s an agenda item for specifically Hayward’s agenda item for long term planning.

Hayward: Does everybody know what that is? Are we ok with that?

Richard: Sorry I left that out. Thank you for catching it, Trevor.

Hayward: Any other discussion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Kim do you have all the Trustee Conference Committee reports?

Kim: All Trustee Conference Committee reports have been received as of today.

Trevor: Motion to approve the Trustee Conference Committee reports with the exception of the four CAWS Convention reports.

Joy: Second.

Hayward: So we want to do those separately?

Trevor: Yes.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Joy to approve the Trustee Conference Committee reports excluding the individual Convention Committee reports. Is there any discussion on any of the reports? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Trevor.

Trevor: I’ll let the people whose Conventions there are make that motion.

Hayward: Convention Committees? I saw your hand Richard.

Richard: I want to make a motion to accept the CAWS 2009 Convention Committee report.

Joy: Second.

Page 16 of 220

Hayward: Motion by Richard, second by Joy to approve CAWS 2009 Convention Committee report. Any discussion on the report? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes.

Kim: Motion to approve the CAWS 2010 Convention Committee report.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Kim, second by Trevor to approve the CAWS 2010 Convention Committee report. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Randy.

Randy: Motion to approve the CAWS 2011 Convention Committee report.

Richard: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Randy, second by Richard to approve the CAWS 2011 Convention Committee report. Is there any discussion on the report? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Nick.

Nick: Motion to approve CAWS 2012 Convention Committee report.

Joy: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Nick, second by Joy to approve the CAWS 2012 Convention Committee report. Is there any discussion on the report? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. What time is it? 10 o’clock. We are down to our Place Marker business items. First one is 2006.02.20 which is just an update on the copyright and trademark protection. There hasn’t been anything to update on that. We haven’t received any bills for any renewals or anything so that will stay on there until August. The next one is the 2006.08.13 signature of annual corporate documents. That will stay on because we always do that in November. We are down to old business. Item 2007.10.14 that’s TEC status and that’s Kim and Trevor.

Kim: I have at this time received all nominees for slates, as well as all TEC Delegates to the TEC. Just to note, unfortunately European region has brought forth no slate at this time. That’s unfortunate. Basically we’ve got all the information. I’m hoping to have a chance to talk Trevor this week and I will shoot you the new spreadsheet. We will get some emails off to the nominees

Page 17 of 220

for the WST position. We have three candidates for that. I hoping to arrange those interviews for Monday morning to alleviate—no I’m sorry, Tuesday morning—so that we don’t any additional expenses for over nighting the TEC Delegates on Monday night and as well as getting an email off to the TEC Delegates to advise them to make their arrangements accordingly, to come in as early as Tuesday morning, so that we can do those three interviews prior to starting the Conference. The kickoff starts at 3:00, I believe. That’s about it. I have to approve the questions and I have all the resumes for those three people. Copies of the questions and the resumes will have to be made. We are good to go, unless anybody has any questions.

Hayward: Is there any questions? Nick, the no names for your slate, can you kind of tells us what’s up with that?

Nick: There are 11 people who have been to Conference and voted. Jackie’s one of them. She has done it. I can’t, so that’s nine. Jackie’s partner, Phillip L. and Steve S. want nothing to do with it @ present, seven. Then there are some very inexperienced people, and they all think and the only person that put forward a resume was Robert B from Sweden.

It was a little scant. He is Swedish. I asked him to expand it if possible but tried to keep out of like leading him. They read it. They still felt it was—this was at the Assemble—it was a little short. He had his family here with him and it was one of his boy’s birthdays. He also a thought, I would make myself available by it’s up to you. He didn’t appear and they didn’t think that was a good sign. They took a vote and they rejected that. There was only one candidate and they didn’t want to put that forward. It wasn’t totally solid. They did what they did. I explained the ramifications, I said it wasn’t fatal but be good if people would reconsider and I’ve said at anytime if they want to hold a meeting about it online or wherever, to rethink it if that’s possible. It gave them a cutoff date.

Hayward: It’s getting close.

Nick: I’ll put something—I’m going to put it as soon as I get back—The World Board would really like to know if anyone wants to do this, please get in contact with me within the next two weeks. I’ve got to leave it them. I can’t lead. We did put it out there. I sent an email out every two weeks for three months to the Delegates. We lack a big bagband of candidates. I have had some one on one’s. I’m going to a one on one with someone when they arrive today. Sorry, when they arrive on Thursday. I think next year it might be a bit healthier. They are all praying and hoping that I don’t relapse or die or anything.

Page 18 of 220

Hayward: Is there anything else on this? We’ll update in August or should we say July Conference call. Next item is 2008.08.03—NADCP and that’s coming up next month. Do you have any updates on that?

Richard: I do. I’m actually surprised that during this period, when the Convention gets busy, that Patty actually has time to work on this. Susan has done a lot. My email communications are both with Susan and with Patty. In my report I noted they selected, and the Board has seen the new booth that they selected. The artwork, was the graphics were discussed are going to go on that booth, the CA, Hope, Faith, and Courage. The PI artwork was modified to make a flyer, a contact flyer sheet, not a sheet more like a 3×5 card high gloss, all the contact numbers, which was great. I’ve seen the proof of that. I have started the spreadsheet of volunteers for scheduling. Patty did say that she would not be in attendance on Friday. She was going to be at the office. She did let me know in plenty of time to make sure that time spot in filled. Susan will be there the entire time, as stated by Patty and is noted on my spreadsheets already as that. We settled on the principal medallions as the coins that will be given out there. Depending on the HFC order, whether or not there will be HFC books is still a question. That has not been answered yet. I don’t know the results of that. All I can do is, occasionally ask. The office is supplying literature including the rack. I know that we are registered, she sent me the registration. I do have the length for the PDF for the Drug Court program for this Convention. I know that the hotel room has been booked. Thank you, Kim.

Hayward: Is there any questions on that item of business? Kim.

Kim: You said Susan…

Richard: Yes.

Kim: So no one else is going except you, Patty, and Susan?

Richard: No, actually Willie, Hayward is a question mark, Joy both volunteered. We are working with schedules. It is June. Joy has let me know that it is attentive as to her availability. I have a spreadsheet and I’m going to blocking off times. I was asked by Patty that people from the fellowship were offering to show up. I did not feel that was a great idea. I thought we should at least know who is going to be there presenting the face of Cocaine Anonymous to normal people.

Hayward: Abnormal folks.

Page 19 of 220

Richard: Yeah. I did not accept the random volunteers to just fill in. I told her that if I needed to fill the times I would look back into that. With the volunteers that we currently been discussing, I think we will be able to fill it.

Kim: I have one other question. What was it, the link to what?

Richard: NA, the Drug Court program. They just published the program for the event. I’ve seen the PDF of everything that’s laid out for the event. Does that make sense? Kim: Yes.

Hayward: Next item is 2008.11.11—that’s the AA permissions item of business and that’s all of us.

Willie: I did contact Darlene Smith from AA and we now have in our possession written approval to use “The Promises and a Vision for You”. We have that in writing and I will forward that to the Chair and to the Secretary to be added into a matter of documentation so that now going forward we don’t have to say well they told me this in a meeting and we don’t have their permission, we have their permission in writing. The meeting that we’re trying to set up, that’s in the process by John—and I’m not trying to step on anybody’s toes here, but I am trying to see that this expatiates and not get pushed to the side where we are left with all of this inventory. I haven’t acted on that yet but if it doesn’t materialize in an amount of time the Chair and I have discussed, since I was established the communication process with AA, that may continue but we are going to wait and see what John’s efforts turn out.

Hayward: I have a question. You were tasked with motion number two and we never saw anything in writing from you.

Richard: Until seeing the minutes I didn’t know they was a lack of evidence but I did bring the email that I had sent to Darlene, same address, after speaking with her and never got a response followed up with phone calls. I found it interesting—and her initial phone conversation, I don’t know if you had the same one, but her initial phone conversation with me was no. She said submit it in writing. So I did and I never got a response. That was dated as reported previously, March 13^th. It says Darlene thank you for our telephone conversation today, March 13, 2009, please provide a position on CA. Cocaine Anonymous requests for reprinting of the Promises and the Vision for You, Thank you, Richard Schaffer Trustee at Large, Cocaine Anonymous, that was exactly what she asked me to email her and I never received any response. I did a follow up phone call and never received anything.

Page 20 of 220

Willie: Because we hadn’t heard anything I was just tasked to—in my original email the question was, has there been any communication from you, and I even went as far as to say from the office as well, and her reply it was no, but I will take your communication as a written request. Her original thing she would respond to me in two to three weeks, she responded back in the mist of their AA Conference and hearing John to say well they won’t respond to us until after May 10^th. She responded to me and I’m saying what’s going on? In her reply she says she hadn’t had any communication with you about this. There was just a mix up but as we were talking, I believe on the Conference call and again Hayward and I have had some conversations, is let’s see if we can get this going. I’m just glad we got it in writing.

Richard: It worked out like it was supposed to.

Willie: That we don’t’ have to go on a verbal ok or confirmation by anyone going forward because in 20 years they need to know we have written approval to use this stuff and not well they said we can but we can’t get the documentation.

Richard: Thank you.

Willie: I don’t want you to think I was stepping on your toes.

Richard: No, you didn’t.

Hayward: I want to add that Kim you have all the communications that Willie forward, right?

Kim: Yes.

Hayward: So you can attach those to our minutes.

Kim: I sent that to you. I sent you a copy of that. Do you want me to post it to the Yahoo group?

Hayward: Yes, and then you can attach them to the minutes also because somebody is going to question us on this. They will see it is reflected in our minutes.

Joy: You sent that to legal too, didn’t you?

Hayward: Yeah.

Joy: Because I get a copy of that.

Page 21 of 220

Hayward: It should be put in the legal subcommittee report also.

Joy: I was very happy to see that.

Randy: I was just trying to get this all to make sense. One of the premises where it started this whole off was a request at our Conference to change some of the verbiage of a piece that we believed we had permission to use. In this written permission do we have permission to change the word alcohol to cocaine and all mind altering mind substances? What have we gotten permission for? I know we are getting closer and it’s great news we got this in writing now, but I don’t feel like we would have the answer to the question that was posed at the Conference that started this whole thing and blew it all up. Am I the only one confused?

Willie: In our list of motions at the last quarter, we were charged to stop the reprinting and then we were asked to see—while this is going with “How it Works”, do we have permission to use the so called Promises as AA says and excerpt “A Vision for You” off page 164. My original communication, they thought it was”A Vision for You” a whole chapter. They weren’t ok with that but when I came back and told them no, just what’s in the reading and on page 164 and I spelled it out for her she came back and said, yes you do have permission and informed us what needs to be put on there. The meeting was to going the “How it Works” and the changing of the word of what we had in it. We are still where we are, we are getting closer. We are getting some communication, some dialog from AA that says—hopefully we can have that face to face by Conference, or have some kind of response from AA in writing.

Richard: That was one of my concerns and I discussed it with Patty was all I was getting was a no from a single individual. That was my concern that I brought up to Patty who said she would talk to John was, are we just hearing this from one individual that’s not willing to make the decision or feels she like she can make the decision of just saying no you don’t have it. That was my encouragement for Patty to talk to John and figure out where’s this coming from? Who is she to say no? I would like to hear from the fellowship. That’s all I got.

Randy: I guess my question is that do we believe that the permission for the Promises and A Vision for You is permission to use those two passages as AA wrote them or as CA wants to print them?

Willie: I’ve passed around the communication. It specifically, the so called Promises are read as it is stated on page 164 in Alcoholic Anonymous big book. We did not ask permission to change

Page 22 of 220

any wording. The only thing that was asked permission was for “How it Works” and we haven’t addressed that as of yet. That’s why we are waiting on John’s letter to AA to go forward.

Randy: Then I’m concerned that the minutes—I don’t want to make a huge deal of it but…

Hayward: Kim can you please forward all that stuff to the group?

Kim: I am just attaching it as an attachment right now and I’ll send to the Yahoo group so everybody knows.

Hayward: They also want us to give—what do we say when you know…

Randy: Discipline.

Hayward: When we print something we also want to give credit to AA and that’s not in our book. We just put the Promises in there and A Vision for You and I don’t believe that in HFC 2 we give credit to AA at the bottom that its reprinted in its entirety without any changes and give credit to AA in there. They want us to do that and we don’t have that in there.

Richard: Our downloadable literature did but I don’t think HFC 2 did.

Hayward: Kim is going to forward all the email trails to everybody.

Kim: I put it all in one document.

Hayward: Ok. Maybe we can go to something else, we can read over this tonight and then we can come back tomorrow and revisit this discussion unless you guys want to take some time and read this and continue on with it. It’s up to you. It is 10:20. I don’t want to be up late because I figure we’ll start in the morning about 9:00 or so. We don’t want to be up really late and everybody is all burnt. Do you guys need a break? Let’s take a break.

Hayward: Alright we are back on the record after a short break. We are still at AA permission, is there any other discussion on that business item? It looks like we hashed it all out so we will go to next item is 2008.11.12-Accounting Internal Procedures, Joy and Willie.

Joy: I guess we will get an update again with the Board to Board on whether they…

Hayward: So we haven’t heard anything back from them?

Page 23 of 220

Joy: Have you?

Willie: Yes. It has been posted on the WSOB Yahoo group. We are supposed to be looked at. We hoped to have something finalized by this quarterly. We moved it to a subcommittee. Patty, Tom and I will at the Convention devote a block of time for that so that our next WSOB Board meeting we want to finalize that documentation. Joy: So when it is finalized it will come back to us?

Willie: Yes.

Joy: With the changes they want to make?

Willie: It will come back to the WSBT in the form of—from what is reviewed we want to come back with policy that came out of your documentation, what they have, these are policies that we see that you’re asking us to institute. That’s the way it’s coming back to the WSBT.

Joy: Makes me happy.

Hayward: Is there anything else on this? Seeing none, let’s move on.

Kim: So updates?

Hayward: Updates after the Board to Board or…?

Willie: Updates after the next WSOB Board meeting?

Hayward: We’ll see that online.

Willie: Yeah.

Hayward: Are you ok Kim?

Kim: No.

Hayward: 2008.11.14-Trustee event and that’s Richard.

Page 24 of 220

Richard: Hello everyone. As you saw by the letter that was sent out, the Trustee event, we have a room at Buca de Beppo.

Hayward: No, that’s for the Trustee dinner.

Richard: Oh, yes.

Hayward: Trustee event was a $40,000 line item for something that the WSO had stashed away.

Richard: According to Patty’s title which is DRPD that it is a—she understands it was a task requested by the Conference and she has requested that we revisit it after the Convention, the CAWS 09 Convention. I left it that and that was last month. Sorry Kim.

Hayward: So those two items combined together, the event and…

Richard: Go ahead.

Hayward: Richard can you update us on 2008.11.04-the Trustee event combined with the communication between the Trustees to the DRPD.

Richard: Currently, last month the DRPD, in a telephone conversation, stated that this was being postponed until after the CAWS 09. There is an email originating in February that requested the specifics for the DRPD to proved me the specifics of what this event would look like, entailed, and where the expenses where to be and how it was to be profitable. The Trustee at Large report neglected to have this item updated and I will update the item so that it states that this is currently an item in discussion only and a planned event.

Hayward: Are there any other comments or anything on this? We are going to end for this evening. I see some heavy discussion coming up on some other items so let us end tonight. The time is 10:49 and we will start in the morning at 9 a.m. Is that fine with everybody?

Everyone: Yes sir.

Hayward: We will adjourn for the night.

Hayward: Good morning everyone, it is May 19, it 9:04 and we are back on the record, back in session. We are at agenda item 2009.04.02, no?

Page 25 of 220

Kim: 2008.11.15.

Hayward: My agenda said that we combined—is that the Trustee to the…

Kim: Yeah, are you combining those two? I asked you that before and…

Hayward: This says that 11.14 was combined with the next item here. Do we have a mix up on the agenda?

Kim: No, I just have it down as 15. No problem.

Hayward: I would say we are at 2009.04.02-Publication Process reference to WSO and that was Trevor’s baby.

Trevor: We can remove that because we are done with it. I got a good answer from Willie and I’m happy.

Hayward: You requested some information, did the office provide it?

Trevor: Willie got me the information we needed. It’s back in the LCF’s ball park as far as them getting the stuff back to the office. Everything is good.

Hayward: Now that sounds good. The next item is 2009.04.05-Bank Consolidation Authorization, which was merged with an old business item of 2008.11.03.

Willie: We provided the letter to the Palms branch, of Wells Fargo. They intern contacted San Francisco and all of our bank accounts have been sent to Palms branch. The branch Vice President, Maggie, is going to do a reconcile of our accounts for all of the charges for those accounts. Tom and I are supposed to meet with her after the Convention before the year-end to reconcile from our side and from the bank side. They also apologized for all of the inconvenience and assured us that this should not happen in the future.

Hayward: Any questions on that? Seeing none, we will move on. 2009.04.07-Interim Restructure Project.

Willie: Well, haven’t really gotten any hard numbers on Interim Restructuring project, I’m with everyone else, we will learn more at the Board to Board when we have a chance to sit down with Patty.

Page 26 of 220

Hayward: Any questions? 2009.04.08-the H&I issue that Randy came with, that you guys moved online. I got a long correspondence to that.

Randy: I know that from the prospective that I got from the two people that actually one was in our area, and I think that issue is no longer one. It doesn’t require a response actually officially sent to anyone.

Hayward: You want to remove it from the agenda? It’s not going to resurface somewhere and bite us?

Randy: There’s nowhere to send the response unless we would just send it back to the office.

Hayward: So it came from the office.

Joy: I think we should correspond to the office.

Randy: Alright. Then leave it open and I will do a response that we can approve online. It wasn’t a question from someone in the fellowship; it was an issue that was brought to us that…

Hayward: The office was doing this.

Randy: Right.

Hayward: Do you want to put it on the Board to Board and talk about it then? Or do you just want to work on something possibly here or something online?

Randy: What do you guys want to do? I don’t know what the agenda’s got.

Hayward: There was a motion to move this issue online in the past.

Randy: So it is sitting online right now?

Hayward: Right. We will wait on your—Do you need a team?

Kim: You are not addressing it at the Board to Board?

Hayward: No, we moved it online and that’s where it’s been.

Page 27 of 220

Joy: I will help Randy with the response.

Hayward: Ok, anybody else? Robert? Kim you got that?

Kim: Yes, currently sitting online.

Hayward: Ok, and now Randy’s got a subcommittee…

Kim: Oh, I’m sorry. What are they…?

Joy: Joy and Robert are going to help him.

Kim: Thank you.

Joy: You’re welcome.

Hayward: Alright, now we are at 2—Trevor?

Trevor: I got a copy of the software. I will put it on a disk and give it to Joy.

Joy: You’re the man.

Hayward: Email her the link in case something gets corrupted.

Joy: Email the link to JoysBoo@aol.com.

For Barbara’s sake I think we should take her email address out

Trevor: JoysBoo?

Joy: That way she’ll get it. Thanks Trev.

Hayward: Ok, 2008.04.14-the CA helpdesk site. I sent you guys an email that I got from the webservant. If you read at the bottom he says that there are three emails from a Richard L., I think that’s in Nick’s region. The weird thing is that he changed—the original link that he gave us a user name and password for. We can’t get in there to see what those questions are. You guys want to visit the site? No, we can’t go to that site now. We can just go to CA.org/help. Is there any discussion on the questions that Mike came back with?

Joy: Why can’t he do just what we asked?

Page 28 of 220

Hayward: I think he claims to be confused about how we…

Randy: Wasn’t it where we wanted to actually place that link; was kind of the general question I thought was first and foremost?

Richard: What I read out of the response was the pissy tech guy that says you guys are changing your mind and I have done this once and I really don’t want to keep changing it again. Make up your minds. Spoken from another guy who’s a tech that gets pissy.

Hayward: And that’s ok.

Randy: Is that a legitimate question?

Joy: Can our response be to “F”ing bad?

Richard: No, if our response is we understand what we may have communicated may be different from what we are asking for now or what you thought we did, but this is what we would like to try. Try lets them know there might be another change.

Hayward: And then it may change further.

Richard: That’s why I said “try”.

Hayward: If a bunch of stuff comes up.

Richard: Depending on how it evolves

Willie: I also heard him say it works best the way it was.

Hayward: The way it was? My understanding is, so I’m Joe user and I’m mad because whatever so I go to you guys, I got to the feedback page and I’m getting ready to type in my little question and I look over here and I see something that says FAQ. Frequently Asked Questions, so let me look over here and see if someone has already asked this question and if there are some responses, so somehow I can search that data base or I can just browse through the answers and questions that’s already there. If my question has already been asked, then I’ll probably just send you guys something and say I was going to say this but my question has already been asked and answered, so we may get or maybe not get an email. Is that how you guys kind of see it or what? Do you guys want to go to CA.org?

Page 29 of 220

Randy: Yeah, I’m looking at the contact page and I guess I always think that Frequently Asked Questions seems almost to general. I think it—prior Trustee responses…

Richard: Topics. Pretty clear, here are some topics, the solutions there.

Randy: So what would you actually post there?

Hayward: Let’s go to contact us on the website, that’s where people go to contact us. We are at the contact page and it says contact the Trustees at the bottom. Do we want something to the right of that, that says Topics or something?

Kim: What about Frequently Asked Questions and underneath it Topics.

Richard: Or Topics and Frequently Asked Questions?

Kim: Yeah. Yes.

Richard: Or Frequently Asked Questions and Topics?

Nick: I might be looking for the word response or answer. Not everyone is a Trustee. Not everyone has been around for ten years. Responses, Frequently Asked Questions, Responses, Replies, Help…

Hayward: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions?

Kim: You could put all those words, Frequently Asked Questions, Responses, Topics, and Replies and you could…

Nick: Some people are quite new. They need more information on this better that less as much. Not too much, but they are looking for a response or an answer, aren’t they? For a newcomer you want an answer of your sponsor, probably not talking about responses. I think about someone at three months, not quite sure, a bit scared but then they have a go, and they think FAQ, what does that mean? Previous answers, previous responses, why don’t you browse—suggestion—browse previous answers or responses or something by suggesting that. Why don’t you try this first, because a newcomer wouldn’t automatically imagine trying this thing first. , I am angry. You know what they are like. They are weepy, like.

Page 30 of 220

Randy: I looked in and see all these blue boxes and we have this opportunity to put this little sentence over here, what that blue box means kind of thing. Are we looking at the same thing?

Hayward: Yeah, we are on the contact page and it says contact the Trustees.

Randy: The only reason I don’t like Frequently Asked Questions is because some of the questions are very specific, there very important and the idea that we suggest that they are frequently asked—I don’t know. They may have only been asked once in the entire history of Cocaine Anonymous.

Hayward and Kim: Say Previously Asked.—Previously Asked Questions.

Hayward: So to the right of where it says contact the Trustees…

Randy: I think it’s a separate box by itself.

Joy: Yeah.

Randy: I think you could put it right above it, right in between contact office board and contact office Trustees and even higher, but it’s its own blue box.

Hayward: Should rename it Responses to Previously Asked Questions?

Randy: I’d personally like in the blue box, Prior Responses. In the sentence you can explain what that is.

Hayward: Prior Responses.

Randy: Because that’s all it is. We are not answering CA related questions, these are prior Trustee responses to specific questions, not—I am a drug addict because I have a bloody nose.

Joy: How about you know AA has that search and you can search for a word and it will locate that word.

Hayward: On their website?

Joy: Yeah.

Page 31 of 220

Willie: Keyword search.

Joy: Keyword search. When they go to that section of Previously Trustee Responses, you can search for a word like, intergroup. Great example…

Randy: Once you get in this area you can.

Joy: Right.

Randy: Once you click into that section you can search keywords.

Joy: Ok.

Hayward: Once you click on the box it’s going to take you to the helpdesk site, right?

Joy: Yeah, that would be…

Richard: I was just going to say, I like simple descriptions. AA site is very difficult.

Joy: You are right, it is.

Nick: It’s quite complex.

Joy: If we could do one little word search…

Richard: Once we are in there, yes, but I would like it easily spelled out.

Hayward: So whatever we name this little blue box to say, you click on it; it’s going to take us to the helpdesk site?

Joy: Yes.

Hayward: There you can do query’s and stuff on…

Joy: Yes.

Randy: Is everyone ok with these being called Articles? Not all of these have been published.

There’s about five articles, last five articles, top five rated articles.

Page 32 of 220

Nick: They are responses aren’t they?

Randy: There responses.

Hayward: We can tell him to change that heading also. Top viewed articles/five articles. What was on the name of the blue box? Prior Responses? So I’m going to go back to Mike and say we want to add a blue box on the contact us page right above contact the Trustees, or right below it?

Randy: I would go right above too. I think that in that little sentence off to the side that explains what that Prior Responses is…

Hayward: To the right of the green arrow?

Randy: Yeah, Prior Responses from the Trustees for questions from the fellowship.

Hayward: So we are going to name the blue box Prior Responses and to the right of the green arrow we are going to say—what was that again?

Willie: Previous questions from the fellowship.

Hayward: Responses to previous questions from the fellowship.

Randy: Trustee responses.

Hayward: Trustee responses to questions from the fellowship.

Randy: So when they go to this and see the search keywords, it’s got a nice sentence on top what this is all about. It’s really a neat thing.

Hayward: I’m going to tell him to put the blue box above Contact Trustees.

Joy: Yes.

Willie: They can search that prior to making contact, then maybe we don’t have to put out another response like we just issued that response.

Page 33 of 220

Randy: We are going to take out Contact box out and put it on the site and go after you read all of this then you can still contact us.

Hayward: When they click on that box it’s going to take them to the helpdesk site. You guys want him to take that article stuff off and change the word article to response.

Joy: The top five review responses, the last five responses, top five rated responses.

Hayward: Replace article with responses.

Randy: I mean that’s legitimate. Do we only need two of those sections? Top five viewed and last five? What is top five? Are we really allowing them to rate these?

Hayward: I think it’s the ones that have been read the most.

Randy: Most viewed?

Joy: We already have to top five viewed articles.

Richard: Remove rated.

Joy: Get rid of the top five rated.

Hayward: So keep the top five viewed responses, keep the last five responses, and remove the top five rated.

Richard: We don’t even give them a chance to rate it. That would just be our rating. Remove it because some people are going to think it applies to their questions and some people are going to think it doesn’t. If it doesn’t apply then have them submit.

Randy: He’s going to be really pissed when we give him all this shit. When you open up a response over in the left hand side…

Hayward: Where it says Ask a Question?

Randy: Actually if you open up any of the questions, on the left hand side there is a section that says Submit a Article Rating.

Page 34 of 220

Joy: Get rid of that.

Randy: I don’t think we want to do that.

Joy: Get rid of it.

Hayward: So remove the rating?

Randy and Joy: Yes.

Hayward: Remove article rating.

Willie: I would like to see instead of top five viewed responses, maybe the top five topics responses.

Kim: Who cares? Who’s going to look at that? Who’s going to monitor that?

Robert: The service junkies.

Kim: I’m a service junkie and I’m not going to.

Randy: I think that’s information that would be possibly important to us. If from time to time we recognize that we got a fellowship that keeps looking for…

Richard: You really think there’s going to be a repeat topic? Everyone’s going to think their question is different. I see that answer but it doesn’t pertain to me. Remember who we are.

Joy: On the left it gives you main categories, Traditions, Concepts, Area District Finances, Area District Government, Statements on Policy, and Bulletins—I’m not quite sure what they are but—maybe we can add categories that are…

Randy: Yeah, well he has to suggest category things.

Joy: Right.

Hayward: Click on that and it will go to him, and also suggest a category to assign to. Are we pretty cool with the overall layout of the site and stuff?

Page 35 of 220

Trevor: That logo kind of bothers me, it’s not big enough. It’s distorted.

Hayward: The logo to the left over there?

Trevor: Yeah, on top.

Hayward: It kinda of looks like a football.

Trevor: It needs to be a little bit bigger so you can see it.

Kim: Make sure it’s all the same color.

Richard: With a ring around it.

Kim: Yeah.

Hayward: Should I tell them to enlarge the logo?

Trevor: I would enlarge the logo with Cocaine Anonymous helpdesk, that whole section.

Kim: It needs to be defined better.

Hayward: Enlarge the logo and accent the title Cocaine Anonymous helpdesk?

Trevor: Yeah.

Hayward: Is everybody ok with that?

Joy: Yes.

Hayward: Enlarge logo and enhance CA helpdesk.

Trevor: I’m just reading through this now and in the first sentence: They welcome Cocaine Anonymous helpdesk. We receive questions all the time about tradition violations, CA websites, Convention details, submissions, etc. we figured it was time to start—I don’t like that we figured it was time.

Hayward: How do we want them to change that? We figured it start…

Page 36 of 220

Kim: It is our position.

Richard: The time has come.

Randy: Here is a compilation of…

Kim: Don’t use that word.

Randy: What, you don’t like compilation?

Kim: No.

Hayward: Trevor do you have any suggestions before we move on?

Trevor: In an effect to enable you to find answers easier we have compiled all our previous responses in one place or something along those lines.

Willie: Enable to enhance our communication efforts…

Hayward: Let’s take a little time to write it out and we’ll read them and pick one, because I’m going back to Mike with this and I want to hit it with everything, so let him be mad at once instead of being mad several times.

Nick: Tradition violation is quite negative. We get questions regarding the Traditions; we don’t get questions regarding Tradition violations. You don’t get CA website violations, one’s negative and one’s positive.

Hayward: So isn’t that like our mission statement up here at the top? Is that it?

Randy: Remove the word violations.

Nick: I just think violations just rings out. It doesn’t sound nice. It implies that they are already deciding.

Joy: We receive questions all the time about Traditions, Concepts, CA websites…

Nick: Traditions, Concepts, and websites. I just think…

Page 37 of 220

Hayward: So Welcome to the Cocaine Anonymous helpdesk, we receive questions frequently…

Nick: Receive questions regarding the Traditions, the Concepts, and CA websites, something like that. It’s very positive. Tradition violations are just a bit—sorry I’m not an alarmist I just…

Joy: I like it.

Kim: All the time about Traditions…

Nick: Regarding. Regarding Traditions, Concepts, and websites. I’d put Tradition Concepts up at the top, where it should be.

Hayward: We receive questions regarding traditions—remove the violations and leave the comma there right? Traditions and concepts…

Joy: Comma Concepts.

Hayward: Comma Concepts comma, CA websites

Joy: Comma Convention detail submissions, etc.

Randy: You can take submissions out of it.

Joy: Probably.

Nick: To name but a few, you need something capturing, otherwise it could go on forever.

Joy: CA websites…

Hayward: Etc?

Nick: Traditions, Concepts, Websites, etc.

Kim: WS manual.

Nick: Yeah, the list can on forever. We need to rephrase it and all the rest of the stuff in a nice way.

Page 38 of 220

Trevor: Traditions, Concepts and all things involving life in Cocaine Anonymous.

Kim: All things related to CA.

Nick: Related to Cocaine Anonymous, yes.

Hayward: After CA website there is another comma and what?

Joy: All things related…

Nick: All matters related to Cocaine Anonymous.

Kim: I would just put CA.

Joy: CA.

Hayward: Related to CA. and the etc is gone?

Joy: Yes.

Hayward: So just a period after that?

Joy: Then we need to change we figured it was time.

Nick: Yeah, we figured is a bit extreme.

Joy: It’s like we are telling them they are idiots so we figured it was time that we just give you our answers because we are tired of rewriting them. That’s what it sounds like to me. (I know it’s not mine, but maybe a little harsh sounding)

Trevor: In order to better assist you, the fellowship, we have compiled a list of previous responses to enable easier or enable faster responses to your questions or?

Nick: In order to help you, to assist you, we have compiled a list of previous responses.

Joy: Period.

Hayward: Come again with that. This is a new sentence.

Nick: In order to better assist you, we have compiled…

Page 39 of 220

Kim: We don’t need to use the word better. We just need in order to assist you.

Hayward: In order to assist you, the fellowship, we have…

Randy: You. I’m just saying in order to assist you. There is only one person pulling up this website.

Joy: Alright.

Randy: We are talking to that person.

Nick: A list of previous responses.

Hayward: We have compiled—do we say we have compiled all our responses?

Randy: I think that is the question we need to ask. All of our responses are going to make this site.

Joy: Right, we have compiled—what did we say? It was perfect, a list of previous responses period.

Hayward: We have compiled a list of previous responses.

Kim: Could you read the whole thing to us, please.

Hayward: Ok. Welcome to the Cocaine Anonymous helpdesk. We receive questions regarding Traditions, Concepts, CA websites, all matters related to CA.

Kim: No I’m sorry.

Hayward: So Traditions comma, Concepts comma, CA websites comma, and all matters related to CA, period.

Nick: Do you have to have a comma between websites and?

Joy: No.

Page 40 of 220

Hayward: Take the comma out after websites? Ok new sentence. In order to assist you comma, we have compiled a list of previous responses period.

Joy: Perfection.

Kim: Can I have it again, I’m sorry. Welcome to Cocaine Anonymous helpdesk, we receive questions regarding Traditions, Concepts, CA websites, and all matters related to CA. In order to assist you…

Joy: Get rid of that.

Kim: We have compiled a list of previous responses.

Hayward: Period.

Kim: That’s it?

Joy: Yup.

Hayward: So back to Mike’s email. I have to tell you he changed the password on that so we can’t get in there to see these new questions that somebody entered, the three questions from Richard L. Do we want him entering the data? We got to figure out a procedure. How are we going to find those questions? If they don’t send something from the feedback page to us and they go into the site and enter their question there, we have to constantly monitor that.

Trevor: Is there a way we can add on this site that if your question isn’t answered on our site, please feel free to use the Contact the Trustee link to make your inquiry. That way this is just the answers it’s not any question. Let this just be the answer site. If they actually have a question that they don’t feel is answered then they get directed by to the Contact Trustee link on the World site.

Joy: Can’t we just put a link Contact the Trustees on this site if your question is not answered, go here.

Hayward: So am I hearing we want to remove the capability of asking questions in the site?

Kim: Yeah.

Hayward: It sounds like that’s what we want to do. If that’s their…

Page 41 of 220

Joy: Why don’t we just have that Ask a Question directly go to Contact the Trustees?

Hayward: I don’t know how difficult that is for him.

Richard: What’s the question? I’m sorry I was distracted with Nicholas’ laptop.

Joy: Can we link that Ask a Question to the Contact the Trustees?

Richard: Yes.

Joy: So it can just be linked so instead of him having to go through or us having to check this site all the time for the questions that have been asked by the fellowship—because their question hasn’t been answered from the helpdesk—that when they go to ask a question, it boom, it automatically goes to the Contact the Trustees.

Richard: Yes, or he can have a secondary email generated that sends one right to the Board mail box every time a question is submitted. Neither is difficult.

Hayward: So I’m either hearing remove the ability to ask a question in there or if they do ask a question in there generate an email that sends it to the secretary or—what was the last one? We have to…

Joy: Links it to Contact the Trustees.

Hayward: Link it back to the feedback page.

Kim: You’re talking like we need to have whoever is typing know what its doing and they don’t have to.

Hayward: No they don’t.

Kim: All they have to know is if your question has not been answered here please click here. Which actually for us is a link like it is in the feedback line. Can’t we just do that?

Everyone: Yes.

Kim: Because they don’t need to know that it’s going like this to get here, when they just ask a question it would go there.

Page 42 of 220

Hayward: So the Ask a Question link up here, that link can be revised—it could stay the way it is but the URL behind that can…

Richard: Go to a different location.

Hayward: Go to a different location and link it back to the—so we want to tell him to revise the Ask a Question link.

Richard: Update that link.

Hayward: Updated it to what?

Richard: This.

Joy: Contact the Trustees.

Willie: So the Ask a Question link, should that be linked to the response page? Then if the question hasn’t been answered in previous responses then they go to the question. Then they ask their question.

Richard: My opinion is that if you’re going to say ask a question you don’t want to link them to somewhere that’s going to give them responses. They’re going to want to ask their question at that point.

Hayward: So when I click on the Ask a Question it really takes me back to the feedback so you can ask a question and supply your contact information?

Richard: The people that aren’t computer savvy are not going to understand why Ask a Question goes to answering a bunch of questions and the people that are technically savvy are going to be ticked off. They already know they want to ask a question so why are you sending me here?

Trevor: I think we just changed the location of where that thing—it’s like every year when the secretary of this Boards changes—when it was me the office just automatically had my email linked to that so I got all the stuff. As soon I was done and Kim rolled in, they changed it. It’s a matter of—I’m assuming—of five or ten minutes, if that. Like 30 seconds to take on address— it’s just a matter of rerouting where that question goes. Just automatically send it to the secretary.

Page 43 of 220

Kim: So Ask a Question gets send to there but if I here and I’m looking at previously responded—whatever the category is—in there it’s like if your question did not get answered click here and it actually goes back to Ask a Question?

Joy: No, if response isn’t here and you click on Ask a Question it takes you back to the Contact the Trustee page.

Hayward: Where you originally were.

Trevor: Why can’t we leave it actually as it is now, that Ask a Question, which I just clicked on, that and it comes up and when you click submit, all we have to do is say Mike, once they click submit change where that submit button takes it.

Kim: The URL link goes back to…

Trevor: Instead of going to the help site, automatically route that to the secretary of this Board.

Kim: That’s what I’m saying. No matter where you are it goes here.

Joy: Right.

Trevor: That way the website doesn’t have to change at all other than where that thing is being directed to.

Joy: Yeah. Change the URL on the submit button. Can you do that?

Richard: Yes.

Hayward: So I’m hearing that they can ask questions from two places, from the feedback page and from here.

Kim: Yeah.

Hayward: Both places where they ask the question lead to the same spot.

Joy: They lead to her.

Kim: Right now they do.

Page 44 of 220

Joy: They go to the WSBT Secretary.

Hayward: So how do we monitor—well that’s right, we don’t have to monitor because they’ll come…

Kim: It comes to the secretary and the secretary goes ok this belongs to Nicholas; oh this one belongs to Nicholas and its Nicholas again.

Hayward: After we answer the questions and stuff, the information is routed directly to the web server or to the Director of Operations or whatever and then sent to the webservant to post the information?

Joy: Why don’t we just send it to the webmaster after we’ve approved the response and then send the response off?

Hayward: How do you guys want to handle that? The office owns the website. The webservant works for the office.

Trevor: I would say keep the one proper…

Joy: Send it all to Willie and Willie can send it to the office.

Hayward: The secretary is going to have to send two things, the response back to the inquirer, right?

Joy: BCC Willie.

Hayward: And CC Willie.

Richard: Yeah, don’t BCC.

Joy: CC Willie?

Richard: Yeah let them know.

Joy: Alright. We are sending this to the office also. Ok.

Page 45 of 220

Hayward: Is everybody in agreement?

Joy: When you get ready to send the response to the person who wrote the question do you send the response to the person who asked the question, the person whose region it’s in and the Chair and now you are going to include the Office Trustee.

Kim: Ok.

Joy: The Office Trustee will then send it to the office, the office will send it to the webmaster, and the webmaster will post it to the helpdesk. So we write the policy out?

Hayward: Yes, that’s the procedure.

Joy: Alright.

Hayward: Do we need to say that again so you can capture it?

Kim: Maybe we can take a break.

Hayward: We can take a break.

Hayward: Alright we are back on the record. Kim can you please read the draft of the last policy.

Kim: WSBT secretary response to the feedback correspondence and is sent to the maker it should be copied to the WSBT Chair, Regional Trustee, and the WSOT.

Hayward: Willie wants to propose another change to that or an addition about sending information to the office.

Willie: It could just be added on to the policy that I will actually send to the web server opposed to the office.

Joy: WSOT will send response to web server and notify office response was sent.

Trevor: That cuts out a few people, I like it.

Kim: WSOT will then send the response to…

Page 46 of 220

Willie: The web server.

Hayward: Directly to the web server.

Richard: To be posted.

Willie: To be posted.

Richard: Give him that directive, otherwise he still going to say I’m waiting for the office to tell me to post it.

Hayward: Then again on a monthly basis then the WSOT will send a list of what the response…

Willie: Will report to the office the responses that were sent.

Joy: Yes.

Kim: The WSOT will then send the response to the web server to be posted. That’s policy, where does this go?

Hayward: That policy?

Kim: Yes.

Hayward: Where does it go? That’s going to be forwarded to the office and then to the web servant for procedures.

Kim: So you are going to take care of this.

Hayward: Willie’s the communicator.

Kim: Would you like me to cut and paste this and send it to you?

Willie: Yes, ma’am. Thank you.

Hayward: So the web servant doesn’t have to be monitoring questions because we are going to have them revise the link and blah, blah, this.

Page 47 of 220

Joy: He should stay out of that completely.

Hayward: All he does is post our response.

Joy: Correct.

Richard: The idea maybe that there was spamming or could be spamming on that area but it’s unlikely and we’ll revisit that if that happens, if that is one of his responses. Joy: We will…

Hayward: Ok have we beaten this horse to death?

Joy: I believe so.

Hayward: Are there any other questions? Is there anything else on the helpdesk site?

Kim: This will just be updated on the Conference call then?

Hayward: Update on the Conference call.

Kim: I have another question.

Hayward: Please.

Kim: What about these three questions that apparently are sitting there, is that something that Nicholas you’re going to address with Richard or?

Hayward: There are three responses that are outstanding.

Kim: Would you like me to send you those?

Hayward: You received that email, right? I forwarded Mike’s email to the group, so you should have a copy of that. Do you need any help with the three questions?

Nick: Oh, the Richard ones. I haven’t seen it.

Hayward: You haven’t seen it?

Page 48 of 220

Kim: I will send this right now to you.

Nick: Can you send it. I’m not getting my email. Can you send it to me and Richard?

Kim: Who wants to help him?

Nick: Richard will help.

Kim: Richard is helping him.

Nick: Anybody else?

Hayward: Lawrence and Trevor.

Nick: I should be able to get it later but at the moment my email is down. Thank you.

Hayward: So are you going to send an email to Richard L. saying that we are working on the…

Kim: No.

Hayward: No? Ok.

Kim: Trevor, which is you’re…

Trevor: Trevorsworldca@yahoo.com

Hayward: Kill the other one?

Trevor: Yeah, the other one I check it once a week but that’s more my spam. It’s like my spam filter email thing.

Kim: Alright.

Hayward: Alright, let’s kind of reel it back in a little bit.

Everyone: Discussions going on amongst themselves.

Page 49 of 220

Hayward: Is there anymore questions on the helpdesk site? So we are straight with that. Kim is going to send out the standard reply to Richard L. saying we are working on his three questions. The subcommittee is, Nick’s the lead, Richard, Trevor, and Lawrence is going to help. While Willie is emailing stuff, what is the next agenda item? Kimberly.

Kim: The next one is 2008.11.07-Canadian Region-Trevor.

Trevor: It’s on the long Term Planning agenda for the meeting, we’ll discuss it there. Hopefully that the three Trustees that are affected which is myself, Kim, and Robert. We can figure out what we are doing with that and if we want to move forward. I think in reality, I think it’s going to stay in Long Term Planning for at least a couple of years anyway.

Hayward: During the World Service forum that discussion will come up.

Trevor: Yeah, that is on the agenda.

Hayward: Are you going to have copies of the agenda for the people that come in?

Richard: There will be a printed agenda for it. I printed one previous, but I have to add this now. I will just reprint it; it’s not a big deal. I did post an updated Long Term Planning report including that map. I amend it just an hour ago.

Joy: So we will get an update at the Conference call?

Richard: Yes, if you’re not in the Long Term Planning meeting. Both, if you are in the meeting and you will have an update at the Conference call. You should be in the Long Term Planning meeting.

Joy: I saw a little agenda on there. I guess I should.

Richard: Everyone should be there. No one is assigned to it but everyone should be there.

Hayward: I think we can remove 2009.02.09-that’s transcriber, seems like we have a new transcriber. Trevor has provided the foot pedal and has provided Joy with the link and a copy of the software that will go with the foot pedal. We can remove 2009.02.09 from the agenda. Next are referrals. All of the in Conference referrals are approved and taken care of. I’m also glad to say that all of the post Conference referrals are completed. We have approved the response to referral #5796 and are completely done with the referrals. We can just leave them on the agenda

Page 50 of 220

so when we are doing our Conference report in August we’ll be able to list all the referrals that we dealt with through the year. Any questions, comments? We are at outstanding responses to correspondences received from the fellowship. The first one was the response to Ginger L., that was in Trevor’s region and that’s been taken care of. That can be removed right? That one didn’t have a number.

Kim: No, it was never assigned a number.

Hayward: It never did. It never had a number on it.

Kim: Yup, I apologize because I sent that right to Trevor. It was something we had addressed previously as a Board.

Hayward: The next item is 2009.02.07-forms and chat rooms from Loraine A. and that response has been approved and forwarded back to the member.

Kim: It has?

Nick: No

Hayward: It hasn’t?

Richard: No. Nick has the most current…

Nick: This confusion, my bad. Chat room to me means talk. My good friend on my right says no it’s type. I drafted something, realized I made a mistake because Richard flagged out, there is a chat room. I went on to it. I can’t hear shit. We can have it ready by this afternoon.

Hayward: You guys are going to work on that?

Richard: He brought it and mentioned it this morning that we were going to work on it.

Hayward: Information was found that NA does have live chat…

Nick: There is a chat room. It’s none of our business and we are going to write a referral about it.

Page 51 of 220

Hayward: So you are going to circulate that amongst Richard, Nick, Trevor, and Willie, that’s your subcommittee. You guys are going to approve that or finish it up and you are going to forward it, and we will vote on approving that response?

Richard: Yup.

Hayward: The next business item is—it didn’t have a number on it, it looked like it was number two for the information from Quin about the use of the word Picnic. I think we can remove that because that’s already been dealt with by the office. Do you want to talk about it?

Kim: Yeah, I haven’t been copied on any response to Quin.

Willie: In my 4/23/09 meeting where I asked them to create a response, Patty said she would take care of it. I don’t know if a response has been actually given to Quin or the committee.

Kim: So it shouldn’t be removed. This came to the Trustee feedback line, not to mention Mike Ross piggybacked on it. He went so far as to go to John Bodkin and say we’ll I sent something and he never did. I think that it needs to go through this Board not Patty said I’ll take care of it.

Willie: No, but we actually did address it here and then we said that we believe that a response should come from the office. We did address part of the issue.

Hayward: John did address it, Mike’s part of it, with Quinn.

Kim: I know. But I’m saying is don’t you think there should be a response

Hayward: A response should go to Quin in writing?

Kim: Yes.

Hayward: The convention committee used the word Picnic, they told us basically screw you we are going to put it in anyway.

Kim: Yeah.

Hayward: That’s what they did. I was against it. The Office Board decided to allow them to do it.

I said I’m against that. It offends me and others. If it offends anybody, then they shouldn’t do it.

They said screw you and we are going to do it anyway, and printed what is on the flyer.

Page 52 of 220

Kim: Like I said, these questions one, two, and three or correspondence one, two, and three came to the WSBT feedback line. My job is to send a response saying we will respond within 30 days. I think I sent him another one saying the WSOB is going to be addressing this.

Hayward: 2010 committee decided that regardless of what anybody says to them they put Picnic in there anyway. I’m pissed about that.

Richard: That’s not ok.

Hayward: That’s not ok. It wasn’t ok with me but the Office Board voted to let them do it.

Richard: I have a separate issue with using the term Picnic. I have a separate issue on the validity of that. Then going ahead and choosing to do something they were asked not to do—and I’m using the word asked—isn’t ok. It doesn’t look like the committee is working with the Office and the Board.

Hayward: They chose to do that and we took a vote on it. So the check was signed let them print those programs.

Hayward: We have a motion. Kim can you please read the motion.

Kim: Motion to have the WSBT craft a response to Quin’s correspondence.

Hayward: Motion by Nick, second by Trevor as the secretary read. Is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Who is the lead on that? Nick’s the lead. Who’s going to work with Nick on that?

Willie: I will.

Hayward: Willie, Lawrence and Richard are going to work with Nick. Are we straight? Nick’s the lead, Lawrence, Richard and Willie subcommittee. Let me see the written agenda please.

Joy: I don’t have everything on there.

Hayward: No problem. What time is it?

Joy: 10:40.

Page 53 of 220

Hayward: 10:40?

Kim: We are on new business.

Hayward: New business item 2009.05.01-a date and time for the next WSBT Conference call. That will be in July, so we just have to come up with a date. Could everybody pull up their calendars and let’s take a look to see what date in July.

Everyone: Everyone discussing what dates they are available.

Hayward: I think the last one was around the middle of the month, right? Somebody make a motion for it to be July, 26.

Trevor: I motion that we have the WSBT Conference call on July, 26 at the usual 10 a.m. pacific daylight standard whatever time it is.

Robert: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Robert for the July Conference call to be July, 26 at 10 a.m. pacific standard time. Is there discussion on that? Does it conflict with anybody?

Nick: I think I’m in Sweden.

Hayward: You said on the 19^th.

Nick: I would have to go online. I can’t go online.

Everyone: Again everyone is discussing what dates they are available.

Hayward: We can always change it. Motion has been revised to the 19^th? Please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor of having the July Conference call July 19, 10 a.m. pacific standard time? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Next is 2009.05.02-date and time for next WSBT quarterly meeting. Let’s take a look. We don’t think anybody is going to be coming in early for any interviews, right?

Kim: We‘ve scheduled for Tuesday morning for interviews and then the Conference starts at

3:00. That’s Sept. 1.

Page 54 of 220

Hayward: Are we in on the 23?

Kim: No.

Trevor: I would motion that we have the next WSBT quarterly meeting start on Saturday, August 29, at 9 a.m.

Hayward: Saturday, August 29?

Trevor: I give us Saturday, Sunday, and Monday to do all our business. That’s three days.

Joy: I guess you aren’t speaking at Palm Springs Nicholas.

Nick: Fine. It is what it is.

Hayward: When is the CALA Palm Springs Convention? It starts the what?

Joy: The 27^th, the 28^th, the 29^th, and the 30^th of August.

Nick: They asked me to speak at lunch time on Saturday. The Board meeting comes first and I can’t control the Board.

Randy: You can speak at lunch time and still make it.

Nick: They ask me but it depends on if I say yes or no.

Hayward: On what day?

Nick: On Saturday.

Richard: We will all come out and support you.

Randy: You can speak at lunch time and still make it. We don’t start until 5 or 6 o’clock.

Hayward: We’ll start at 7:00.

Nick: If we start it late…

Page 55 of 220

Trevor: Let’s start it at 7:00 then.

Nick: This man suggested early.

Trevor: Withdrawal my motion and I propose on the 29^th at 7:00.

Nick: I think we can do all the business on Saturday night, Sunday, and Monday.

Hayward: The motion was August 29. Your starting time is 7:00. Are you the banquet speaker or what?

Nick: Saturday afternoon at 1:00 or something.

Hayward: Oh, Saturday afternoon. We can load up in my truck and whoever else’s vehicle and we can all go out there and support Nick.

Nick: That would be awesome.

Willie: When are we planning to interview for the Treasurer position?

Joy: Do we even have any candidates?

Willie: Well, it’s not up until August 1. That was the deadline. We set August 1. We still have to take in account if we do have candidates, when are we going to interview them.

Kim: Tuesday morning. Sunday morning.

Hayward: We interviewed Tom on the phone, so that can be a phone interview if we decide if the candidates are present. It’s up August 1. We will probably do a Conference call with that person sometime between the 1^st and the start of the Conference.

Willie: Are we still planning to possibly interview the DOO? We are looking at putting out an announcement for DRPD.

Hayward: Have we posted the announcements because it’s getting late. So we are going to tell the office at the Board to Board that our plans are circulating that so they don’t come back and say how dare you?

Page 56 of 220

Willie: We’ve been talking about it in the WSOT meeting to put both of them out together, the DRPD and the DOO.

Kim: I thought we weren’t going to put out the DOO until after the Convention.

Willie: We weren’t going to put it out to the general public—the Craig’s list but we were actually supposed to put it out May 1 to the fellowship. Kim: Oh, was it?

Joy: No, I never got…

Kim: Why not?

Willie: I will take the hit on that one. I didn’t peruse it. I will take out and follow through whether the announcement was put out.

Joy: Give me the stuff and I’ll put it out.

Willie: I didn’t send you the DOO announcement?

Joy: No.

Hayward: No. I said take the paid director announcement and revise that. The one that we sent out for the paid director, can we just…

Willie: We can revise that, so I will do that. I’ll do that and I will get it to you Joy.

Hayward: How did we get into that when we were trying to come up with a date?

Willie: We were talking about interviewing. Remember my original was that we may possibly have to come in a day earlier to the Treasurer interview, the Doo interview and we didn’t know anything about the DRPD at that time.

Hayward: Should this go on the Board to Board agenda saying circulating the announcements for both of the paid director positions?

Kim: This is because Patty is resigning?

Page 57 of 220

Willie: No, it’s actually because—and this is unofficial—

Kim: Oh.

Trevor: Then there were questions about interviews and everything else. To me that all factors in, right? Maybe we want to table this motion until after the Board to Board so that we…

Hayward: The problem we had last time at the Four Point’s is I got my information to Phil Thomas late, that’s why we were stuck in that small room. The earlier I can get my information to him he can block or secure that room for us.

Trevor: I’m just thinking if we put this off—we are still going to be meeting after the Board to Board, correct?

Hayward: Yeah.

Trevor: We can decide this tomorrow after the Board to Board and we’ll have some input from them on what they’re doing then we’ll have a better idea what we need to do at that quarterly whether we are going to be possibly interviewing for three positions, both Directors and a Treasurer or are we going to interview for…

Hayward: Am I hearing we want to table 2009.05.02-date and time for next WSBT quarterly meeting?

Joy: Motion to table.

Willie: Second.

Hayward: Motion has been made by Joy, second by Willie to table item 2009.05.02, which is the date and time for the next WSBT quarterly meeting, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Is it 11:00?

Joy: Yes.

Hayward: Anybody need a bio break? Nope. Next item is 2009.05.03-that’s CD/Media on CA website stores…

Kim: Scratch that second part there, that shouldn’t be there.

Page 58 of 220

Joy: Scratch web store?

Richard: No, WSBT.

Hayward: Remove the WSBT referral information from there?

Kim: Yes, because that’s like down a couple of items. This sort of evolved out of the situation with Wisconsin regarding CA approved literature, it was brought to my attention that on the CA website in the CA store there are CD’s posted there.

Hayward: Are they all CA World Service speakers and workshops? That’s not area stuff in there.

Willie: It doesn’t say.

Kim: I’m sorry. May I continue?

Hayward: I’m sorry, please.

Kim: Two issues there is one is all those CD’s currently hosting the CA logo and number two I guess the criteria is what is approved CA media that allows and who to make a decision of who those people are, are their CD’s and how they get to be posted on the website.

Hayward: Do we need to craft some policy here? Or do we need…

Kim: What I was told, via Willie, is that they were going to—I would have to go on there and check—that they were going to craft a disclaimer, which my last checking has not been posted.

Willie: Actually that’s supposed to be reported at the Board to Board. That was one of the things that Patty said that she would bring with her.

Hayward: So we need to add another item to the Board to Board.

Kim: My other suggestion wasn’t that all those CD’s should not be hosting CA logo. In my opinion—for whatever it’s worth—it looks as though we endorse those particular messages. I guess I have to personally decide whether or not each one of those is a valid CA message. I think we are looking at a new situation regarding CA literature or CA media and who approves that. I really think that the Conference should be approving that, our collective group conscious should

Page 59 of 220

be a deciding whom has an appropriate CA message through an audio and be hosted on our CA website or our CA store. So yes I think policy probably needs to come, maybe it needs to be through a referral regarding media. Like I said this evolved out of Wisconsin, they currently have a meeting that listens to Joe and Charlie tapes, The Joe and Charlie Tapes for CA as their title or something.

Hayward: They want to put them on a website?

Kim: No. They listen to those at a CA meeting. It was part of their issue with CA approved literature.

Hayward: That’s a book study, right? Meeting, it’s not a regular CA group or something.

Kim: It’s a CA meeting hosted by the area in their directory that their format is to listen to Joe and Charlie big book tapes.

Hayward: It seems to me that if the World Service committee chooses Nick to speak at the World Service Convention and that committee approves it because the WSOB has to approve the speaker list, don’t they? Is that approved by—do we need to look at that list too? I have issues with Nick or…

Kim: This is the argument I actually had with Wisconsin that hopefully your Convention committees are looking at the potential speakers and going yeah Nick has a great CA message and I appreciate that but again what is the criterion for approved CA media? We go through a whole process with LCF, CA approved literature that we host on our CA website.

Hayward: Am I hearing referral to LCF to come up with a process, approval process for media since they handle all the media or?

Richard: We should not have speakers for sale on our website. That is an endorsement.

Hayward: We should not be selling speaker tapes?

Richard: No.

Hayward: Should we be posting them for free download.

Richard: No.

Page 60 of 220

Hayward: They should not be on our site, period.

Joy: No. We can let the people that recorded—or the company that recorded them. They can buy them from them and we can still get our…

Hayward: They can buy them at the Convention. Are we still endorsing them somewhere or?

Willie: That goes back to the earlier policy, the office owns the website. Where does that responsibility lie, the responsibility lies with us taking it to the Conference, that we believe that this sold not be sold here, instead of the office saying we own the website and we can put what we want to do, we can do it how we want to do it. No they can’t. We have a responsibility is to take to the Conference, we believe this is endorsement.

Hayward: You know I don’t like a lot of conversation, I want to hear a motion and second and on what you guys—but I will listen to Nick and then Randy and then I need to hear a motion so we can do something.

Nick: I got an email the other day going really liked your speaker workshop on XA speakers keep going fantastic work CA. I don’t believe CA recorded anything. I believe CA got a company to record the stuff. It’s their stuff. They did what they want, if I remember right. I’m not sure. I think it’s right, CA doesn’t have a recording policy, we don’t make recordings, only of HFC, I think might be read out and put on some disks or something like that, because that’s free. We don’t have any approved CA stuff, we don’t endorse anyone, we don’t put people on of pedestals, and I don’t’ think the other fellowships do it. What XA and all those people do is whatever they do. I don’t think we should be doing it. I didn’t even know we could buy stuff. Who’s to say whose better or whatever. I think it is a good can of worms to be opened. Although the office owned the website, the office work for us again and they follow WSBT policy, and yet someone needs to make a motion to stop this shit, because otherwise this is better than that in comparisons, and we endorse, and say this is that and this is approved or whatever. When I get up and speak I always say I don’t speak for, this is my personal experience and the CD’s are available are just the book that’s written. That’s how it goes. They have already been checked. All the stories have already gone through the LCF process. I remember everything has to be checked and the book has already been approved. It’s just going from book into CD. If someone gets up on stage, it’s their opinion it’s not Cocaine Anonymous unless they are reading HFCII. I don’t think it has anything to do with this, I didn’t even know it was there. I’m hoping someone is going to be very cleaver and make a motion and get rid that stuff, because I didn’t know it was there.

Page 61 of 220

Randy: I’ve known Kevin since he moved from Chicago to Phoenix—the death of that business is this—they’re in business of recording CD’s and selling them at Conventions and that’s the business they’re in. He’s always said that the death of that industry itself is—the guy that buys the CD and goes makes recording for either his buddies or goes and sells them through an avenue that—I don’t know if we actually own the CD that we are selling. I think that we may be bought it but I don’t think we own it. I think there is an avenue to potentially sell speaker meetings from World Conventions and that kind of thing. There are disclaimers that can be made it allow us to do that, but were not prepared. The disclaimers aren’t there; we don’t know who owns the CD. That’s something that would have to go into some kind of a policy or procedure and be improved before we do it. I’m not sure that we couldn’t, but right now I would bet you that we don’t own the right to sell these.

Joy: Is the CA logo on these CD’s?

Kim: Yes.

Joy: And there on the cover with the registered trademark?

Kim: Did you go to the store?

Joy: Yeah.

Hayward: When they sell them at the Convention, yes.

Joy: All you see is the microphone.

Randy: In 99—I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a CD from any Convention that I either have purchased or been given anything that does not. They almost all have the CA logo.

Richard: They changed it.

Kim: They changed it.

Richard: I know.

Kim: They have removed it all. Instead of having—it use to be instead of a microphone it was a CD with the logo on it. That they have changed, but there is no disclaimer. Although we may

Page 62 of 220

know these people, does it truly represent collectively the message of Cocaine Anonymous? I don’t know.

Hayward: Those people could be AA members. If they got a good speaker, good pitch, let him speak.

Joy: My next question is do we know which company recorded these CD’s and then gave them mass amounts of copies to the office? Is the office ordering from the company that recorded these CD’s and that’s where they’re selling from? I think we have a lot of questions that need to be asked. I will let Richard make his motion to remove this shit off the website.

Hayward: Are you going to add some more information Kim or do we want to go with…

Kim: I got the word motion written here.

Richard: I motion that we remove the speaker tapes currently being sold on CA.org, leaving only the Hope, Faith, and Courage audios set.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Richard, second by Trevor to remove speakers section from the website and the store?

Richard: From the store.

Hayward: From the store.

Joy: Friendly amendment?

Richard: From the store of CA.org.

Joy: Can we remove CD’s and tapes? You just said tapes.

Richard: Speaker media.

Hayward: Speaker media.

Joy: That’s better, Speaker media.

Page 63 of 220

Hayward: Let’s let the secretary catch up and we’ll read that again. We have the maker of the motion and the person that second it.

Kim: Who second it? Trevor?

Trevor: Yes.

Kim: Motion by Richard S. that we remove the current speaker media on the CA website store, second by Trevor S.

Hayward: Do we want to also add in there, leaving only the audio…

Richard: Yes. Hope, Faith, and Courage audio CD set—audio set.

Hayward: And that was second by Trevor. Is there any discussion of this motion? I will let the maker speak to his motion.

Richard: I would just like to make sure that it’s clear, I made this motion—speak in favor of it— because the implications that it can viewed that we are particularly recommending a particular message. There is no disclaimer regarding endorsement which even at this point I would still take issue with the selection of speakers that are currently being promoted, since they are for sale they are being promoted. Based on previous concerns by Randy—actually that’s discussion. Thank you.

Hayward: Any other discussion on this motion? Robert? Are you for or against?

Robert: I have a question.

Hayward: Proceed with your question.

Robert: Is it just the online store or is it—are we going to stop selling period, through the office as well? Are we just talking about the online store?

Hayward: Does that also include at the Conventions or if somebody…

Robert: Are we just doing the online store or the ordering through the World Service office?

Page 64 of 220

Richard: Are they on the order forms?

Robert: They are not on the order forms but there is also a tape format that’s circulating from the World Office that I might have with me that we sell as well as the CD.

Joy: It’s says Cassette tapes: there are a limited number of speaker cassette tapes available, please contact CAWSO @ for more information.

Hayward: So I’m used to buying audio CD’s, I like the speaker section then I call the office,” what happened to all the speaker tapes”, “oh we removed them from the website but I will sell you some”.

Richard: In reviewing the spreadsheets, what is the income that appears to be currently generated from the sale in the office?

Hayward: For media?

Joy: Hang on, I’m looking. I got it open, I knew this was coming.

Hayward: Let’s give her a little chance to get that.

Richard: Thank you.

Hayward: So we don’t care about them selling stuff at the Convention.

Richard: It’s not us. We are contracting someone else.

Hayward: We are getting a cut of that money.

Richard: That’s fine.

Kim: No we are not. Oh, maybe we are.

Hayward: They give us so much.

Richard: That’s right. We are not selling it. We are contracting a vendor. That is business.

Hayward: It’s ok to buy the dope…

Page 65 of 220

Richard: We’re not buying the dope. We aren’t selling the dope. We are driving the dope to the store.

Hayward: I’m just throwing things out there.

Kim: It’s no different than contracting with this vendor right here and they’re giving us a certain amount in the contract.

Trevor: I’m really conflicted on this, guys.

Hayward: Are you for or against?

Trevor: As of right now I think I’m probably opposed. I think that it goes back to what I know to be morally right and that whole argument—is it ok for us to sell them at Conventions but not on the website? I have a problem with saying—personally I don’t see the line where that division goes from not ok but now it’s cool. I don’t get that, I don’t see it. If I’m going to sell it here with that same logo, with that same whatever, but not sell it on the website, to me that’s kind of cop out way. I know it’s an outside vendor and blah, blah, blah, but it’s our outside vendor that we chose to allow them to stick our name and logo and say Cocaine Anonymous World Service Convention 2009 Tony D from Milwaukee. How is not saying that’s a CA endorsed speaker. It’s got our logo, it’s got our name. While I understand the underlying spirit behind it, I think that for me personally I would want to see us work more into the lines of working out some kind of a disclaimer and temporarily suspending the sale of these, rather than just saying no we are not going to do it and stop it right now. It’s one or the other. BEGIN STRIKE(you can’t—it’s not ok for me to screw around on my wife at home, but because I’m here I can, that what it feels like to me..)END STRIKE I’m not buying it.

Willie: I against the motion as well, because having speakers come here to speak at a CA event it has to land towards some type of ownership from CA. We are putting on a world event, we are having speakers coming in here under the guidelines of CA then—I just don’t believe in removing it right now, just like that, without having some alternative solutions, a disclaimer drafted and all of this. I believe that it has to be a better solution than just removing it.

Hayward: Can somebody please review the NA site and the AA site?

Richard: I did.

Page 66 of 220

Hayward: Did they sell stuff?

Richard: NA sells some, very selective. AA sells none.

Hayward: I just want to throw that in there before we move on to Joy who is going to provide us with some information. Can someone, later on, fill us in on what NA does?

Joy: I have a feeling the speaker tapes are lumped under sales for chips and literature. Unless I actually have the Quick books break down I can’t answer your question totally and completely of what the income is for the selling of the tapes and CD’s, or how many and what’s in inventory and what’s not in inventory.

Hayward: Do you want Willie to send an email to the office and Yvette or somebody…

Joy: Ship me a back up disk.

Hayward: Or just send us the breakdown.

Joy: Or the breakdown of account number 400401 for the fiscal year.

Willie: Hold that thought.

Joy: I’m holding it.

Hayward: Let him finish that. Who I got up after Joy is Lawrence, Richard, Kim, and Randy.

Richard: Kim’s before me.

Hayward: Kim’s before Richard. Hold on. We are waiting on the breakdown.

Lawrence: I think we pick the speakers…

Hayward: Are you for or against the motion?

Lawrence: I’m against the motion.

Hayward: Ok.

Page 67 of 220

Lawrence: We pick the speakers to speak at the Convention—to me we are saying that they are carrying the CA message that we want to have, so. .and we are endorsing them. We are going to sell it—to me it’s the same back, same thing. We are selling our message to people who speak for us and we all like them, we ask them to come down, we are looking for a new means to generate income and we are generating incomethis is one.

Kim: My I speak in favor of the motion, although I appreciate some of the comments that have been said I think the key here is there is no criteria that say what is, CA approved media. I even said to Wisconsin yeah you would hope that your Convention committee is picking from these very selective folks that have a great pitch but while they are talking about their pitch they are talking about Parkside Hospital where they did their treatment, to me is against traditions. Who’s reviewing that CD and saying you know what now we’ve got something on our website that’s talking about Parkside Hospital, which to me is endorsing; it’s an outside issue, tradition, tradition, tradition violation. The difference—and might I ask those that are on the contract signing side of this—the difference between the CD’s being sold here is that we enter into a contract. They are a vendor. They sell the CD’s under the contract there may be a five dollar rebate, they do not put the CA logo, they shouldn’t be anyway, and they put the Convention logo on. The difference between those two is—I guess what I need to know is when did we sign a contract with the vendor to provide us with CD’s to sell on our website? Do we have something going there? And number two—how many Conventions have we had? Eleven?

Willie: Twenty.

Kim: Twenty, Twenty-five? How many CD’s are on there? Eleven?

Randy: Ten.

Kim: Ten. Why don’t we have a 100 CD’s for sale on here? Who decided that this person, that person—to me there is no criteria? Anybody ever speak at a World Convention at this table? Anybody ever do a workshop at a World Convention at this table? I don’t see any of your names on this website. None of your CD’s, so what is the criteria? Where does this fall under? LCF, WSBT, WSOB have decided what to post, when to post it, who they think is a—they this is where to me, like I said, where has the Conference spoken, given us authority to do this. Where is the group conscious? If that’s the case and WSOB makes this decision, I might as well tell Wisconsin to call them and say we would like the Joe and Charlie tapes that were done specifically for CA put on the website, because the WSOB answers to the groups, right? To us?

Page 68 of 220

Richard: I still speak in favor of the motion. One of the first things that I did, before you mentioned it Hayward, I go out and look at the fellowships that came before us, AA and NA. NA does sell some products, AA sells none. Number one, there are other ways of getting speaker tapes, of getting the message, of someone being able to search out and identifying, get the message that they want to listen to or may not like and choose another. I believe it is absolute endorsement and promotion. Randy brought up do we actually have a contract, are we actually allowed to sell these, are we allowed to reproduce them, where are they coming from? That is specifically why I said the removal, and that’s what I am in favor of. I’m in favor of that distinctive line, because what comes next, what could come next are all of our websites, then say our area purchased this and you can download it from our website. We’ll set up our own store, CA.org sells these, we can sell these. We use a licensed vendor at the Conventions. We took those ideas and guidelines from what AA does. We had looked at what they did. We use an approved vendor for business to resell media. I don’t think we should be promoting it and being selective on CA.org a Worldwide website.

Randy: I speak in favor to the motion too, and not to potentially forever ban the sale of it, but it whether we stop, suspend, whatever. Suspension is stopping. In the motion is only that we stop. If at some point and time we determine that there is a historical of a copulation of the banquet speakers of our World Conventions and it comes with the right disclaimers, and it comes with the right release of the copyrights from the actual companies that did this. We just have to do it right and we are currently, I would guess, not doing it right. We don’t have to use the word suspend to bring it back up again, we just have to stop doing it wrong and if folks decide that it can be readdressed, then we’ll go back and readdress it. I agree with what a lot of the people said, that’s why I said early on that I’m not use that there’s not a way we can’t do it. I’m not that I am opposed to doing it, because there is some real help involved with the distribution. I have friends of mine that can’t get to outside meetings. We gathered up a whole shit load of CD’s and brought it over to this person. This is an avenue of a message of recovery if done correctly and we are just not doing it correctly. We have to first stop. That’s all the motion is, is to just stop, so I’m in favor of the motion.

Hayward: Is there any other discussion on this motion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote. Do we need to have the motion read back?

Trevor: Yes.

Kim: That we remove the current speaker media on the CA website store leaving only the audio HFC sets.

Page 69 of 220

Hayward: So yes to this means yank it off the website? No to this means leave it on, all in favor? Six. All opposed? Two Abstentions? One. We’ll let the motion pass. Six for and two against and one…what a minute…

Joy: That’s nine. That’s correct.

Hayward: That’s right. Motion passes.

Richard: I would just like to piggyback on the terminology that’s used that we’ve all…

Hayward: Hold it.

Willie: Are we speaking on that motion?

Richard: No.

Willie: Ok.

Hayward: Are we moving on? The motion passes to remove that stuff off of the website. Should we add this to the Board to Board instead of Willie taking all of this back to them? We tell them here and when they ask us why we can tell them why.

Joy: Yes. I think it should be added to the Board to Board.

Hayward: Alright. That is item 11.

Joy: Until we can come up with the legal terminology for the disclaimer.

Hayward: It’s 11:30.

Joy: Can we take a short break?

Hayward: Let’s go on a break.

Hayward: We are back on the record. Is there anything before we move on to the next item of business?

Willie: Yes, a fifth concept statement on the last motion.

Page 70 of 220

Willie: Ok, proceed.

Willie: The fifth concept is based upon the fact that we have no criteria set forth of the selling of this so why are we actually removing it when we have nothing in place that says we are removing it on these grounds. I believe we have to craft a policy. Then the media can fall in line with that policy. Without a policy in place and no criteria set what grounds are we actually removing this item from that’s been on the website for a many a year. That’s my fifth concept.

Hayward: Ok. Is there any motion to reconsider or a motion on anything?

Robert: I have a question. It has to do with this previous motion that we are on. Is this just applied to the online store or does it apply to the store at the World Service office as well?

Hayward: I believe it applies to the motion. Just remove it from the store. If I can’t get you one way, I’m going to get you another way. If you call me I’m going to sell it to you.

Robert: That’s what I’m asking if we…

Hayward: It wasn’t stipulated in the motion to stop selling it period, just remove it from the site. What do you guys want to do? Are we staying as is or do we need to revise anything?

Richard: I would be in favor of coming to a decision to include or exclude the all sales of the media.

Hayward: Before another motion is crafted or stated. Trevor?

Trevor: I was going to state the motion.

Hayward: Ok. Come with the motion and the secretary will…

Trevor: I would like to motion to revise the previously passed motion to include any and all sales of speaker media.

Kim: Second.

Page 71 of 220

Hayward: Motion to amendment the previous motion made by Trevor, second by Kim. The secretary will read the motion as soon as it’s written. Ok the secretary is going to restate the motion.

Kim: Motion to amend the previous motion to include all sales and speaker media on the CA website and by the WSO.

Hayward: Does anybody have a problem with that? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Seven. All opposed? Two. Motion passes. We’ll still leave that on the Board to Board and talk about that with them. Next item is 2009.05.04-Ratification of WSOB Director nominee, and that’s Willie. We don’t have a copy of a resume right now. Do you guys want to wait? Do you want to table this until you can see the resume or do you want hear Willie’s pitch on the candidate?

Joy: I would like to see a resume.

Willie: I’m just putting in a call for them to send it to me, electronically. Hopefully that can be done prior to—I would like to make a motion to table this. Do we need a motion to table?

Nick: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Willie, second by Nick to table this until we receive a resume, all in favor? Any opposed? Ok, we will hold off on that item until the resume is circulated. Next item of business is—do you all want to hold off here?

Trevor: That could take a while.

Hayward: We are going to recess. We are going to adjourn for lunch.

Hayward: We are back from lunch and we are at business item 2009.05.04-Ratification of WSOB Director Nominee. That was Willie, and I’ll let him go from there.

Willie: Make a motion to ratify Barry Jacobs for Director WSOB.

Richard: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Willie, second by Richard to nominate Barry, should we say Barry J. as Director at Large, is there any discussion on this motion? Do you want to speak to your motion Willie?

Page 72 of 220

Willie: Not at this time.

Trevor: Only concern that I have—I don’t think I know who this person is and that’s neither here nor there, but when you go down to the area and district level of service there’s really only the one thing, that kind of brings up a little red flag to me. If you’re not real familiar with district and area service are you really going to be that familiar with World Service. I’m not saying that’s an automatic blackballer it’s definitely a little bit of a red flag raiser for me.

Hayward: Barry has been sober since 87; he’s been active through out his sobriety. He’s been to at least four WSOB meetings, he’s willing, and he meets the requirements for the two. He has a lot of input. He appears to be…

Randy: What was his reason for participating in the four meetings?

Hayward: He has nothing else to do. No. He had never served at that level and he wants that experience. You know how you get those lulls in your sobriety; oh I need to do something. I don’t see a lot written about his group and district experience, but he has been pretty active there and wants to move down to the next level.

Nick: You know this member? He’s done all the group service probably and everything and he’s been at district and he probably could have written a bit more. Has he done the area service stuff? He’s not an officer but has he been to area meetings from your experience?

Hayward: He has been involved…

Nick: I know a lot of people are sober but that doesn’t mean much to me.

Hayward: He was involved at the area level years ago, when they started with the split of the districts and all of that. He said he kind of had some issues with how things were going and he kind of backed away from it.

Nick: Is that CALA?

Hayward: Yeah

Nick: So what might he have done, in your experience, area before that happened?

Page 73 of 220

Hayward: Probably was a GSR.

Nick: He knows how to behave and that in all those forums, district groups, areas he know how it works, voting and the whole thing?

Hayward: I don’t have anything negative to say I’ve known Barry for years. When he came to the WSOB meeting I said I know you, and he said yeah from way back, in the late 80’s and early 90’s. We voted him in—I mean ratified him at the WSOB.

Willie: My opinion just based on my observation of him in the time he spent at the Office Board in the meetings he is a straight shooter. He votes his conscious, he believes he votes what’s best for Cocaine Anonymous as a whole, he has good feedback, and he also has some excellent ideas of a way to go. The thing that really caught me was that he believes that him coming back into this level of service is more or less been an example of understanding what’s going on throughout CA and hopefully get some more of the old-timers back into the current service structure in CA.

Joy: He’s going to say out of regional issues, correct?

Hayward: We questioned him on that about giving up district and area commitments and stuff, and he said he didn’t have any at the time.

Joy: If anyone of the region comes and ask him questions on regional issues he will send them…

Hayward: If we find out about it we will scold him on that. We made it clear to him that he needs to stay out of this, if ratified you will be involved in world service issues and stay out of other things and point questions to the regional Trustee.

Willie: I have a question. Should we be on matter of record when we are discussing this?

Hayward: I thought we are on record.

Willie: I say should we be on? The last one we haven’t been on.

Hayward: Yes, we can review later.

Joy: That’s my only question. There’s nothing in the area district part except child care for LACA, which actually should be CALA, but…

Page 74 of 220!

Willie: We actually had a hand written one that was more in detail.

Joy: Why didn’t we get that one?

Willie: Because that was the only one that was done electronically. I was hoping he would transfer from the hand written one to the form so that you guys could see the full extent of what he’s done but this is what he’s come up with.

Hayward: I like the idea that he wasn’t a go along, he didn’t wait to see how people were voting, like some of the Board members do. They wait and watch to see how things are going and then they want to side with them. Is there anymore discussion on this? How are we going to vote? Are we going to vote secret or…

Joy: Just vote.

Hayward: There is no more discussion, all in favor of ratifying Barry as a WSOB Director? All opposed? Ok it’s unanimous. I think we need to add that to our Board to Board agenda and pass that information on. Has everybody read the responses that Randy and Trevor posted? Do we want to go back to those items or do we want to move on with the rest of the new business? I don’t hear any comments.

Richard: I don’t care.

Hayward: We can wrap that up.

Randy: Is there a place where we would go back over—because we are coming up on yours in the agenda. The H&I one was one that we skipped. Is it appropriate to go back and snag that and clean that up before we continue on? Or do we run through the agenda first and then go back?

Hayward: I think H&I was the first one that we moved. You sent that response to use, right?

Randy: I did. The only thing that I would like us all to look at would be take the word idea and replace it with the word principal. The WSO literature to inmate’s response, oh no that’s the other one. That goes as is.

Hayward: That’s the H&I one?

Randy: Yes. Can I make a motion, read it?

Page 7 5of 220

Hayward: This is going to go to the office, right?

Kim: What are we doing? I’m sorry.

Hayward: We are trying to figure out what business item does that tied to?

Joy: Aren’t we on 2009.05.05-LCF pre-literature approval?

Hayward: The one that we’re reading, does this go with the 2009.04.08-H&I? I believe so.

Randy: Yes.

Hayward: Has everybody read that response? Do you want to read it Willie? The only thing you wanted to change, that was what Randy?

Randy: That was not going to change.

Hayward: Ok. Randy you can come with your motion.

Randy: I would like to motion that the response for 2009.04.08 be approved by the Board and the response reads as the WSBT supports the WSO in their effects to respond to unsolicited requests from any incarcerated member of our fellowship for literature and information regarding CA we would ask the WSO does not encourage local groups, districts, and or areas to engage in offering free direct shipments of chips and literature upon institutional requests and direct said request be forwarded to the World H&I group.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Randy, second by Trevor to approve response to item 2009.04.08, is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. New business item 2009.05.05-LCF literature pieces approval.

Joy: Do we have those?

Trevor: Those got emailed out quite awhile ago. Has everybody had a chance to look at them? I can resend them if need be.

Page 76 of 220

Hayward: I saw some feedback from Kim and Joy.

Trevor: Before I get into making any motions about things, I just want to read what exactly point seven is, which is where these pieces are.

Hayward: All the pieces?

Trevor: Those three pieces are all at point seven.

Hayward: Was two existing and one new?

Trevor: Two were existing pieces that we were revising, one was actually “Who is a Cocaine Addict” and it’s been in revision for quite some time and been rejected a time or two. This is the last ditch effort to try and fix that thing before I think that Cynthia and Susan and others blow ours or everybody’s heads off or whatever. The other one is a new basically CA business card to pass out to the newcomers or other people at meetings. I know there was some feedback but I just wanted to read what point seven is exactly just so we know what we are being asked to do.

Hayward: Ok.

Trevor: The approved draft is reviewed by the World Service Board of Trustees to ensure that there are no tradition violations or other concerns that might affect Cocaine Anonymous as a whole. If approved by the WSBT the pamphlet moves to point eight, if the WSBT finds problems with the draft it will provide a list of specific recommendations and the pamphlet returns to point six. The WSBT review process should take less than 30 days to complete. With that being said I’m going to break it down into three different pieces. I would like to make a motion that we approve point seven, the “I am responsible” card from LCF.

Hayward: Is there a second on the motion?

Richard: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Richard to approve one of the pieces at point seven. My question first is, with that piece, was Kim or Joy’s feedback included for that?

Joy: No that’s the self test.

Page 77 of 220

Hayward: Is there any discussion on that? Everybody’s read it and they’re fine with that? We didn’t see any boogie man hiding in there did we? Ok, hearing no discussion, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. Next motion.

Trevor: I would like to make a motion to approve the point seven revision to “We can recover”.

Hayward: We can recover, what was it?

Trevor: “We can recover.”

Joy: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Joy to approve the second piece at point seven. Is there any discussion on that piece?

Willie: Can you state the revision?

Trevor: There’s actually two copies that I’ve send out, one’s the red line and the other ones the clean copy.

Richard: I’m giving him the red line.

Trevor: Perfect.

Hayward: And the red line is LCF’s changes in there?

Trevor: Yes. The red line is the changes that we’ve made to the clean this how it would look if it eventually gets passed.

Hayward: Joy and Kim, no comments?

Joy: This one was great.

Hayward: Is there anymore discussion on this? Any questions on this? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. Next one.

Trevor: I would like to make a motion to approve the self test pamphlet at point seven.

Joy: Second.

Page 78 of 220

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Joy to approve the third piece at point seven, is there any discussion on this?

Joy: Did you happen to take back the comments I sent to you?

Trevor: I discussed briefly with Cynthia that there were some concerns: however…

Hayward: Can you read point seven one more time so we’ll all know what’s going to happen on that?

Trevor: Yeah. Point seven is the approved draft is reviewed by the WSBT to ensure that there are no tradition violations or other concerns that might affect Cocaine Anonymous as a whole. If you guys feel strongly enough about those things that you brought up are going to be a huge issue either on the Conference floor or amongst the fellowship, then by all means let’s not pass this piece, let’s send it back to committee. I can put that out there to whole committee and say this is where are concerns are. We did it a year ago with some pieces and we said we are not happy with this, redo it and they did. One of those pieces we just passed. That was pretty much why I didn’t get the whole committee involved, I just mentioned to Cynthia there are some concerns, and we might have some issues to back with. We are strictly looking at it as is this a tradition violation or is this bound going to affect CA as a whole. There is still time for some small changes in grammar. There is still the professional editing to come as well, which will be point eight, where we get a professional to edit it.

Hayward: So Joy and Kim’s concerns, are those traditions, something that affects the fellowship?

Joy: It’s going to come up on the Conference floor. I just think it would read better if we—here’s a perfect example have you began to use drugs or drink while you’re alone, instead of have you began to use drugs or alcohol while you’re alone. I think drugs or alcohol while you’re alone—I don’t know what reads better.

Hayward: They had drink?

Joy: They have drink.

Hayward: We want to use alcohol? That was your concern, what was yours Kim?

Kim: I think it is heavily saturated with the word alcohol.

Page 79 of 220

Joy: Probably.

Hayward: So you want to remove…

Kim: I don’t know what I would do. I come from a place drug is a drug, whether it’s a powder, a liquid, a pill…

Hayward: So you are saying it sounds to AAish?

Kim: I don’t remember exactly what I wrote, but I think it’s heavily saturated with the word alcohol.

Trevor: I will give you guys some back ground. I wasn’t directly involved with working on this piece, but it was something that we obviously talked about on our Conference call for the main committee. I know from watching their argument and their debate back and forth, one of the huge things on mine especially and on the Conference call was should it say have you ever used more drugs or I. That was the big issue, the you or the I. What context do we want to put it in? There wasn’t a lot of talk about—the feeling was they tried to make it more inclusive rather than take the word cocaine out, so it was drugs and alcohol instead. Like I said if you guys feel that’s a big enough concern then we’ll send it back to committee and ask them to address that.

Kim: I understand that point seven is supposed to come from this tradition situation, but they are changing major verbiage here.

Trevor: It also says where it greatly affects CA.

Kim: That’s why I said what I said.

Nick: I just want to highlight what Kim said, but she already said it, but that’s why I didn’t join in or commit or anything. There’s lots of use of the word alcohol, but to use the words drink and alcohol is it more confusing? I think if you’re going to use the word alcohol just stick to alcohol don’t—we have an alcohol reading; we don’t have a drink reading. This no drink reading, there is an alcohol reading. That came from a brother in the UK or wherever in an alcohol reading.

There’s quite a lot of alcohol there and we’re not AA. I remember at the Conference from last year when LCF got their ass kicked. It was too much, too soon, too suddenly. I’m with Kim, for me some members might not want to think about the drink—we need to get them in the door.

Page 80 of 220

Randy: Have you ever used more mind altering substances than you planned instead of drugs and alcohol?

Kim: Cocaine and all other mind altering substances.

Nick: It’s like if you can say that then why not cocaine or heroin, it’s very specific isn’t it? There’s no Heroin reading but there is an alcohol reading. We addressed that when they get in the room so we don’t—this is the front line. This might be an H&I meeting, self test, this is front line. Some people who haven’t had a drink might think that’s weird. I’m just thinking what a new person might think, there’s a lot of alcohol here. I got sober in AA, and I think you all know that, and there’s one leaflet out of 500 that says the AA member and other drugs so it’s quite discreet. This is up front. This is one of the first pieces of literature that a newcomer will probably read. If they came to my home group, you would get forward, you would self test. If they didn’t drink, they’d think am I in the right place? Why is this like AA? Why is it keep going on about alcohol? When you’re at the reading and someone right at the end would say could you please read the alcohol reading, there’s no big thing because it’s a lot, but this is a lot of alcohol in that major first point of call. When you call up the helpline, I don’t know about your local helpline, but our local helpline in the UK doesn’t ask you if you had a drink eight times, they say do you have a problem with cocaine or another drugs. This is asking specifically cocaine or alcohol. They don’t say drugs or alcohol or whatever. If alcohol is a drug, which is in the reading: alcohol, who says alcohol is a drug? Why are we asking them again if it’s drugs or alcohol? It’s like we’re spitting it not making it the same, so I’m with Kim I think it’s a bit weighty, a bit confusing for a newcomer and I think it’s front line literature, send it back.

Willie: I like the statement at the end of it, at the end of 22. It really makes it inclusive. I believe that we are putting too much emphasis on the inclusiveness and taking away who we are, we are Cocaine Anonymous. I like the fact to read cocaine and other drugs opposed to drugs or alcohol. Now you’re taking away cocaine and I believe cocaine should be a part of this reading because the statement brings about our inclusiveness in that—we excluding anybody, we are including everybody but we focusing in on cocaine. We are cocaine addicts, but yet in still we’ve putting and other drugs in there to include everybody else.

Randy: I’ll just says this because this the premise of what I’m going to say, I’ve never been a fan of this self test thing, handing out a piece of literature that ask you 23 questions when our big book only ask you 2. It just never made sense to me. I understand what they are getting at but I also know a whole lot of—the piece itself I guess isn’t one of my favorites. I really don’t like it worded like this. I think a paragraph at the end of it that expounds on mind altering substances to include alcohol that—this isn’t something that somebody’s picking up on the street; this is

Page 81 of 220

something somebody’s picking up at a Cocaine Anonymous meeting. They went to a Cocaine Anonymous meeting and got a self test. At that point and time no one is offended by the use of the word cocaine. They are at a CA meeting when they got it. If we go on to explain the additional aspects of minding altering substances and alcohol in a simple paragraph at the end of the—we are not excluding someone. They went to a CA meeting and picked up a self test. This isn’t trying to encourage them to come to CA; they were already there when they got the self test. I don’t care for the way it’s being changed. Like I said I don’t necessarily care to whole piece in general.

Joy: What if we just get rid of drugs and alcohol and put mind altering substances?

Richard: You mean if LCF get…?

Joy: Yes, we make the suggestion to us mind altering substances period. It still makes it all inclusive; mind altering is everything I ever used and then some, besides cigarettes of course and caffeine. That would be my suggestion. AA has got the 20 question one. If I was trying to do an intervention on someone, I would grab one of these pamphlets and hand it to them. That’s where most of it comes from. Maybe that’s a suggestion for LCF.

Richard: I believe this meets point seven without any traditions violations or affecting CA as a whole. I believe it affects our opinions. I like cocaine in the self test, that’s because when I come in the door that’s what I’m used to. My belief in supporting this and the work they did is I believe that they tried to broaden the scope. I believe they tried to make it so basically, if you had trouble with any of these at any step of the way you may want to consider our fellowship. I believe that was their intent. All four years at my last stay at the Conference, my years heard people between two and eight years kept wanting to get rid of the word cocaine. They came in on crack; they came in other ways than cocaine, like us old farts. I believe this meets the criteria point seven.

Hayward: Is there anymore discussion on this motion? Is everybody clear on how they’re going to vote? If you vote yes, that means we are ok with how the piece of literature is and it moves on to point eight, if it’s no, Trevor will compile a list of our concerns and send it back to LCF. They will take that into consideration and probably revise it. Everybody ok? Hearing no more discussion on it, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Five. All opposed? Three. Abstentions?

Trevor: I would like to motion to reconsider, this is not substantial unanimity with something like this I think we need more discussion.

Page 82 of 220

Joy: Second.

Hayward: Ok, let’s start the fight all over again.

Joy: Point of order? There’s a motion to reconsider with a second, don’t we have to vote on that, Sir?

Hayward: Sorry, I guess I’m just used to keeping it simple.

Joy: Sorry.

Hayward: Motion to reconsider by Trevor, second by Joy. The first motion passed, so we are reconsidering it now. We need to discuss that. Why, are you speaking on the reason to reconsider?

Trevor: I kind of spoke out of turn there, and said what I wanted to reconsider it when I made the motion. If we can’t reach some substantial unanimity on this, I personally don’t want to go to the Conference floor, especially not being the LCF Trustee, if we’re not all in agreement here, I guarantee you it’s going to be one of those three hour debate things before finally somebody either makes a motion to refer it back it the committee or LCF just yanks it. I don’t want to waste the time there, I would rather ten people waste a little bit of time today when we’ve got it than hold the whole Conference hostage for three or four hours.

Hayward: So you are for us talking about this main motion again?

Trevor: Yes.

Hayward: Seeing no more discussion on motion to reconsider, all in favor of reconsidering this motion? Motion passes. We are back at where we were.

Kim: Mr. Chair?

Hayward: Yes.

Kim: I’m terribly sorry, but I need a bio break.

Hayward: Let’s take ten minutes.

Page 83 of 220

Hayward: We are back on the record after a short break. We are back in discussion of Trevor’s previous third motion to approve one of the pieces forwarded to us by LCF. Well let’s open it back up with discussion on that.

Trevor: Just so everybody knows this was moved to point seven of the 2008 World Service Conference. It was forwarded to us in September 10, 2008, we discussed it and on October 15, 2008 we sent it back to LCF with the suggestion to change the drugs specific language. This is their revision of what we have already sent back to them saying please fix this, and now they have.

Randy: What did it say before?

Trevor: It was the cocaine and whatever, so now they switched to drugs rather than specifically cocaine.

Nick: I’m going to spangle about the point that they have done what we asked, but what I’m saying it’s still like—I think it’s a conflict. We already have a reading that everyone seems to like from back home that says alcohol is a drug that is what he says. It’s approved and everything, so why do we now mentioning drugs and alcohol if we what to be inclusive? Why can’t we just say cocaine and other drugs—alcohol being a drug? Why do we have to explain to the newcomer all the time? I just think the mention of alcohol seems—they say drink as well. We put alcohol in it, we put drugs and alcohol and then we put and drink. I think what Willie said was we are stepping away from it a bit. I think cocaine and other drugs—alcohol being a drug, we already addressed that in the alcohol reading. From my experience most meetings I go to read it out. Yours might be different. Where I go in Europe all over Europe they read the alcohol reading. If they were sitting here they would go we don’t need to do that, we addressed that at the meeting. We don’t need another f**king pamphlet addressing that, we already read the alcohol reading. Why do you want that, if they were sitting here? They’re not, but I’m part of that region and also on the Board. I still think they have changed it, as Kim said, we don’t like how they changed it and it’s alright to ask them to reconsider it. I think cocaine and other drugs wouldn’t of jumped up, other drugs, no mention of cocaine although we are Cocaine Anonymous and alcohol is a long way from what someone who started Cocaine Anonymous thought of a long time ago. Although we must get modern, we must change—but my experience Cocaine Anonymous where I come from is getting bigger. It’s doing ok. We don’t need to keep banging on about the alcohol. It mentions alcohol a lot of times and that’s being specific but then we’ll probably get people in meetings going why don’t you mention Heroin? Because you keep banging on about one drug. Someone is going to notice. You don’t have to be a Trustee to notice that there’s an alcohol reading that says alcohol is a drug. They probably already noticed it. I

Page 84 of 220

think they’ve done a good job but I don’t particularly like it. I’m not moved to say yes to the vote we are presented with at the moment. I think, although I hear what Randy says, I don’t take them through this leaflet. We got a leaflet and the Conference likes the leaflet, but I don’t like the way it is at the moment. I think the removal of the word cocaine is dangerous, we are Cocaine Anonymous. The inclusion of cocaine—the wordings of cocaine and other drugs that means other drugs. We have already defined as by Cocaine Anonymous that alcohol is a drug; it doesn’t have to mention alcohol. It’s like being nonspecific but being specific about being nonspecific, its nonsense. That’s just me as an Englishman. I think its called tautology; we have already stated the obvious. We already said it once and we need to be consistent. I would rather see cocaine and other drugs. Who are we to say to a newcomer, three hours sober or three days sober knows that he we suggest he drink or not. I think idea is to get them in the door and keep them, so we say we are Cocaine Anonymous and we suggest abstinence from cocaine and any other drug and stop throwing alcohol in. They would go oh is this AA as well, because it mentions alcohol, I think it’s nine times and it mention drink once, that’s ten times that we don’t mention cocaine but we don’t mention any other drug. It’s being sort of specific again. I think that confusing.

Kim: I’m looking at the red line copy, and I think that us sending it back to them because it was drug specific, just taking question number one—would it read prior to us sending it back it said have you ever used more cocaine than you planned? It was specific. I would like to think my recollection says have you have you ever used more cocaine or any other drug more than you planned. I think that was the direction we may have been going in to be consistent with our other approved readings. That’s just my thought.

Randy: I’m with Kim on this. I think that if it was just cocaine and we asked it to be less drug specific, adding cocaine and all mind altering substances, but to change cocaine to be less specific to say drugs or alcohol, just replaced the problem that we had with the word cocaine with the problem with the word alcohol. You’ve got a specific nature of alcohol that has just replaced cocaine. If you’re cocaine and all other drugs then you stay consistent with the word Cocaine Anonymous and we just added instead of adding and then adding another layer of specificness that we had the problem with to begin with.

Trevor: I really hate to do this, but I’m just trying to find the original of what we rejected in October of last year so that we are not asking them to change it back to something that they gave us then, I think that might be the case but I’m not sure.

Kim: The red line?

Page 85 of 220

Trevor: No, the red line—see that’s the thing, the red line as you see it is what was originally existing in past. That’s what’s already there. Ok?

Kim: Right.

Trevor: That’s not necessarily what they sent; because there were changes back in October that they sent us and we rejected that. What I want to see if I can find out what we’ve already rejected and are we now going to go back and say well we rejected it then but now it is good…

Hayward: Wouldn’t that be in an email that you sent back to Cynthia or would send that back to the post master?

Trevor: What I sent back to Cynthia and the LCF committee was just that we rejected it.

Hayward: Back when?

Trevor: In October. I sent back—well actually didn’t because I was actually in Washington when we had that Conference call—I went out for lunch with her and I said no we’ve passed this and this but we rejected this and here’s why. She let the committee know from there. What I’m trying to do is…

Randy: Her pamphlet just uses the word cocaine?

Trevor: Yeah. My point is what did we reject in October as far as…?

Hayward: Let me throw out something here. Do we want to table this until Trevor gets the specific information we rejected or do we have enough to go on for you guys to either reject this thing or move it forward?

Joy: I think we should give Trevor the chance to pull up what we rejected first before we reject this again—we’re telling him to take it back to what we rejected before.

Hayward: That was just a question. That was Joy’s input. Anybody else?

Kim: Motion to table until later in the quarterly.

Joy: Second.

Page 86 of 220

Hayward: Motion to table this by Kim, second by Joy, all in favor? All opposed? Ok, we will table this until Trevor gets a chance to email Cynthia. I’m quite sure she has all the information to send right back to him and then we will pick this back up. Great work you all. We are going to move on to business item 2009.05.06-Referals to be written by WSBT.

Kim: Typically, if there is any concerns over the year that the WSBT has that we want to put in referral form to the subcommittees now would be the time. Last year I think we only had one or two, and one of them was regarding the sixth tradition disclaimer, which we were pretty much all on board about, but somehow made it to S&B, and was tabled on the Conference floor. I still feel pretty passionate about. I think we might want to write a referral about that, also per the discussion today another one would be the media process of approval of distribution to the fellowship. Given some of the research and writing that I’ve done, a statement in the World Service manual regarding the use of CA logo on websites, like Facebook, My Space…

Richard: Social networks.

Kim: On the Internet, yeah. Not necessarily that we write the necessary verbiage for any of this other than again putting forth information to the subcommittees. If everyone thinks that those are three that we want to pursue or not, or if there are any others that anyone feels need to be addressed by the subcommittees on the Conference floor.

Hayward: My little two cents is that we got three things that we can write referrals on; we just need to form some subcommittees and help in getting those to move along. As we work on those then if anybody comes up with something else then we can add it to the list. Are you guys ok with that or? So the three things that Kim listed, the first one being…

Kim: The sixth tradition disclaimer.

Hayward: You said that was written last…

Kim: They did that last year. It went to S&B.

Hayward: It died?

Kim: Yeah. It was tabled.

Hayward: So they never did anything with it? It just kind of died?

Page 87 of 220!

Kim: Oh it went through a lot of discussion because I think we were looking specifically for something like this to be on newsletters, flyers, directories, and we, the Conference floor, became somewhat passionate as to whether or not it has to be on the Hanes t-shirt or the baseball caps. Who’s on S&B? Hopefully there’s clarification on the intent of the referral.

Randy: I agree with the whole idea…

Kim: Well it doesn’t. It’s specific to a flyer, a directory, a registration form, newsletters—Trevor you don’t have a copy of that from last year, do you? Know what, never mind. I will look at S&B’s report. If someone wants to help me write the referrals that would be nice.

Hayward: You are going to write up the three proposed referrals and then we’ll look at it and form a subcommittee for those.

Joy: I think we need to add another referral.

Hayward: Ok. She knows the list, so what is your next proposed referral number for?

Joy: I believe number four is to amend the fiscal year budget for July 1, 2010 to June 30. 2011, which I think got passed last year on the Conference floor to include Trustee at Large. We sent a referral over to the Finance committee.

Hayward: Did you also want to add the WSOT and WST budgets?

Joy: I think we need to.

Hayward: So that will be number four.

Joy: To amend…

Willie: To amend the budget.

Joy: It needs to be.

Hayward: Right.

Joy: It’s not fair…

Page 88 of 220

Hayward: Right. We are spending a lot on gas to go back and forth to the office.

Willie: I’ve spent a lot going to the bank and different travel back and forth to the office, signing checks.

Hayward: And plus we attend the Assembly.

Joy: Yes you did.

Hayward: So that will be number four. Any other referrals, if not right now, you can email that to the group and Kim will add that in as five and on and on, then once she gets the list created then we will circulate it and everybody can say what they want to work on and then we’ll form the subcommittee. Does that work for you guys?

Everyone: Yes.

Hayward: The next item is 2009.05.07-Formation of Districts and voting rights/to achieve something, I forgot what it all said but that was Nick’s item of business.

Nick: I’m in an evolving region. They struggle and also mainly in foreign languages, but Scotland and Ireland they get some groups, then they form an area, and then they look at the World Service manual and it tells you how to form a district, but it doesn’t say how to split it. Say the area has got $1,000, 13 groups want to make a district and the other groups don’t mind, they go and make a district so there’s these people floating about as an area and as a district and they don’t know how to make sure that this group doesn’t out vote that group and who gets the money, and we gave that and we gave that, there seems to be no direction. The UK followed the Americans, the history of the old. They are completely new. They got no history on how to do it. I’ve got Holland asking me, well we got 22 meetings, these people get the lion’s chair, but these people to form a district, and so shouldn’t the DSR’s get two votes? I said well normally no one gets more than two votes, But the UK DSR’s at one point had six votes each, so if three DSR’s turned up they completely killed the rest, so I actually made a fifth concept statement and said this is rubbish but if your UK get it all. They were looking for some help, some guidelines and I was think about writing a referral, but wouldn’t have anyone with experience with this and the difficulties of how to make it fair, to be the same. If this lot donated regularly $500 every month and the district turned up and they said we are actually going to split in half. Then this lot went, but we donated 95%, that’s not fair. Without causing—to maintain unity whether we get some guidelines. I felt a bit lost on my own. I wonder if anyone had an experience with this and how to encourage them. They are also struggling in another language. This is going to come up in

Page 89 of 220

Sweden, and it will come up in Germany, it will keep coming up. It’s not going to go away. I imagine this question is going to come into Farsi in three or four years?? We are in Iran and this group started here and we do know what to do and how do we do this? The World Service manual doesn’t address it at all. It just says oh we got together if we are like minded and we are in close proximity but it’s doesn’t say who decides, how many votes everyone gets, how do you split the money, if it’s a this a common purse, if it’s fair. I just want to know if anyone got any advice, any experience whether to make a referral to get a committee to work on it, and so I brought it here. They are reaching out and asking for help and direction.

Hayward: I guess when CALA was one big area they started bickering about a split, the first thing they did was probably draw a map and then sectioned it off the districts that we now have, then they drew some lines and then if you fall within that section or maybe not?

Richard: San Fernando Valley said anything over the hill is us.

Joy: Now they are saying anything that’s not someone else area is ours.

Richard: But that’s how it happened. They literally said anything on this side of the hill is ours and they took their coffee pot and left. They took our coffee pot and left.

Hayward: But they didn’t take any money at least.

Richard: No.

Hayward: They just took their sales and left.

Richard: That’s right.

Hayward: Maybe we should draft up some points with input from all of us and we’ll see how that goes.

Nick: If you got experience in this it would be very useful. This is the experience of some of the members.

Randy: When I go to the CA website and I pull up and they have the emails service things, it’s got a description of a district and district service committee. A district is a geographical unit within in an area containing a number of groups within close proximity. A district has a primary function of the unification blah, blah, blah…It is suggested that ten or more groups comprise a

Page 90 of 220

district and that each ten groups elect a district service representative to sit on the area service committee. When districting or redistricting approval of the groups within each current or proposed district is essential, the proposing districting or redistricting should be approved by area service committee. As the number of groups within a district increases the district should either split into two districts or elect more DSR’s from such groups to the area service committee. If you have a district with 70 groups, they could potentially—according to this guideline—have seven DSR’s.

Nick: The problem is Randy the other remaining groups are not a district, so they are going to send GSR’s. The ten remaining groups will send ten GSR’s, the newly formed district will send one DSR and these people will always out number in votes the new district, but the new district will get resentful because they are the ones who send all the money.

Randy: That’s just the rule.

Hayward: Question: is it an area that wants to split up into districts or the other way around

Nick: There are two main things, I’ll give Holland because Holland is the one that took this, The Hague is Amsterdam…

Hayward: But that’s just one area?

Nick: Yeah. That’s all under Holland. Then there are some outline groups. This lot here, The Hague, who founded it, the founding members live in Hague with a couple of out landing places. Huda which is Goode where the cheese comes from and a couple of other places, they want to be there. Amsterdam are the up and coming up stars, they don’t want districts, they don’t want nothing. They go we don’t want to be a district at this time, since the approval of the other groups in the area. These 13 groups have out voted the 10 groups, so the 10 groups are going to have a GSR each—10 people. The new district will only have two people. Two votes if they have one DSR.

Kim: No.

Nick: 10 groups, one district. That’s what the Chair is telling me. He said is your experience different?

Richard: I’ve heard that the main core issue, which wasn’t a surprise in our fellowship, is money. How do we divide the money?

Page 91 of 220

Nick: Money and votes. We can’t get out voted all the time. The new district with a power house that brought their vote, knowing they only have two votes, and everything they proposed the people go no—because the 10 out vote the two. We want to know what we are missing.

Kim: Each DSR carries ten votes or a portion of.

Nick: So a DSR can have ten? But I’m telling them that normally a World Services the most maximum votes are two you see.

Randy: A DSR doesn’t have ten votes.

Kim: Yes.

Hayward: The DSR is the representative of the district

Kim: A DSR—a District Service Rep.

Nick: Has two votes.

Kim: So if your district has 12 meetings and you’re saying its 10…

Nick: The new formed district has 13 meetings.

Randy: The number of meetings the district has does not count of the number of votes. The DSR, actually, I thought it had only one vote.

Nick: No, two votes.

Hayward: They get a vote at the area and a vote at the district?

Joy: They only carry one, the areas I deal with.

Randy: Is the growth of those districts in your area region is no different than the growth of the UK?

Nick: I haven’t experienced it.

Page 92 of 220

Randy: You have the experience of being the guy that was the small guy.

Nick: So I told them in the UK, they got rowdy, and they gave the DSR more votes just to get going, to keep parities and none of the vote resentful.

Randy: It’s the group conscious. The group conscious can’t be affected truly because 90% of our fellowship is over here and we have a little group over here and we need to make sure that they get enough that the 90% has, it’s not a group conscious. The group conscious is—until they grow to substantially affect the group conscious, the group conscious is the 90%. It’s no different than adding the UK into the world…

Nick: I just wanted to make sure you’re with that. I think they just got to grow up and they are going to have some teething problems. That’s what I wanted to say that.

Randy: If each DSR in your area has two votes, it’s clear as to how to get more votes, grow your group. Get passed 20 and make new districts for it.

Nick: I suggested compromise. It suggest here—is it 10 group?—UK did seven groups, so if they did six groups they could have two DSR’s with two votes, so they got four votes and this lot would have 10 votes.

Randy: I guess I would always be careful to stay away from what’s already here, but at some point in time…

Hayward: So we don’t want to have any opinion, we always want to lead them back to the manual.

Nick: That’s what I’m saying. The manual suggests, I always say the manual suggests. So basically I’ve got to be neutral and say these are growing pains, because I remember the UK there were fights and everything. People went out and started more meetings.

Willie: It’s real simply. You have areas that have broken into districts that have experience with that. I would solicit from those districts that have formulated their voting procedures and how to split up according to the World Service manual. Then you present that information. I don’t know what else that they would be looking for, but I am hearing power struggles based upon money.

Then you turn around—that’s why it was broken into the fact that a CA member could only donate so much so you wouldn’t nobody coming saying I desire this, I desire that because I’m

Page 93 of 220

giving this money. Whether their group, whether their district, or whether their area, it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line is the money belongs to Cocaine Anonymous.

Nick: I’m lapping this up, this is good.

Kim: I just want to clarify; at a district service meeting the DSR has one vote, but as the DSR goes to your area they have how many votes?

Willie: One vote.

Kim: Where? Show me, show me. Why would a DSR carry one vote when they’re actually representing 10 groups or a portion thereof?

Randy: At an area meeting?

Kim: Yeah, at an area meeting.

Everyone speaking.

Kim: Ten or a portion thereof.

Hayward: For every 10 meeting you have one DSR.

Kim: Yeah, at the district meeting…

Hayward: When they vote they don’t do this?

Everyone speaking

Kim: Why wouldn’t you?

Hayward: Because it’s a district.

Kim: Let’s say your GSR’s come to your district meeting, and half the GSR’s say we want Willie to be the new Area Chair, and the other half of the GSR’s say no we want Joy to be the new Area Chair, potentially your DSR’s can go the area meeting and split their vote.

Page 94 of 220

Randy: At what point and time would we then go from an area meeting to a regional meeting and we would get to count all our meetings too. At some point and time you are just representing what you represent. If then your area people go to the regional meeting, everybody gets to count how many meetings they represent and that would be I got 350 votes because I’m a…

Kim: I see what you’re saying, but there is nowhere in the manual that says a DSR carries more than two votes.

Hayward: The DSR has two votes, one at the area and one at the district.

Richard: I have the experience of coming up in a very large area, LA; I have the experience of moving to a very small community. The very small community when I moved there, Colorado Springs, they had four GSR’s, one for each meeting, a DSR, a District Chair, and a District Vice Chair all to go to the area meeting with votes because they always said well Denver is the bigger area and in order for us to get anything that we want we need to have more votes.

Nick: That is want Holland is trying to say.

Richard: And what I said where’s God in this? Where is God in this and try to sway the votes? Bring the balance, bring an appropriate discussion, topic, argument and we work it out. It has worked out. They used to move the entire area meeting of Colorado every other month half way between here and Colorado Springs. Every other month because Colorado Springs, with a CA population of under 20, bitched and complained that it wasn’t fair that they had to drive all the way here and no one drove to Colorado Springs. The insanity of that stuff and at one point I was the only one that was attaining the area meeting from Colorado Springs and they said they were going to move it next month and I said I don’t have a problem driving—I don’t know, three years ago, four, five years ago maybe. It’s remained back in Denver. There is some insane stuff that we do. I truly don’t believe that the larger area is out to get the small district. My experience is; I haven’t seen a need for ten votes from one individual.

Kim: Again, I understand what you are saying Randy, but there are provisions in the World Service manual for exactly what you are saying. They outline what our delegates—how many votes they carry. It’s not outlined in the World Service manual how many votes a District Service rep has.

Randy: I believe you.

Page 95 of 220

Kim: Northwest Suburban District has 12 meetings; they have two DSR’s and when they go to the area meeting, they each carry six votes. Voting is determined by the area. Voting is determined by World Service Parliamentary vote procedures, that’s what the manual says.

Randy: So you can do whatever you want.

Kim: So what I’m saying is I understand what you are saying and that’s probably why there is verbiage in our manual that says Illinois area has 101 meetings but our four delegates don’t each have 25 votes. They have one vote each.

Randy: Sun Valley intergroup is our district in Phoenix and then we have the district out in Tucson. We have a GSR for the 5:45 meeting they met seven times a week. He has a home group of—he is the GSR for a meeting that meets seven times a week, but he comes with one vote.

Kim: Well it’s one meeting.

Nick: It’s a group not a meeting.

Randy: Not in most cases do they consider that. If we have seven meetings a week we can be seven meetings and send seven GSR’s. They understand that’s not the premises and that in the spirit of what they—that’s one GSR, he brings one vote to the district. We count the number of meetings that we have, basically divide that 10, we might even use 15, the number of our DSR’s, same thing Tucson’s got a third the number of meetings that we have, they divide their number of groups, meetings by the same number that establishes their DSR’s that come to vote in the area. I know that in our area DSR’s carry one vote and they only carry a second vote if they are Committee Chair. It’s the only time, even in our district that a GSR carries’s one vote and second vote if he’s a Committee Chair.

Willie: The World Service manual gives the area, districts, and groups some suggested guidelines to go by. The area adopts those guidelines and modifies them to fit their area, because every area may not have the same voting rights. So you’re right, each area has the right to decide how their voting is established and how many votes that are carried, only in their area. Once they come to the World Service Conference they are only allowed to carry—but in their area they are allowed to determine how many voting area, in the district their allowed. Once the District Service Representative goes to the area they only carry the votes that the area says they could carry. They don’t carry all of these votes from each meeting to the area; they only have one vote as a DSR at the area meeting.

Kim: In your area? I’m saying there is no specific verbiage regarding this.

Page 96 of 220

Willie: Right and I agree with you. It’s left up to the area to decide the voting and then the district is left up to them to decide their voting.

Randy: The bottom line for you is that in both cases it’s a quantity of groups whether you bring the number of votes equal to the number of your groups or whether you divide that number by a number that establishes the votes and creates the same—of course in their mind the same imbalance—it’s by the number of groups whether the district—guy only brings one vote for every 10 meetings or they get 10 votes a piece. You are doing it under the same premise and the premise is that you’ve got representation that ends up with the group conscious and we’re not so concerned that you are the smallest group of in the middle of Lake Havasu someplace, and we are afraid to piss you off so you get 25 votes.

Hayward: I guess my question is do they have area and district bylaws? What’s listed in there?

Nick: They only just started to adapt some area bylaws. Edward use to be the Chair, he use to work at the office. Basically the whole thing is a little fear and some resentment. The thing that I liked, and I quoted to them, the most important function of the district is to serve the needs of the local meetings. So The Hague and some near by meetings want to help service the needs of— that’s when they formed a district, because Amsterdam kept coming in and telling them what to do. So basically they stuck two fingers up at them and that’s when they formed, out of resentment and fear, a district over here. Now someone in the district has worked out, but when they go to the area because of the way they thought they were going to get their ass kicked. I think they are just growing pains. I said I can’t give them a specific answer but I would put it on the table. It’s great. Lots of discussion, there’s lots of different ways. The UK, at one point, DSR’s had seven votes and after five months it went down to four votes then after a year it went back to two votes, maximum for any person at anywhere, and that was completely settled. But for a year it was like that, and I think that was growing pains. I think that’s what Willie and everyone else is saying that’s growing and they can do what they want. I had a little question and we had an half an hour discussion, and I got what I wanted which is you can do what the hell you want though as long as you practice love and tolerance. Its resentment and fear that’s all it is. Sometimes some of the best meetings come out of resentment and fear. That’s all it is, about money and they keep wanting to have a Convention and actually I want a Convention there, all the young people and the people who don’t want one. But The Hague had a small one the other day and I think they all come together because they realize if they don’t unify they will dissolve.

Page 97 of 220

Hayward: I know CALA in the districts for every 10 meetings you get one DSR. That one DSR goes to that area meeting, you’ve got one vote. That’s listed in the bylaws and the districts don’t have bylaws so they use what the area has. Now, in Kim’s situation…

Joy: That’s not true. Some districts do have bylaws.

Hayward: Oh South Central. They decided they wanted to write some stuff and that’s fine.

Willie: Where are they?

Joy: I have no idea. I don’t think they follow them.

Kim: They have a World Service manual.

Randy: To file articles of incorporations you have to have bylaws.

Kim: So why is your district filing and incorporating?

Richard: Right, instead of doing an area?

Hayward: Let’s reel this back in. There’s no motion. We provided you with feedback, right?

Nick: I will pass that on. I will write a little report and pass it on.

Hayward: Is there a motion involved here?

Nick: No, thank you very much. I just wanted to discuss. Thank you.

Trevor: Just so everybody knows I did manage to track down what we originally had rejected back in October.

Hayward: Do we want to go back to that?

Trevor: I sent in out twice the first time, but it didn’t work. There is one that actually says here’s what we already rejected. We asked them to be more drug specific. That’s the one that there are two attachments that they worked on.

Hayward: Do we want to pull that back off the table and then address…

Page 98 of 220

Trevor: I motion to take it off the table now.

Richard: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Richard to pull business item 2009.05.05 off the table.

Joy: Do you mean 07 Sir?

Hayward: We are through with 07.

Joy: Oh, we are taking the LCF literature…

Hayward: Right, we are back at that now, all in favor of removing it from the table? Any opposed? Motion passes. Trevor circulated something. Do you just want to read it so we don’t have to…?

Trevor: What it is, originally what they sent out—originally would have read for a lot of us cocaine was not our primary drug, but we found by substituting our favor drug for the word cocaine we can relate to these questions. Then is goes into the self test—have you ever used more cocaine than you planned? Everything is just pretty much cocaine, so back in October we decided that wasn’t very good and we wanted less drug specific.

Hayward: We wanted less or more?

Trevor: We wanted more inclusion. I remember the argument going something along the lines of well although the first paragraph says if you didn’t do coke, substitute whatever, but it still going to be a problem. That was my belief back then as well. Now they have taken out the word cocaine and said drugs and alcohol.

Hayward: So we didn’t want them to do like we are trying to do with “How it Works”, cocaine, and all other mind altering substances which would include alcohol too, wouldn’t it? Is that right?

Trevor: I would believe so.

Robert: Comparing the two, the old and the new, my whole thing is if you take the last paragraph of the new and put it on what we rejected back in November, I personally have no problems with—it’s a better document that last paragraph???I think that if that paragraph is added it

Page 99 of 220

answers our problems. It’s a combination of the two. I hate to say that you know but that what I look at because that last paragraph really…

Hayward: Really sums it up?

Robert: I think so.

Willie: The last paragraph does sum it up, but cocaine and other drugs sounds better than drugs and alcohol. I believe that the institution of cocaine and other drugs along with the last paragraph achieve the result that I believe that we are looking for. I believe that can be well presented to LCF. I believe that’s something we’re looking for now that really clears it.

Hayward: My question is do we tell LCF how to write this or do we just say what we are going to say and they come back with whatever they come up with?

Trevor: I was actually going to ask a question and make somewhat of a suggestion. I could do one of two things. I could email Cynthia right now or call, both pretty much the same thing, and say here’s where we are at and can we get something hammered out right away without LCF or I can wait until the LCF committee meets here and say this is what the WSBT says what are you guys think. Here’s the push, LCF wants to have something concrete to move forward so that we can get it presented at the Conference this year. That’s the goal in all honesty. We want to pass a bunch of shit because we have been working really hard and we want to do that. Would it be a problem with you guys if, even three or four days for now, LCF says yah, we say yes to cocaine and all other mind altering substances and that and then we can just meet and say ok they said yes, you guys all agree, yes, and boom done. That’s what I would like to do, table this for a five minute meeting later on this week so that we can try to get it…

Hayward: We pulled it off the table and are now in discussion, so do we want to put it back on the table and wait for that or has there been enough information presented where we can vote? Does everybody feel well informed? Or are we going to be back at 5, 3, and 1 on the voting? I want to hear your concerns.

Trevor: My thought is that I think that I know right now if we’re going to vote it’s going to be no. That’s my opinion and I would probably be one of the people voting no. I think there is the possibility to fix this and not have to come back to us at another quarterly down the road or a Conference call when at that point it would be way too late to possibly get it for this Conference.

Page 100 of 220

Randy: I think a no vote probably is important for the record. The opportunity to poll an emergency Board meeting exists every day. We have to do it from time to time regarding finances in the idea that we could just ask all of us to take five minutes out on a Saturday morning to get together and go LCF has taken your no vote and came back with this instead. That could happen by the end of the week. We have the ability to call an emergency Board meeting if they move fast enough.

Kim: Not Saturday morning though.

Randy: A no vote is probably important for them to then take on the task of getting it done. If they get it done and we are all here—I wouldn’t think that we all are going to be like we are not meeting cause—if we are all here we do it.

Lawrence: I think when we send it back to them the first time they did what they thought what we meant. I think Trevor is right; a no vote would be how we challenge?

Trevor: I really like the suggestion of doing a no vote. I will take that back to the committee that this is our suggestion and give them something absolutely concrete—would you guys consider changing the language to cocaine and all other mind altering substances—and should they yes, which I believe they probably might, I could send it to everybody online and we could do it—we all know, we all debated it, we all know that’s what we kind of want. Go to Papa Smurf and go yes or we could email or whatever. It’s just one of my goals. I would love to see it for this Conference. That would be cool. I would say let’s vote on it and do what we have to do and move forward once they make their decision.

Hayward: So we are back at the main motion to approve—a yes vote is to send it on to point eight, a no vote is to send it back to LCF with our changes. Are we ok with that? Seeing no more discussion, I guess, I don’t see any hands; please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor?

Richard: Of?

Willie: Of sending it to point eight.

Hayward: All in favor of sending it to point eight? All opposed? Ok. We will send it back to Dan with—what are you going to tell him?

Kim: What is the outcome of the motion?

Page 101 of 220

Hayward: I’m sorry. Thank you Miss Secretary.

Kim: Certainly.

Hayward: Motion passes to send it back to LCF.

Kim: No, motion fails.

Hayward: I’m sorry. Motion fails and it will go back to LCF.

Trevor: Just for the record I will be conveying to them with our suggestion to change it to cocaine and all other mind altering substances.

Randy: We can bring back that if it’s your personal opinion that if they were to adopt that change it may be—we can’t be seen as telling them exactly how it needs to be. We just can tell them no—and I think it is important…

Richard: Discussion brought out the idea of…

Trevor: You know what, its say right in there if we say no we can give them suggestions as to why. This is what our suggestion is. Do you want to do it? If you do, we’ll pass it pretty much right away, if you don’t, sit on it for awhile.

Hayward: So we’re through with that, right? We are going to move on to a break. It is almost 4:00.

Hayward: We are back on the record and we are at business item 2009.05.08-abstinence and Randy, Trevor, and Nick crafted a response to that question that went to Trevor.

Randy: Motion to approve the 2009.05.08-abstinence response which reads, as tradition three states that the only requirement for membership to CA is the desire to stop using cocaine and all other mind altering substances. We must always maintain the open door to any and all that wish to participate in our program of recovery and fellowship. Success in our program is often recognized with Chips and Birthday/Anniversaries can be a positive and motivational aspect of our fellowship. The issue regarding prescribed medication of a mind altering substances and the relationship of that prescription to ones success is a personal one. As this issue is not one of CA policy the WSBT does not take any position on this matter. We would ask that all concern apply the principal of love and tolerance is our code.

Page 102 of 220

Hayward: Is there a second?

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Randy, second by Trevor to approve response to business item 2009.05.08-abstinence. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? All opposed? Motion passes.

Hayward: We are at item 2009.05.09-financial status of CAWSO.INC presently.

Joy: I don’t know if you all know this, right now as of May 5^th we are running at a negative $48,214.37. This is from July 1^st all the way through—I got this huge spreadsheet. It gave me month to month and I haven’t been able to see where the minus came in, but I do know…

Randy: Can I ask a quick question?

Joy: Yeah.

Randy: If it’s a July 1^st through now, I would anticipate us being minus forty some thousand because we don’t have the revenue from the Convention.

Joy: Which is true, to a certain extent?

Randy: Which would put us in the black.

Joy: Well, if we go by budget, the Convention—there is a $10,000 difference between what the income is supposed to be as opposed to what it is now.

Randy: That they will easily overcome this weekend.

Joy: Hang on. I don’t have all the Convention expenses. All the Convention expenses and income aren’t even in here, which won’t happen until the end of the Convention.

Randy: I would anticipate that the Conventions income…

Joy: Can I just finish before we get into the Convention. The reality the Convention isn’t really included in this financial statement. Their income and their expenses aren’t completely showing

Page 103 of 220

up, like all the memorabilia that they paid for isn’t in here. All the registrations are not in here. They don’t really post that. It won’t get posted until the end of Convention. Typically, which is a normal thing.

Randy: Which is good because the Convention income and expenses are a separate thing and when they figure that out and they give us the net income as revenue…

Joy: Then I’ll get the bottom line for what the whole thing is and I will let you know…

Randy: This Convention is anticipated to make what fifty or sixty?

Joy: They need to make $45,000 for us to be ok.

Randy: The only reason that I bring this up is that when you tell us that we are forty five in the red, we’re not. We are probably tracking very close to what we would anticipate. I would think that we are going to walk into this weekend $45,000 in the red if we expected to make forty five or fifty here.

Joy: Right. That’s why you really need to let me finish.

Randy: Ok.

Joy: Giving you the status of where we are at before we start going into questions, correct?

Randy: Ok.

Hayward: Go ahead.

Joy: Thank you. I do know that we’ve paid out a lot of finance charges related to late fees. There are a lot of those from all of those over 90 days. Our bank charges are probably higher than they have ever been. We are working on that and we’ll get some of that back after it’s been reconciled. I think the only people that were actually in line or—the Trustees are pretty much in line with the budget because we’ve been very cautious about our travel and our spending that we actually saved the fellowship some money related to the budget. I do know that certain income areas are low and the anticipation that we may not make the budgeted amount under the income side, which is going to keep us slightly in the red. Then of course the spending of adding additional inventory…

Randy: Can you give me that?

Page 104 of 220

Joy: Yeah, I can send you what this is. This is considered unaudited. I can give you…

Randy: What you are looking at right there is what I would like to see.

Joy: I can give you end of third quarter, which are really good numbers.

Randy: But what you were looking at compiles some of fourth quarter?

Joy: Yes. At the end of the third quarter we are $31,000—there’s budget line items missing for certain areas that I had questions and poor Willie has the negative meal thing and we didn’t know why that was a negative. We were missing the budget for the fourth meeting. I don’t understand why that didn’t come through. Quick Books automatically puts that through and the interest expenses were a little questionable for me. There is no way of saying they split the late fees between administration and program services, but we are in a short fall income wise and that’s because we are not making our budget. The budget, believe it or not, for up until the third quarter is the budget up until the third quarter. I know the Convention budget doesn’t show up until fourth quarter, so that’s why a lot of the budget items were not in here. We are short in chips and literature. We are in a short fall in that area. We really need to get our fellowship to start contributing again. That’s the contribution program that is going to be really good for us if we can promote that and get that out there. There are some expenses that scare the hell out of me, like maintenance and repairs, at 148% of the budget. We are like $1,300 over budget in that section. We are 230% for outside services. There are some things that I don’t think the office is really looking at when it comes to being over budget on. Their office expenses that they are over on. The Trustees, we and the committees are where we are supposed to be, it’s the office expenses that are inflated. The website email is 226% over budget. These are the items that I look at the most. When I see a percent of budget over 150%-250% that’s scares me. Why aren’t we looking at this? Maybe we need to look at the webmaster, web email, we need to look at that budget at to find out why it’s over and find out what is going on at the office that is creating this, or maybe it’s the guy taking care of it. Is he over charging us? These are things that I think need to be looked at. I would hate to go to the fellowship and say I’m really sorry but maintenance and repairs—we are at 216% of the budget. Why? What’s breaking down constantly? Maybe we need to figure out how to get it to run properly without—where is the maintenance agreement on this? Why is it so inflated? We have maintenance agreements on all our equipment; we shouldn’t be over budget on any of that.

Willie: We just purchased…

Page 105 of 220

Joy: That’s under the asset side and then you depreciate that or if it’s a lease it’s part of the leasing. This is under maintenance and repairs. If something is breaking down—if end up with a maintenance contract we should be within that amount on the maintenance contract.

Hayward: But if they have additional projects going on…

Richard: Can I provide information?

Hayward: Ok.

Joy: These are just questions that I…

Richard: I know. You brought it up so…

Joy: Go ahead.

Richard: The information as far as the web and hosting expenses that are probably on there is probably because they are paying for two separate services. The idea was that they were going to move off in January from their mail provider, which is Mail Street, which would entail their computer support person to back everything up. He and I discussed this last year. There are probably paying for two services, the one they currently have available to them where the website is, where all the email accounts could be, and the one that they have be using for last three years that we have been trying to get them off of, so they are probably paying for two services still, is my guess.

Hayward: Yes, we are.

Richard: They are still Mail Street.

Joy: So we need to start looking at finalizing those projects.

Richard: They just need to be done, yeah.

Joy: Yeah. I get it. I think as Trustees we need to know this. There are some inflated line items in here because the fellowship is going to look at that and when Tom goes up there at the Conference and says here last year’s report, there are some savvy people that are going to go why are we over budget on this? What happened? Why aren’t we tracking our expenses? You expect the Conventions to track their expenses to the tee, so why isn’t the office doing it? We

Page 106 of 220

need to hold them accountable as well as us because the fellowship holds us accountable. Those are the things that I found.

Richard: I would like to know if you have last year’s reports so you can say exactly where we were last year at this time, since we have a number that we are given right now is to what we are in the red? See where we were in the red last year. Does anyone have that off the top of their head? Basically are we around where we were? Does anyone know?

Kim: I don’t.

Joy: I don’t think I get prior year at all.

Willie: We are actually from Tom and I are going over some financials and stuff which somewhere around $13,000 under last year at this particular time.

Richard: Ok, so we are more negative $13,000 over last year.

Willie: If Convention nets $51,000 profit we will be at a breakeven point. We are looking at right now saying the Convention just brings in $45,000 we are looking at a $3,000 to $8,000 deficit this year.

Richard: Is our 7^th tradition is off approximately $13,000?

Willie: Yes.

Joy: I don’t have last year’s verses this year’s.

Richard: So we are not missing $50,000 we’re running where we were.

Kim: It does seem like we are spending more money this year.

Joy: Yes, with all the requests we are getting, you’re right.

Richard: It does.

Kim: Which is what I questioned to Joy?

Page 107 of 220

Joy: I think if we have—because we are going to have to amend next year’s budget which is going to give us a short fall. It’s only going to about $4,000 depending on how much the WSOT and WST are going to need in their budget if they want to make it the same as all the rest of the Trustees or not, then that would even make it less.

Hayward: Are they going to need about $500 in there, each?

Willie: About $500-$750.

Richard: And you guys are at two, right?

Joy: $2,190 for next year and that’s what I’m going to propose that they put you at.

Richard: OK.

Joy: That actually will be better because then it’s only $2,500.

Kim: $2,190 for the regional?

Joy: Yes. That’s what it is for next year. This year is $2,000, next year it’s—expect for European Trustee which goes up to $2,700 because I think the increase everything by 5% for next year. The meeting we are increasing. I know they are being increased slowly until we get to 2012 to cover the fourth meeting which is this, when we fly to the UK. If I can get budget at last year verses this year that would work too and then we can really look at where we are at.

Hayward: Don’t ask Yvette cause…

Joy: I’m not going to ask Yvette, I’m asking Willie.

Willie: I will have that for you when we get back.

Joy: If we can get them to start sending us prior year comparisons, then we can see where we really stand.

Hayward: I doctored it up, we want to see how it really was, right?

Willie: The request is that we want prior years.

Page 108 of 220

Joy: I think we need prior years. I still think that the office needs to be mindful of when they get to the 200% of the budget—we need to look at that.

Hayward: So are we through with this for now?

Joy: For now.

Hayward: Until the Board to Board, right?

Joy: Yeah.

Hayward: We are at 2009.05.10-Rafication of the WSBT member.

Trevor: Not to be a pain in the ass—I got a response back from Cynthia regarding these self tests piece. I would really like a chance to share it with you guys. She promises Randy that she’s not going to be as big of a pain in the ass in person as she is online but—those are her words not mine. Thanks for the good news on two out of the three. On the self test I’m growing concern that the WSBT is trying to edit the piece as opposed to doing what it is charged with per the pamphlet approval process which is the approved draft is reviewed by the WSBT to ensure there are no tradition violations or other concerns that might affect CA as a whole. The committee did take the WSBT’s previous comments into consideration as evidence by the substantial changes made since the last draft. LCF felt that the best way to address the issue of cocaine and all other mind altering substances was by means of the opening and closing paragraphs rather than including the wording in each question. Think about how you would ask a sponsee or someone you are trying to 12 step these questions, for example would say have you ever used more cocaine and all other mind altering substances than you planned? Or would you say have you used more drugs and alcohol than you planned? Remember we are trying to speak as clearly and directly as possible to that new person that is trying to decide whether he or she has a problem. I would encourage the Board to reconsider its position on this both in principal as stated in above and practicality. With only a few LCF members likely to be present at the forum I don’t believe it’s appropriate for the committee to try to conduct business in Denver which leaves us only a few days via email and then the Conference call on the 30^th to review and approve what is yet another substantial provision to this piece. It’s clear both LCF and the WSBT would prefer to get an updated version of this piece approved in September rather than waiting another whole year. With that in mind I respectfully ask you does the WSBT really believe the draft as currently worded violates the traditions or otherwise raises concerns that might affect CA as a whole. I believe the piece as currently worded honors the principal of our first step and third tradition

Page 109 of 220

and carries the CA message in a way that is more effective than the wording the WSBT is suggesting.

Willie: It was well written.

Hayward: So it failed and went back. Are we sticking to our guns on that or what?

Joy: Yeah.

Hayward: That’s just her comments. She wants to leave alcohol and drugs the way it was when we got it. Did she bring up some valid points?

Richard: No more than were stated here.

Trevor: I personally believe that we might not have considered…

Hayward: What did she say about a newcomer?

Trevor: No, I think that one of the things that I know that we talked about and I know personally was pretty big on my mind was how much time like the Conference spend debating this? Is that in of its self really greatly affecting CA as a whole? It’s affecting the Conference as a whole definitely, but is not what we are there for anyway I’m kind of thinking now.

Hayward: The question I have, to move it on is, are we sticking to our guns, are we going to rethink this? It failed we sent it back with our concerns or are we ok? Let’s send it on to eight regardless of whatever happens?

Randy: It was sent back—she believes the LCF answered our concerns, we believe—I think Richard’s point which obviously she is using in that we are only being asked to say does it bring traditions violations or affect CA as a whole. I no go obviously means we believe it affects CA as whole. That’s the only reason we could turn it down, unless what she said has changed our opinion, there is no vote to change.

Richard: As the person that voted for it—it will probably surprise you guys but I mean that we spoke. I believe that her response is not a surprise, but unless anyone who voted against the motion would like to bring it back we are staying by the decision. I stand behind us as a decision.

Page 110 of 220

Hayward: I can see her in the forum; she can’t wait to get there. What did it really violate? What tradition—how does it adversely affect CA as a whole?

Richard: How could it?

Kim: Might.

Richard: Right. I could see it.

Joy: Yeah I do too.

Richard: I could see it, might. I could see the potential for it. I still don’t think it would but I can see the potential from the—I could see the potential for it. I don’t think it would otherwise I won’t have voted that way. I’m not out to harm the fellowship as a whole. I understand the point of view, I heard what you all say and I understand why you all voted the way you did and take no issue with it and support us as a Board at you guys all—unless any one member again believes that they would change their vote at this point based on her response, I believe we stand as it is.

Hayward: They’re probably tired and just want to move this along. They have been working on it and stuff. We don’t want to hassle over it again; I want you all let it fly.

Richard: I stand behind my vote.

Nick: That’s not the point. The point is I didn’t join Drugs and Alcohol Anonymous I joined Cocaine Anonymous and how I sponsor people is personal, we have leafletleader on sponsorship. It has nothing to do with it. The first part, does it violate traditions, no, were not saying that we all said no because it goes against the spirit not Cocaine Anonymous. We’ve said no. I will sit in the front and she can ask 10,000 questions and I’ll answer them. I will defend our decision.

Kim: I think if we take into consideration the way the first vote went on this and the lack of consensus—I think we do reflect the fellowship, we do reflect the Conference and I think that saying no to this at this point potentially saves additional time at the Conference kind of rehashing everything that we spent time on and with potentially rewording it and bringing it back to us and then going on to the Conference floor that they can move forward. I also feel that it’s Cynthia’s responsibility to take this back to a committee. I can’t imagine she’s had an opportunity to talk to Jeannette or anyone else in this time period, I could be wrong with the

Page 111 of 220

wonders of email, but are they not willing to consider our concerns and the verbiage as a subcommittee, as a Conference committee and their responsibility to the fellowship?

Willie: In one way they have done what we have asked them to do, but one word can change a whole intent and meaning of something. I believe in changing it to drugs and alcohol, drugs and all alcohol change the intent of this piece of literature and therefore it needs to be reworded and it’s simple. It’s a simple process. The only thing we’re saying is change drugs or alcohol to cocaine and all other mind altering substances.

Hayward: And that is also consistent with how our other literature flows.

Robert: I just wanted to say—basically what Nick said—I join Cocaine Anonymous. I’m involved in NA, one meeting a week. Drugs come up a lot in their literature by saying cocaine and other mind altering substance. We’re not going to leave Cocaine Anonymous if we’re just going to—we might as well just merge with Narcotics Anonymous plain and simple that’s how I look at it. If you look at their self test compared to ours…suggestion, its close but that last paragraph—we spent a lot of time. They have done some really good work. I think it just needs to go back to the committee not just Cynthia, just like if something comes to us it needs to go to the whole committee—Board of Trustees, it doesn’t need to just come to one or two to act upon. Whether it gets hashed out on the floor of Conference, so let it be. Gods will not mind.

Hayward: Ok, has everybody spoken? Is anybody coming with a motion to deal with this again? Next business item is 2009.05.10-Rafication of the WSBT Trustee members. This is normally done in August so I said that’s really a bad time to do this. Say somebody is not ratified, that position has to go unfilled for the year, because it’s too late to come up with a slate for that position. If we do this ratification now and somebody’s not ratified, then we have between now and August to come up with a slate for interviews at the Conference. I put it on there to see how you all felt about it. I would like to hear some discussion on it.

Joy: I don’t know why we don’t do it in the fourth quarter anyway. We are in the fourth quarter, and it should be done in the fourth quarter. Why do it in the first quarter. I know that all our positions end at the end of Conference, but you’re right, why should we scramble at the Conference to try and do interviews from people that are on the slate when if we do it now are rear ends are covered and we can get to the business at hand that needs to be done at the Conference.

Trevor: I can’t believe it hasn’t been suggested before to do it now, because it does make way more sense. It’s happened before that someone wasn’t ratified. Let’s do it.

Page 112 of 220

Kim: When Hayward added this I went to our guidelines and it just says it has to be done at a quarterly. It could be called anytime. It just has to be done once a year. It makes sense.

Willie: I make a motion that we ratify the WSBT.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Willie, second by Trevor to ratify the WSBT, is there any discussion? It is usually done by secret vote.

Joy: I was wondering if we were going to follow the World Service manual on that.

Hayward: I believe we should. We should follow tradition. To keep it simple can we just do that, everybody write all ten names down and put a Y or an N or whatever by—send them all to me and I will tally them all up. Is that alright?

Joy: Do we ratify you too Hayward?

Trevor: Yes.

Hayward: Everybody gets ratified.

Kim: Can we have a bio break?

Hayward: We are back on the record. In response to item 2009.05.10-Ratification of the WSBT Trustee members, all Trustees have been ratified. John sent his report to us, which includes the AA letter to set up the face to face, it kind of sounds like he has already sent it.

Joy: The way I read it, he already sent it and is waiting ten days for their response, which could take a little longer.

Hayward: That’s what it sounds like.

Joy: It’s the Chair report.

Hayward: He included the letter to AA.

Page 113 of 220

Joy: Which only he signed, which should have been signed by both you and him, in my opinion, since it was supposed to be from both Boards.

Hayward: He doesn’t say anything in here about he’s stepping down so he’s going to stay on until we meet again. We are at the end of our agenda, so let’s go off record and discuss where we are.

Hayward: We are back on the record. We are going to adjourn for the evening. It’s been a long day. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.

Hayward: Good Morning everyone. We are back on the record. Today is May 20, 2009 and it is 10:02. We are going to handle business item 2009.02.07-Forums and chat rooms response to Loraine A. Has everybody had a chance to read it? I would like to hear a motion.

Richard: Motion to approve the response to Loraine as posted this morning on the forum.

Nick: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Richard, second by Nick to approve the response to item 2009.02.07-Forums and chat rooms from Loraine. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. I got a new business item 2009.05.11-that was the last correspondence we received from Quin. We sent him a written response back and he suggested that during the banquet at the Convention we roam the floor and not sit with other, that we split up and sit with other members of the fellowship. We need to discuss that. I would like to hear everybody’s opinion on what we should do with that. What should we name this?

Trevor: Just because we sometimes always do things certainly doesn’t mean that they are right. Obviously, as long as I’ve have been going to Conventions the Trustees have always sat together. On the flip side of that just because somebody doesn’t like it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. My personal gut feeling is—I don’t know how you guys all feel but that’s one of the high lights of my year. Sitting there at our two tables, at the banquet sitting with the Trustees. That to me is one of coolest parts about doing this is hanging out and being together as a group and being visible to the fellowship. They know, there’s the Trustees, they know where to find us, they know who we are, we are easily identifiable, and more importantly we all obviously get along. They see us together, they see us laughing, joking, having fun, and having a good time with still getting work done. To me we are going to spend enough time at this Convention

Page 114 of 220

mingling, roaming, and talking to people and I think that at the banquet my personal opinion is I love the couple of Trustee tables where we all sit together. I don’t want to see that changed.

Randy: I haven’t been a Trustee at a Convention so I don’t have—I like the idea that—to a certain degree I’m not sure people even know who we are, and a lot of times the members in our regions do or whatever. I don’t think it’s about wearing a little ribbon on your name tag or having a flag on your table, but there is something about the identification of who we are that comes from sitting together. I can imagine that two or three years from now it’s going to be one of the highlights of my Convention as well. I think it goes farther than that—to sit there for the banquet is one thing but I do like the idea of physically mingling whether that we take time from those tables to go say hi to folks and that kind of thing. I think his question goes even further towards another issue that I remember when last year at the Conference where I sat—the regions kind of sit together and that kind of stuff and one of the guys said how come the Trustees always sit over there by themselves. I remember the question and the questions was kind of like—were all out, we are spread out, we are kind of got this regional thing going on. The question stuck me. Of course when I came in here and went through orientation and there was this be careful, we got this us against them thing that we are fighting that exists that we have to be aware of. I’ve heard the target on our backs stories. If we continue those foster those things that continue to foster those things then we are responsible for some of that. Some of that is because of how we act. I don’t think sitting together at a banquet does that if we participate actively getting out. I think sitting together at the Conference and not being spread all out, that’s fine. I think if you do that for four straight days in front of someone it becomes visible. I think if you sit two hours at a banquet at a table it’s no big deal. I guess I’m kind of in between. I think there should be a couple of tables for Trustees. I think we should enjoy our time together and make sure we mingle. Those things that extent passed that we have to be—I would rather not have us sit together during for four straight days and enjoy our banquet. I’m kind in between. I don’t think we have to go all this way, but I don’t think we have to all that way either.

Kim: Last year I didn’t sit with the Trustees. I sat with friends that attended the Convention. That was ok. I see the suggestion, I see the purpose, I question the suggestion, but I also know that clearly we can’t all sit together because there are significant others that are going to be joining on Thursday. I have mixed feelings about it. I think collectively when we are together we present a “WE” and that we are supportive of one another. I think it’s already been said that we like each other that we can sit together. I think there are several opportunities for us to be visible to the fellowship throughout those four days. We can attend long term planning, we can attend international gig, we can attend meet your Trustees, we can attend the unity event, we could probably throw together a last minute table out at registration and man it with contribution programs sign ups and all of us take a turn manning it and people can meet us. All you have to

Page 115 of 220

do is look at the program; there are plenty of opportunities for people to meet us. I know in past World Conventions they would ask that any former or current Trustee stand at some point, so there’s another opportunity for people to see who we are. I can tell you it’s another conversation that what Randy has brought up. I found it very supportive as a first year Trustee to be surrounded by the Board of Trustees and the truth be said when I was a delegate I sat with Illinois. I didn’t sit with the folks from Texas, I sat with Illinois. There’s also opportunity during that week for people to see us out and amongst, we go to our Conference committees, we attend—oh there won’t be one this year, in the past dinners. I think it’s our responsibility and I know for me it’s a good learning to get out there and try to introduce myself and be visible so folks know who we are. I think there’s something to be said—however you guys decide I will go with it. I probably will end up sitting with people I know. I am probably not going to sit at dinner randomly. I will probably—I think what Brian T said to you all last year was you had her all week we get her tonight. They all kind of giggled and that was all well and fine. I’m probably playing both side here, I just think that if we choose to sit together that we take every opportunity that we can for the rest of the week to make sure that we are putting a face to a name and show up. Last night was a great opportunity; we attended a meeting and met some really great folks in the fellowship. Some of you went to another one. I was thinking we should have a scavenger hunt that says get the signature of the Pacific North Regional Trustee, and their all like who is that? They are all hunting around for him.

Richard: That is a good idea.

Kim: Where’s the Trustees. They would have to get our signatures or something.

Willie: I would like to thank him for his question, his response. I believe that at this point in time it should be our choice. We have been elected Trustees and we know that we have a responsibility at this show, to get out amongst the rank. The time we have to share together it should be ours and I don’t believe it should be dictated to us that we need to this or we need to that. We know what we need to do. I believe that we do it, even in other venues, we do it. There comes a time when we have to show a unified front to the worldwide fellowship; here we are the Trustees and we are more visible if we are together than we are if we are separated. That’s just my thought. I don’t want to see us sitting at other tables unless it’s by choice of an individual to sit with some friends from their home, some people they haven’t seen in a long time, and I’m like him I wouldn’t feel comfortable at dinner sitting with people that I don’t know.

Joy: I don’t’ really care either way. When I responded to Quin’s questions poor Kim got the back lash from my responses. I think since my spouse is uncomfortable in large groups, she would probably be more comfortable sitting with the group. Every time we go to the banquet we always get stuck at a table with people we don’t know. I don’t really care. She says I can make friends

Page 116 of 220

with a nat. I like idea of roaming the room, which I will probably do anyway, but I think we do need to show a united front. At the Conference if I needed the Trustees I always knew where they were. If I needed the Board of Directors I knew where they were, they were always in the front of the room. That’s the way it’s been since 98. That’s over ten years. That way the delegates always know where they need to find us, if they need to find someone on the Board they are in the front two rows. If they need the Trustees they are always in that right corner over there. At the Conference I always sat with whatever area I was representing. I understand the whole sitting at different tables but I think it should be our choice and I understand the roaming of the whole room thing but the reality is I’m not going to have time to spend with my spouse with the frick’en meetings I have to be at during the Convention. We get two hours to sit together and have a good time and not be working. The reality is that we are going to be working, sitting at that banquet we are going to be working, because people are going to come up to us and ask us questions like can you do this, or can you help with this, or can we ask you— That’s the reality. We are going to be working the whole seven, eight days. I think we should sit where we want to sit and be comfortable.

Lawrence: I can understand the spirit of this suggestions and I agree we need to go around the room. I like the idea that of sitting together showing a united front and we all can be together and enjoy. We might not get a chance to enjoy the speaker. That’s all I got to say. Richard: I appreciate the comment and the suggestion.

Someone entered the room. Recorder turned off.

Hayward: We are back on the record. Lawrence just finished and now Richard.

Richard: When I first saw the email, my instinct was good suggestion, thoughtful suggestion regardless of motive—where it came from—thoughtful suggestion. Same as none of us are being told where not to sit we should not be told where it sit. It definitely has already been spoken, Kim said she sat with friends last year and I believe wherever we all end up is where we all end up. I’m good with that. If it happens to be that the table we gather together then that’s how it is for that night. If it happens to be that we sprinkle about then it is how it is that night. We obviously need to be conscientious that this has been remarked by more than one member of the fellowship. There is an interest of others—to split us apart. I don’t think that by us sitting apart, whether we do or not, is a sign of a front a combined front. I think we appear to get along when we are out and about just as much as we would when we’re gathering out front casually. Unless I have plans to sit a particular table I would just sit with friends. You friends or other friends, it just depends where I end up. I want to make sure it’s that I said it was noted when something was said it be said by more than one member of the fellowship—why are you all sitting

Page 117 of 220

together? If someone asked me I would say because we are friends, same as I sit with any of my other friends.

Hayward: I really appreciate everybody’s comments so far, but I believe the correspondence to us addressed the Convention banquet, not the Conference, so it’s mainly what happens at the banquet. I love the part about roaming the floor before the banquet, meeting people, shaking hands, but when it comes to sitting down eating I would hate to be at a table with somebody that has an attitude with the trustees and they are sitting there harping on one of us constantly challenging you with questions and concerns and dislikes and stuff. I’m there just to enjoy the meal and hear the speaker. I’ve never seen on TV when the President is with his cabinet that they all sit at different tables. I enjoy being with you all, I see you once a quarter. The Convention, is our biggest fund raiser, this is the event for us. I don’t want the banquet ruined for us with a whole bunch of challenges and stuff. Some people just have an attitude with us. We are nothing more than GSR’s for World Service, just another service group. That’s it. We are at the end of the line, Some people just don’t see us like that. They think we are the CA police and we are not. We love CA as much as the next member. I would like to see us at least sit as close together as possible and continue that tradition. We all should sit together at the Conference. What’s weird about the seating at the Conference is the World Service Trustee and the Office Trustee always sit with the office, that’s been the tradition. We are Trustees first, and Directors second but they have always sat that way. I want to sit over here with the Trustees but for the last three years I sat with the office. I will just continue that tradition on. The next WST may choose to sit over with the Trustees and that’s fine. That’s just my two cents. I just feel that at the banquet that we should sit close together and enjoy our meal and not be challenged and hassled about stuff that we probably don’t have any control over.

Trevor: I’m going to pass. It’s been said.

Robert: No matter where we sit we are going to be sitting in the wrong place in somebody’s eyes. Do I sit with my region or do I sit with my friends from—whatever. At least if I have an assigned table that I normally would be at then I can work the room and feel comfortable. The other opportunity will be for my wife to get to know you guys because she hears about you. My wife isn’t comfortable in groups of people.

Nick: It’s not so much the mingling it’s who you are eating with. I’m very fussy about food, sometimes at the evening banquet I push it around; it’s who I’m with. I spend all my life flying around Europe, sitting at tables talking to people that I have never met because I have to, that’s my job and this is mine two hours slot to choose who I sit with and I’m going to make that choice. I hear him, I pretty much sit next to him throughout the banquet, I will if he speaks I will

Page 118 of 220

tell him to shut the f**k up. This is our time it is not question time focus on that. I was just thinking what you were thinking Hayward, you might get ostracized and pinned down and questioned. You just want to eat. There’s ample opportunity for anyone is to get to know us. I flew nearly 6000 miles to get here, I went to my first meeting ever in Denver, I sat down and I knew four people. I put myself about. I am amiable. I walk about. I’ve done that stuff that he talking about already at Salt Lake. We sat, but before I went around and said hello to people. Whatever we do we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don’t. If we all sit apart then they say can’t find the damn Trustees when we need them; otherwise they’re all sitting at the troughs, whatever. I’m going to sit down with people I like. Thanks for reminding us it’s not about the conference, it’s about the Convention and it’s about the meal. Give the Trustees a hard time, they got the two hours bit and there’s a long term planning—give the Trustees another hard time, then there’s—there’s lots of time if he wants to come and talk—if the members want to come and talk. We will be available and I’m sure I’m going to be on memorabilia and I going to do a bit of registration and I’m sure I’m going to say hi to everyone. I always find that when people are complaining the best thing to do is to go straight up to them and say hi my name is Nicholas. It just takes all the wind out of their sails because you are now there and available for them. They are usually very quiet. I hope that particular member, you know who I mean, has a nice time but I’m not being dictated to what and where and who with I eat when I eat. This is not Conference, this is not an Assembly, and this is not a Regional, this is celebration of recovery with my friends. I only see you four times a year. I see Russell and all that lot all the bloody time, and I love them but I don’t want to sit down and have dinner with them. They will start talking about referral 5702 and what do I think. They got me on my own so they can say the Trustee said—I could lose my guard while eating my salmon—the Trustee didn’t mean that. Not be careful because their horrible but people are just like that. My partner is 6000 miles away. I can’t choose to sit with her because she isn’t here and that’s ok. I only sit here four times a year. Probably know Richard bit more now because he is my roomy but we don’t really get talk, it’s usually about business. I don’t find to you on the phone very much, occasionally little bits. I think it’s useful; it’s a bit like an information center. An information center doesn’t split up it just stays in the one place so you know where to get info. From the tourist map it says this is where you get the info. If someone really wants to come and talk to us, that’s fine. If someone want to come talk to me in the middle of the banquet I’m not going to stop eating I’m going to say that’s fantastic, can I have your email. I talk to you later. Tell me what table you are at. Is it pushing, is it pressing, or are you going to die if I don’t talk to you? But be available. It’s the one chance, it’s really exciting. I look forward to it, even though my partner is not here. Even with I was married, my wife wasn’t here. I want to sit down with my buddies and eat, it’s not to sit down with my buddies and discuss business. We have been doing that for three days already. I look forward to meeting all the people in the banquet at my discretion in my time. I will go around to most of the tables. Some people will probably think why is he here? Other people will say oh you

Page 119 of 220

are. I’ve been to two meetings now in Denver and met people in both meetings that I know. They both remember my name and where I came from, so I’m obviously doing what I’m am told which is kissing babies and meeting people. It’s quite right to get off a plane 6000 miles away from where you live and everyone knows you, but I fell welcomed already. I look forward to meeting the member that sent this and other people that would like to meet us. At the same time, I would like that freedom just to eat the meal with my friends (who I don’t really know). When I look upon it, I’ve only met you really for about a week ever. My whole Trustee four year term, we only spend a few hours together and they are very precious and I would like to continue that. Thanks.

Hayward: Alright, that’s it? I don’t know if this requires a motion by us or we continue to do as we do or…Trevor.

Trevor: I think the only thing that we might want to discuss—I don’t think we want to motion if we are all sitting together, but if we want to sit together, that’s fine. I think that we just—the biggest complained that I got last year wasn’t that we sat together it was that we reserved two tables right out front in prime territory, even though they were totally on the side of the stage whatever, if we are going to sit together let’s sit somewhere central back, whatever.

Hayward: In the back.

Nick: We can sit in the middle in the back.

Trevor: I don’t want us to sit dead up front and right in the center because then people really will get upset. Even if we are central back so everybody sees us but we are not privileged to get the reserved up front table, that would be my only suggestion. If you’re going to sit with other people I’m cool with that too it’s your choice, but try to sit somewhere close to—you’re sitting with me?

Nick: Close enough to throw food.

Kim: And your shy wife.

Trevor: Yeah, she’s very shy and she doesn’t talk to anybody.

Joy: No not all.

Page 120 of 220

Randy: I don’t know if we need to make a motion, but I think we have to make a decision. The Convention committee has normally and traditionally reserved tables and if we are going to reserve tables we need to let them know. The way to do that is to—we can’t decide that we are going to spread out and have them have two tables reserved for us. I don’t think it’s a motion, but we need a decision.

Trevor: I suggest we tell them two tables near the central back of the room.

Joy: Closet to an exit door.

Willie: We are going from one place to another place to another place from this suggestion that has been given to us. If we are going to decide to stick together I believe that our reservation of the tables is not up to us it’s up to the individual host city Convention committee. They assign us where they believe they want us to sit, so I don’t think that we should say let’s sit in the back or let’s sit here in front, no we should leave it up to the host city to decide where they would like for us to sit and not get off into where we sit, but let them decide where we sit.

Richard: First I would like our response to go back to this member and I would appreciate it if you would send it Mr. Chair, and just let him know that this was discussed, thank you for your observation, and the topic was discussed, short and sweet. Just so there’s no remark that it was over looked, not talked about, not discussed, not taken…

Hayward: I think a response was sent. You want me to do anything additionally?

Kim: There was a response and that’s when he wrote back and said maybe we should roam the room.

Richard: Again, thank you for the observations. Both of your observations have been discussed. Ok don’t fire back. I believe it. It’s in the minutes that it was discussed and if that’s appropriate enough then thank you, I have no problem with that.

Willie: When actually meet him and greet him and shake his hand we say that was a good suggestion, thank you.

Richard: The next two things that I wanted to state was this Convention, you will all notice, it was absolutely talked about from the very beginning that when they banquet is over and the room opens up, there is room—all the chairs for the people coming in after are in front of the tables so they are not stuck in the back. That was a conscientious decision by this committee and

Page 121 of 220

we are all in support of it and appreciative that that was thought of. I don’t believe it has changed, just so you all know, I don’t believe it has changed and the only table that was reserved was for the Convention committee, everything else was thought it should be open sitting. That’s just information on those two topics.

Randy: We may need two tables, huh?

Richard: Well we should discuss that and let the banquet know and that be happy to accommodate our ideas. We should discuss that, do we want to sit together or do we want to sit apart?

Randy: We need a motion here then.

Richard: I’m finished, thank you.

Joy: I make a motion that we ask the Convention committee to please reserve two tables for the Trustees.

Trevor: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Joy, second by Trevor to let the Trustee of this—of the Convention committee? Did I just change that up a little bit?

Trevor: Yep.

Hayward: Goes back to the Convention committee and ask them to reserve two tables for our Board. Does that sound about right?

All: Yes.

Hayward: I know it didn’t come out like that.

Randy: I would be more than happy to do that.

Hayward: Is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. Is this over?

Joy: I’m done.

Page 122 of 220

Hayward: Wait a minute I had—well I guess we cleared everything up, like tradition somebody goes to the Convention committee and says reserve two tables for the Trustee’s, wherever they are.

Joy: We don’t care.

Trevor: Just something else, it’s sort of related by not, I good idea roaming the room as well just for the new folks, for the auction. Everybody that buys something at the auction with the exception of Tom, one or more of the Trustees will go up to that person and thank them for their support. Give them a hand shake or a hug, whatever. We appreciate it. It’s up to us as a Board— even if we want to vote—my favorite thing is volunteer as a spotter in the auction because it gets you out there. Do that, go up and thank people that are supporting us in what we do because that is what this is about.

Kim: My first year at Salt Lake City I worked in the memorabilia room too. If you can help out in hospitality or the Unity gig, if you can be there and help out. Willie and I are going to try and be there. There are some other opportunities to be of service.

Trevor: Passing out World Donation flyers as people are going in the banquet. We did that last year, it was great. Stickers, Kansas City I know we took two shifts, an hour each, so we got ready while the other half manned the Opportunity drawing tickets and then when the people that were ready came down everybody else got to go and get ready. It was good way to stand there and meet people, promote CA, and sell some—make some money. Unfortunately we will be on call for pretty well the whole event.

Hayward: I think another great way we can be of service is when registration opens up if we could be there by the door to shake hands. When the banquet opens up we could be there by the door to shake hands and introduce ourselves. Any other discussion on this? I think we have beat this horse dead. Is there any other new business? Is there anything else we need to discuss? Seeing none, somebody come up with a motion that I want to hear.

Randy: Motion to close.

Joy: Second.

Kim: I’m sorry, are we…?

Hayward: Oh, we need to go over the list of…

Page 123 of 220

Kim: There’s a—I know the Interim Restructure project is going—we are going to discuss it after the Board to Board?

Hayward: Yeah.

Kim: And also we have to decide on a quarterly date and that’s after the Board to Board. I also have a Quin response which is a…

Willie: That’s from the WSOB.

Kim: No, we made a motion that we were going to craft a response and it was Nick, Willie, Lawrence, and Richard.

Willie: Right. Nick said he’s working on that.

Kim: So are we going to move that to online or?

Hayward: Ok let’s go over each one of them.

Kim: I’m sorry.

Hayward: Let’s go over each one of them one at a time and let’s decide what we are going to do. What’s the first one?

Kim: Interim restructuring project.

Hayward: After the Board to Board we’ll meet and then we’ll discuss whatever we need to discuss after the Board to Board pertaining to that item of business.

Kim: Ok. The Quin response?

Hayward: I need to hear a motion to move that online.

Richard: Motion to move that online.

Joy: Second.

Page 124 of 220

Hayward: Motion by Richard, second by Joy to move response to…

Kim: I’m getting there. This is the picnic items for Quin. Who made that motion?

Richard: Richard.

Willie: Richard and Nick.

Hayward: We never gave that a business item. Ok we are going to move that online. Is there any discussion on that?

Nick: I want to make motion.

Hayward: Huh?

Nick: This is something.

Richard: Regarding this one.

Nick: No, something else.

Hayward & Kim: Ok.

Willie: I have something on that. Now my understanding, so we are Xing the office out of making a response.

Kim: No. That was not my understanding.

Willie: So their response is going to go along with our response?

Hayward: It sounds like it’s separate. Whenever it goes it goes, and whenever ours goes it goes.

Kim: Could make sure they copy me on that when they send it to Quin.

Willie: Ok.

Hayward: Even though they got to do what they wanted to do I really don’t see a need for us to send anything but since we decided as a Board to send them something then send them something. They did what they wanted to do so.

Page 125 of 220

Kim: So Willie, Lawrence, and Richard.

Hayward: So you are going to talk directly with the WSOB.

Willie: Yeah.

Hayward: Ok, we can scratch that. Next item?

Joy: Should we vote?

Willie: We need to vote.

Hayward: We are going to vote on moving the response to Quin’s correspondence about the picnic to online. Is there any discussion on that? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes to move that online.

Kim: We have the referrals.

Hayward: I would kind of like to hear a motion for the secretary to draft that list, put it online and everybody volunteer to help. Somebody say I’ll be the lead and somebody says they will do this, and this, and this and we…

Richard: Second.

Joy: Willie made that motion, Richard second it.

Willie: I so moved.

Hayward: Motion by Willie, second by Richard to move the referral information, discussion, and creating subcommittees and all of that to online. Is there any discussion on it?

Nick: I want to bring something else up.

Hayward: Does it pertain to this motion?

Nick: Yeah the referral thing. Looking at the response from Quin someone pointed out that there is the word Picnic in the H & I guidelines. Can we make a referral to H & I to sort that out?

Page 126 of 220

Richard: That’s separate, but yes.

Hayward: When Kim sends the list of referral information we can add to that. When she sends it you can reply back to all of us if you would like to add that. Is there any other discussion on it? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes.

Kim: Who second it?

Hayward: Willie then Richard. What’s the next one?

Kim: That’s it.

Hayward: That’s it?

Kim: Yep, just the two things for the Board to Board.

Hayward: Ok. Maybe we need to wait and close out tonight and do our group inventory after we complete the Board to Board. I moved the November Board to Board audio files and the March Board to Board and quarterly audio to Joy’s hard drive.

Joy: Ok good.

Hayward: So tonight after we finish that then we’ll move the May quarterly and the Board to Board information to the hard drive and we will be straight.

Nick: I would like a motion. I would like to make a motion to reconsider the LCF vote on the final one where we voted on the self test. I would like to make a motion to reconsider. I have thought about it. I’ve had discussion with members at this table over breakfast…

Hayward: So you voted for…

Nick: I voted for the prevailing side.

Hayward: Is there a second on that?

Randy: I’ll second it.

Page 127 of 220

Hayward: Motion by Nick, second by Randy to reconsider our decision on the LCF which goes back to business item 2009.05.05-LCF literature pieces approval. Is there any discussion on this motion?

Nick: Can I speak to this motion?

Hayward: You can speak to the motion.

Nick: I noticed we went from quite divided with a little bit of discussion and then we went to 8 to 1. It was very quick. I think there is more in it. While we were sitting at breakfast I said of course …we’ll have Cocaine Anonymous written on the front of the pamphlet that’s what we will. We will have—Richard burst out laughing—it won’t have Drugs and Alcohol Anonymous it will have Cocaine Anonymous on the front of the pamphlet. What I was thinking, when I was voting yesterday, my concern and I think I heard it from Willie, was that the good name of Cocaine Anonymous might be devalued. But on reflection it won’t because it’s on the front. It’s right at the front. And I like that last paragraph, I think it could be moved slightly, but maybe that’s not my idea. When I ask the two questions, does it conflict with any traditions, does it violate any traditions? No. Have they done what they were asked? Well yes. They haven’t done it actually how we envisioned it, but they have done what we’ve asked, which is to address it. I feel maybe it should be even the opportunity to go to the floor and see if other people feel like that. I think the last paragraph, which I know that Robert really liked; I think it is very powerful. I think the Conference and its wisdom might like to tweak that a bit and put that at the front and maybe we are being impinging on the Conference’s decision. Though we act for them I think that’s a very important piece of literature and I think we may have voted hastily and I include myself in that. I think there is more in it. I don’t think this is a done deal. I think it’s a very important piece of literature and I would like it to be reconsidered.

Hayward: Is there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please prepare yourselves to vote on the motion to reconsider the previous motion. All in favor of reconsidering? Seven. All opposed of reconsider? Two. Motion passes to reconsider the previous motion. We are back to the main motion. Who is going to start this ball rolling?

Richard: Discussion of three.

Hayward: I knew that. I said that issue is coming back.

Everyone talking.

Page 128 of 220

Hayward: Trevor could you read point seven again please.

Trevor: Point seven says the approved draft—I’m going to read point six first.

Hayward: Ok.

Trevor: The full LCF committee reviews the draft to make any revisions as needed. If approved by LCF the pamphlet moves to point seven. If not approved LCF will return it to subcommittee for revision, reassign to a new subcommittee, or make a motion at the next World Service Conference to remove from the process. That part was discussed, we decided no we do need to move forward with this and fix it because the way it was nobody was happy with it. Point seven says the approved draft is reviewed by the World Service Board of Trustees to ensure that there are no tradition violations or other concerns that might affect Cocaine Anonymous as a whole. If approved by the WSBT the pamphlet moves to point eight. If the WSBT finds problems with the draft, it will provide a list of specific recommendations and the pamphlet returns to point six. The WSBT review process should take less than 30 days to complete.

Hayward: So they sent it to us the first time and we sent it back. Now it’s back with what we suggested, so they just took what we suggested and then came up with their own whatever. We don’t tell them how to do it; they just come up with it. They make their changes and they send it back. So one, do those changes violate any traditions? What did we agree on? That it didn’t. Two, we decided it didn’t read right, right? Does anybody want to talk about that? We don’t need to talk about traditions, right? Or do we? We need to talk about the second part. What’s really bothering us about this? I want to hear some talk on that.

Willie: What’s eaten me, and what is still eaten me and will continue to eat me, regardless of how this goes, is the fact that it’s alcohol specific. We replaced cocaine and we put alcohol in there, so we can disguise cocaine with drugs, but we clearly speak out alcohol. That affects me. I believe that in this process even though LCF is driving the car, LCF has to also be open to the suggestions that we bring. It says if there’s continued problems with it, and I have a problem with replacing cocaine with alcohol. I believe that would be my basis on it and I’m still against this. I’m in favor of sending it back to the committee because I don’t believe in Cocaine Anonymous that we should replace cocaine that we have a problem with and replace it with alcohol as much as is in there, and lump cocaine into the drugs specific. I believe that cocaine should be the first and foremost and all mind altering substances that keeps us in line with the rest of our readings and with our fellowship being inclusive. Alcohol does not make our fellowship inclusive, only with AA.

Page 129 of 220

Hayward: You are in favor of leaving it like it is which keeps us in line with our other literature and what we want to propose in our book Hope, Faith, and Courage—Cocaine, and all other mind altering substances.

Richard: When I read it I saw that they did what I have heard that people at the Conference, members at the Conference, ask for to not to be cocaine specific because crack people think that it’s different than powder folks because meth people don’t use cocaine but they find a home in Cocaine Anonymous and I have personally worked with someone who came to the rooms that said I feel from cocaine, I just drink wine. That doesn’t qualify as a mind altering substance to that individual. I think the alcohol specific—specificity because I don’t think this wording is alcohol specific, I believe it is broadening. I think it is more broad that it’s drugs and alcohol to be inclusive for those of us who have a mind set of differentiating drugs and alcohol and not being able to see that alcohol is a mind altering substance—it’s wine, it’s beer. I like that broader scope for this particular piece. I would not like to see step one of cocaine and all other mind altering substances changed, but for this particular piece Cocaine Anonymous pamphlet self test I believe that broad scope is, I want to say mind opener, door opener, an avenue to broad thought.

Randy: I don’t know how the argument is valid to go to drugs and alcohol and that argument not be valid to apply to “How it Works”. If it’s drugs and alcohol in our self test because that is the best reflection of the message that we are trying to portray, the best reflection of that message needs to be also in “How it Works”. I like cocaine and all other mind altering substances, it might not read right. I don’t know how to address that. When you do cocaine and or all other mind altering substances do you peek out f**king window blinds, I don’t know. It might not read right. I’m torn. Part of it’s just that I don’t like change, I joined Cocaine Anonymous. I didn’t join Drugs and Alcohol Anonymous. I liked it that we start that pamphlet off with what we say and I like it that we end with what we say, and I think it defines why the self test reads today like it reads.

Trevor: I think that—first of all I want to thank you guys for taking the time to do this again and really have a good healthy debate—and I think that for me was the thing that had me uneasy yesterday and last night. I woke up really early this morning at about quarter to four and I couldn’t really go back to sleep because this was sitting in the back of my mind and I just kept asking myself the same question. Are we trying to protect the Conference from itself or are we using our own personal opinions to try and edit this thing? I think that right there is the biggest problem that I have and it’s not—I don’t know if this is making any sense—personally if it read cocaine and only cocaine but it had the opening and closing paragraphs I would be fine with that personally. If with we left it with cocaine and all other mind altering substances and left out

Page 130 of 220

alcohol and any other specific name of a drug I would be fine with that too. If we adopted this current version that LCF has proposed and the Conference passed it, I would be cool with it. I too joined Cocaine Anonymous because that’s where I found my home. It wasn’t because I’m a cocaine addict; in fact, I did cocaine one night in my life. That’s my experience, I’m a everything addict. If it was in front of me I didn’t even have to know what it was just that somebody might have suggested, hey try this. Ok. It literally didn’t matter. This will f**k you up. Ok, sure I’m there. I just think for me—it talks about in the Concepts never performing any act of Governments and that—not saying that we are, but almost how it makes me feel, like we are trying to protect the Conference from doing its job which is a healthy debate. We already agreed there’s not an tradition issue, the only argument that I could possibly make is that it has the possibility to greatly affect CA in some way but without being able to put my finger on it and say yes it will or no it won’t, I don’t feel comfortable making that decision without giving the Conference that right because that’s their job. The fellowship, as a whole, delegates at the Conference, when it meets its ultimate authority in Cocaine Anonymous. I think if this really is their decision and if they are the ones that say you know what we’re not comfortable with this, and then I’m cool. If the they say you know what we think that this is the way to go about it, then I’m cool with that too. I don’t like feeling like we are trying to protect the Conference from doing its job. Some of the best experiences I’ve ever had on the Conference floor—we’re sitting there arguing about something for four or five hours and make a decision and then somebody brings it back up again the next day and it goes totally the opposite way. I remember when it was the Gay and Lesbian Transgender pamphlet. Everybody was just like so dead set against it, but there was this group over here that just said you know what, what about this. We reconsidered it and now it’s here and we are going to present it this year for final approval. So to take it from concepted out concept to possibly seeing it pass to me is pretty cool. I would like to see us give the Conference an opportunity to do their job. They entrust us to do ours, we know there’s no tradition violations, some of us aren’t comfortable with it and I respect that. I respect that—I’m one of the biggest people that don’t like change and I respect—don’t take this the wrong way if you’re older than me—but I respect my elders. I respect experience. It’s not just age. I’m definitely not the most sober person here in years and I respect people with more clean time and sobriety than me that has done some shit. I respect that. I also respect the ultimate authority of that Conference floor to really make a decision on this. I don’t want to see us take that right away from them, to be the ones to speak and consider and to have the debate because it doesn’t sit right with me to do it any other way than to—I’m sure if we pass it here and say yeah this can go to the Conference there will be some of the people from this board that will get up and debate it quite well. That’s great. I think that it needs ever side, but I also think that we need to step back and let the Conference do their job and not be scared of what could possibly turn into three or four or five hours on the Conference floor. That’s why they go. I believe we should give them that chance.

Page 131 of 220

Richard: Trevor covered it. I just wanted to state the points that we’re suppose to look at and that’s what we’re tasked to do. Trevor covered it. Thank you.

Willie: Speaking personally it’s not about protecting the Conference. It’s about a member of Cocaine Anonymous that sees a piece that I don’t like and just having to have a vote in this, I’m going to vote my conscious, not protection of the Conference but just taking a look at the piece. If it was in a different matter and I can flip this around to say do I know there is a full committee of LCF or is there just one or two people that has put this piece together and they don’t want to relinquish their ideas of this piece and they want it pushed on to be voted on or to be done at the Conference just because it’s their piece and they like it like that. I just happen to know that there’s certain areas that’s not heavily populated with Cocaine Anonymous. A lot of them have Narcotic Anonymous views that they bring into Cocaine Anonymous and that’s why some of the literature is written. That’s why some of the statements are made. I came into Cocaine Anonymous because I could be free. I could speak free. I don’t have to say certain words, I can say I’m an alcohol, I can say whatever and it was just the fact that that brought me into Cocaine Anonymous that I can speak freely. I’ve been at meetings, I’ve been at places where the literature says if you don’t talk about your alcohol experience go to another meeting. Go somewhere else. Go to one of the other fellowships. I see a lot of this stuff going around and I think this piece right here will have the newcomer who this pamphlet is supposed to be for or that person that is just trying to figure what he is. When I don’t see anything about cocaine, I don’t care how it was, crack whether I slammed it, however it was it was still cocaine and it’s developed Cocaine Anonymous. Most Cocaine Anonymous founders were crack heads. If you take a look at all of this—it doesn’t set right with me. It doesn’t set right with me and I’m not even looking at the Conference. I’m just saying this piece doesn’t set right with me and I don’t believe that—I’ve been enough situations where we just pass the stuff along just to pass it along and I’ve been able to speak and voice our opinion. So what if we are trying to edit it. We are members of Cocaine Anonymous; we have the right to give our input of what needs to be edited.

Kim: I’m a Cocaine addict through and through. I make the choice on a daily basis not to pick up anything in mind or mood altering substances including alcohol. I’m grateful to all of you that I have that wisdom today to do that. A couple of things, we say it doesn’t conflict with the traditions, but I think if we look at some of the traditions that we might refer to is tradition four and the bottom line of that is where do we observe the common well fair of the paramount common well fair of the fellowship and how it will affect them. Then I think why do we even have these points, why do these points ever get developed? Why, because they found it fit, the Conference floor, LCF the Conference floor, to put in these provisions so that there’s sort of an overseeing process before it hits the fellowship. I think that we’re charged through our job

Page 132 of 220

description, yes job description, the Charter, to definitely look at things, this point is in there, point seven is there, for what reason? So we can say I’m not sure the wording is inclusive or exclusive or that there’s clear relevance to it. Do we need this test? The test has been around for a number of years, I’m only a Trustee for the last year and a half. I recall that our concern was with just the word of cocaine, it wasn’t inclusive enough and it wasn’t consistent with our current literature. I say I’m a cocaine addict, but I’m a firm believer that a drug is a drug is a drug, so when I sit across from someone at dinner and they say do you know anybody recovering from heroin, I want to hook them up with that person. I look at them and I say the 12 steps are the 12 steps. If you have an honest willing need whether it’s heroin or crack or cocaine, whatever it is. We are inclusive. We have attempted to be inclusive. The Charter charge gives us this opportunity to—and I think I was the one that brought up the other day to save the Conference from 4 or 5 hours of debate, then a motion to reconsider when it finally gets passed on the next day. We’ve seen it. We’ve all seen it. I think that it should be referred back to committee. Clearly, we’ve all worked at the Conference, we’ve all served on committees, and we know what it takes to do these work. I know that LCF has got their work laid out for them. I’m sure that there will be some disappointment and haven’t we all had disappointment in our service work, but we go back in and we take what we need and we file the rest and we get back to work. We are custodians, we are guardians. I just think that if there’s just a tweaking, pardon the word, of this verbiage that we are good to go. We say it doesn’t really conflict with any tradition, but we should sit down and look at some of them, maybe it does. Does the word alcohol bind us to AA? There we go tradition six. I can hear the debate. I can hear the debate. We are hearing it now.

Robert: Where is God in this? I’ve sat here and I’ve listened and I’ve been praying over this and I’m listening. Pardon me, who are we trying to save ourselves from? Are we trying to save ourselves from a potential four hour discussion on the Conference floor or are we trying not to rough the feathers on LCF? There is some really good stuff in the self test. Joy agreed as well, 100%. I don’t know, do I agree with anything 100%? No. The paragraph of the last one it states that, over time virtually every single one of us has realized that our real problem is not cocaine or any specific drug it is the disease of addiction. It doesn’t matter to us if you drink or what type of drugs you use. If you have a desire to stop using you are welcome in Cocaine Anonymous. Are we trying to be an easier softer fellowship? Are we trying to be too inclusive? Where are we heading? Where’s God in this? We all have our opinions and we are all very passionate in our beliefs. Sometimes we have to put our personal feelings aside and see where God is. What is God trying to say to us in this discussion?

Randy: Are you speaking in favor or against the motion?

Page 133 of 220

Robert: I’m speaking in favor of letting it move on. Let the process go on now. I say I speak in favor but the part of it that upsets me is that we made a call to the Chair of the LCF and they responded quickly back saying that no we can’t move on. There’s not going to be enough people for LCF to get the Convention to draft something, to change it. Is that one person’s opinion or is the group? Do we take it back to the whole committee? Where is God in this whole process right now? That’s where I’m at.

Lawrence: I’m looking at this again. I’m wondering with this piece as how it will affect Cocaine Anonymous as a whole? Do we know? Just because I might not agree with it the wording—I’m just kind of torn right now. Good discussion, amen. I think that that last paragraph is really—it kind of close off, even if we kept it like it is, it is still…,.

Randy: This isn’t a new pamphlet. The desire to push something through because it will take X number of whatever’s to get it rewritten and changed doesn’t remove the fact that we actually have one out on the table. If the self test is a piece of literature that is important, it’s there. We are talking an adjustment or a change to any existing piece of literature. I don’t like feeling that there is some pressure on us that this change now is so vital that we have to run down the road with it. We sent it back and asked that it would be worded to be less drug specific, that’s what we were told yesterday. Is that my understanding? Is that the correct understanding? We didn’t like it when it just said cocaine we wanted it to be opened up. In my opinion it came back not only opened up but additional drug specific to alcohol that potentially does have a tradition and an affiliation with an obvious alcohol related recovery program. It didn’t come back truly to what we asked, it came back to with they believed we’d asked. I guess in my opinion I would think that we wanted it to be more inclusive than just cocaine. I think that we have the right to say, as Trustees, that this piece was sent to you, it was our suggestion that it would become less drug specific. It came back more open on the drug side of it, with the word drugs disappeared, cocaine which we maybe didn’t intent, but then added a very drug specific word, which is alcohol. That’s a major change. In my opinion this is not a small change to this pamphlet. To just chew it back and go we don’t think you did what we thought we asked. If it takes a couple more months or whatever, hopefully we get to a point where we’re not constantly changing—this thing sits out there for the next number of years. I like it the way it is and I think there is a potential—and it didn’t come back the way we asked. I’m still speaking against the motion.

Nick: What I wanted was us to think about it. I’m really pleased that were talking about it. I don’t really know if it is right or wrong. I really like that last paragraph. I think that’s new, that bit. I think it’s really fantastic. The drugs and alcohol I hear possible tradition violation, we do have a pamphlet for a reading. I know most of you did not, but in Europe they read that alcohol, they always read it, every meeting, every country, they read that. Although I smoked free base,

Page 134 of 220

and I’ve smoked crack, and I’ve shut do my ass, I take cocaine, I’m a cocaine addict. I sit in meetings, there is ten people in the meeting, I’m the only person that’s taken cocaine. It’s changing. I didn’t use to be nearly 55, but I am. I’ve changed. I think there is a bigger question. Is there some fear? No one’s mentioned it, I’ll mention it. It what Richard burst out laughing, on the front of the pamphlet it will say Cocaine Anonymous, it will have a stamp on the back with Cocaine Anonymous, and it will have the covered paragraph at the end. That paragraph at the end is very powerful. More people have come to Cocaine Anonymous if they don’t think it’s just about Cocaine Anonymous because the literature suddenly changed. That’s my experience of being here these 17 years. People use to come to Cocaine Anonymous in my area, and from my region, hear cocaine all the time and walk and go to wherever they went. If I have a fear of saying oh let’s send it back—if we send it back and say we suggest this, it might look to be controlling. If we send it back and don’t’ suggest anything we are ineffectual. If we send it back and but they take out that paragraph, that I really like, there are quite a lot of things here. I heard what Robert said, which is can we let God and can we let God. Some will say that’s the nandy pandy, but actually to me that’s the whole expression of Cocaine Anonymous; it’s about God it’s not about us, because I’m out of here in 18 months. Papa Smurf id out of here in 3 months and it won’t mean shit to him or it might. I always tell my sponsees and myself, can I let go of this? Do I need to have an opinion on this now? Do I need to have an opinion next week? Can I let someone else have a different opinion? I am not motivated by Cynthia’s response. It might take years and it might not. LCF, in my experience with the Conference now which is nearly 8 years, is that they always get quite hot tongue. It’s not LCF, it’s just that committee deals with the literature, and everyone pushes. I remember when “How it Works” when we were going to change it and it was like someone had this thought that it was the end of the world. The silence was deafening. Because of the AA stuff I have a feeling that’s on the way out anyway. “We can Recover” is coming in. I want to embrace that. I think it’s a fabulous reading that talks to me. It helps me get over my thing that I went to AA and I came to Cocaine Anonymous, so now I identify very strongly with “We can Recover”, ten years ago I might not. I always look at my responses and read my big book which is an edition three. Guess what? There’s another one. There’s edition four, they changed it. That was just not changed, dies—that was just not grows, dies. Sometimes Cocaine Anonymous goes in directions that I am not a 100% with, but I’m mostly with it. I was just talking to Lawrence, my experience and my recovery and get it on related to other human beings either in or out of the program is to come to some enlighten that I don’t just drink or take drugs, compromise. It’s the human condition that we compromise to get on with our fellows. Although I hear that some people are affronted by this, I was affronted yesterday and then I sat back and thought what are you getting affronted…what is your fear here? What is this doing to you? Why does it upset you so? You use to smoke crack and you managed to stop that, so you can change. I have the ability to be able to change, to take on other people’s ideas. That will sit well in the rack of Cocaine Anonymous literature. It will have a

Page 135 of 220

stamp on it. It will have that fantastic paragraph at the end, which is what the people accept anyway. You take the newcomer through it and it says by the way sucker it wasn’t the alcohol. It says your lack of God. I’m not 100% sure of how I’m going to vote. I just wanted to say thank you for discussing this more, I felt we didn’t discuss it enough. I really did, I was like Trevor, we didn’t discuss it enough. It was all a bit too quick. If it has to be discussed on the floor, this Convention four hours, fantastic, but guess what it isn’t going to discuss this Convention four hours it’s going to be discussed at the next one for four hours, probably. That’s my experience. This is not the H & I can, you know what I mean, there are some things that just don’t’ go away. I remember at Conference someone discussing the word “Clean or Sober” for three and a half hours. I remember specifically who it was. We have a reputation for doing the same shit. Whether that workshop is repeating the same mistakes, because we cannot let go, we cannot move on. Wherever we go with this I will be happy. I’m just really happy that we talked about it some more. I thought we just didn’t talk about enough. So thanks for someone to second it. Thanks for everything. Kim’s tradition thing, I hear that, that’s an interpretation, and in some people’s minds this might greatly the affect, but I’m am grateful enough to have Cocaine Anonymous in my life? Am I willing to be able to let it be organic and grow? Even though we are in charge of being the voice and conscious and the principal planners, Conference is coming. If this doesn’t take up some time, something else will take up some time. Although we speak and act for behave of the Conference and we do what they ask, they asked us to do it, LCF have been charge it, they come up with something, the Chair comes back, and she has some valid points, but there is an opportunity to let this go. Let it go to Conference and there might be some open minded discussion there. The people who feel really strongly on this Board now are voting against it can quite possibly get up and go it on. Drug addicts go on, I include myself in that. We are very resistant to letting go. I think depending on what side of the fence you are sitting this is either a big deal or it’s not a deal, but it is a deal. It might be a brave stand. I remember LCF came last time and they brought to much, for my mind, all at one go and everyone…2 out 3 in not bad the thing that the Chair of LCF said. If it doesn’t work out how she wants it, that’s fine it’s not supposed to work. If it doesn’t work out how we want it, that’s fine too.

Willie: I’m going to call for a vote.

Hayward: Do I hear a second on that?

Joy: Second:

Hayward: Motion by Willie, second by Joy to call for the vote. Please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Opposed for calling for the vote? Everybody’s in favor. We are getting ready to vote on the main motion.

Page 136 of 220

Trevor: Can we have 5 minutes?

Hayward: Let’s take 10 minutes.

Willie: Hold up, hold up. Let’s get the vote over with.

Richard: I would like to hear why Trevor asked for 5 minutes.

Trevor: I would like 5 minutes to just sit and mediate a little bit and clear my head. I’m a little emotional about the comments that were just made about the whole NA thing and I would just like to take 5 minutes to be quiet on my own, if I could.

Hayward: I’m sorry. Let’s take 5 minutes.

Hayward: Ok we are getting ready to vote on the main motion. All in favor?

Richard: Of?

Nick: Could we have to motion stated again, so we know exactly what we are voting on?

Kim: The motion is to approve point seven of the self test.

Hayward: All in favor of approving point seven of the self test please raise your hands—four. All opposed—five. It looks like we have some more talking to do.

Trevor: If I could I think that the Board has now spoken enough on this. We’ve discussed it long enough, even though I’m not supporting of the majority the Board has spoken. I think that we should just to do what we’ve now decided on doing and send it back to committee and they will deal with it.

Nick: I just talked about letting go.

Trevor: I can do the same thing.

Richard: You called the motion passing, the motion failed, I believe.

Hayward: It goes back to the committee.

Page 137 of 220

Richard: Correct, the motion failed. You called at as…

Hayward: I have screwed that up twice. The motion failed.

Richard: That’s alright. I just wanted to be clear for the minutes.

Nick: It goes back.

Richard: We all who voted for it knew that.

Hayward: And for the record I would like to apologize for that statement that I made. I have no agenda here; I’m just guiding us along. I was way out of line and way out of pocket. Please accept my apology Trevor if it offended you or anybody else. I will keep my mouth shut about stuff like that in the future. I’m sorry. How about if we go off record?

Hayward: Ok we are back on the record. We are going to recess and we will reconvene a little later. Thanks.

Hayward: Ok we’re back on the record. We just completed the Board to Board meeting. It is now 9:27 Wednesday November 20. We are back in our agenda and we are looking at item business item 2009.05.02-date and time for next WSBT quarterly meeting. Are we ready to set the date? We know the time, but are we ready to set the date on that for August? I think the last one was the 29^th and Nick was speaking at CALA, it was going to rent a boat and take us down there or something? August 29 is Saturday at 7 p.m.—we could start. I don’t see any additional Trustee interviews or anything, unless someone takes a blast between now and then.

Joy: So we are going to start the 29^th at 7?

Hayward: I’m waiting to hear a motion and you guys tell me.

Trevor: AI motion to do that.

Richard: Second.

Hayward: Motion by Trevor, second by Richard to set the date of the August quarterly for August 29 at 7 p.m. Is there any discussion on this? Hearing none, please prepare yourselves to vote, all in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. The discussion about the TAL, the second TAL,

Page 138 of 220

and no Director of Operations—do we need to talk about that now. Is that a new business item?

Willie: No, because actually I would like to work with Joy over the next couple of weeks— because we sort of maybe…

Hayward: Is Randy included in that? I remember him saying something about it…

Willie: Sure. Randy can be included.

Randy: I think there are a managerial aspect and a financial aspect that is tied together. I would be more than happy to…

Joy: Should we create a subcommittee?

Hayward: I’m going to give it a business item of 2009.05.12.

Kim: Doesn’t this fall under the Restructure project? 2009.04.07?

Everyone talking.

Hayward: Ok good.

Willie: It could just fall up under there and we can have the three of us and get together and come up with a plan to present to the WSBT going forward.

Hayward: Does anybody else want to be involved with that?

Joy: And we can the plan at the quarterly? Finalized for the quarterly and…

Willie: Yes.

Joy: August?

Willie: Update at the Conference call, update on the Conference call and finalize at the quarterly.

Hayward: Ok.

Page 139 of 220

Joy: But get a quarters worth of payroll reports, including the payroll tax returns and paycheck invoices.

Hayward: So we have the ammunition for all of that?

Willie: I’m going into the office.

Hayward: Amen.

Joy: I say just make the damn copies and have Yvette help you find them.

Hayward: Amen.

Kim: What are we getting copies of?

Joy: Three months worth of payroll reports, quarterly payroll tax returns, and three months worth of paycheck invoices. Payroll processing invoices, sorry.

Richard: Can you please get a report directly from paychecks?

Joy: I don’t have the authorization to do that. It has to be the signers on that account.

Richard: Right. Can you please request a report coming from paychecks?

Hayward: Instead of coming through what’s in the office?

Richard: Correct.

Hayward: That’s better.

Willie: So, I need to…

Richard: In addition to what’s in the office. Just request a report to be sent to you from paychecks.

Willie: So they can reconcile?

Richard: That is correct.

Page 140 of 220

Hayward: Are we through with this? Is there any other discussion on the Restructure project? I guess not. Is there any other new business? Are we through with all our follow-up stuff? Kimberly?

Kim: Yes.

Hayward: We’re through with all follow-up?

Richard: I ask the question, while we were in session to all of us, if anyone had an issue with me communication on top of the office with the web server. I just want to make sure that you don’t have an issue with that.

Willie: I don’t have an issue as long as you don’t get drawn into other conversations. I mean, personal is personal. I can’t stop that, but when it’s dealing with business or something like that, other that you’re normal stuff…

Richard: It’s IT posting stuff; please follow-up with this, this request has been made…

Willie: Oh no, that stuff. I have no problem with that stuff.

Joy: Just copy Willie on it.

Richard: I would only blind copy him, because it’s Mike and tech people get a little fussy on who is watching. I’m one of them.

Willie: I thought you were speaking of communication with the office.

Richard: No.

Randy: Why would we blind copy?

Joy: To keep Willie in the loop, which is part of his job.

Hayward: You said Mike was a little touchy about what?

Richard: I said IT people are touchy about…

Willie: I don’t have to be…

Page 141 of 220

Hayward: We pay him.

Richard: We pay him for the hosting services. It’s a discrepancy on whether or not he volunteers his services for managing the website. It’s a grey area.

Robert: Why is it a grey area?

Richard: Because whether or not he is encompassing some of that in the web servers mind whether he is actually getting paid for just the hosting and managing the store, which is what I believe he believes he is being paid his services for, and not for the actual changes and interaction of the website. I believe that is considered donated time. Does that make sense? Just so you all know, we actually removed the hosting from his services and put it on a large facility, Network Solutions Corporation, so that we don’t have to worry about an individual maybe losing a piece of their hardware or something like that. Now he is no longer hosting that. So I have a question of what he is being paid for.

Randy: We are only paying you for this, but we just removed this from, but we are still paying you?

Richard: I will have Willie ask that question as to what the payments are stated and what his invoices are for that he is paying for at the office.

Joy: We have those accounts that we can only access so then let’s do it.

Hayward: So this concludes our business and we can go…

Trevor: Just a reminder of everybody that is new and old check the program and make sure you know where we are supposed to be there, when we are supposed to be there, if you don’t know ask Randy and or Richard and I’m sure they will fill you in.

Hayward: We don’t have the program guides yet.

Kim: The meet and greet, what is that? Is that something we have to be at?

Hayward: We should go off record. So there’s not more business? We will go off record for group inventory.

Page 142 of 220

Hayward: We are back on the record and we just completed group inventory, and there is only one motion I want to hear.

Everyone: Motion to adjourn.

Hayward: All in favor? Thanks. The time is 10:24 Wednesday May 20.

Page 143 of 220

For all other attached documents and reports see PDF: 2009-05-18-20-WSBT-Quarterly-Minutes.pdf