Dana V. – Read report.
CLOSING REPORT C.A. WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE 2016 STRUCTURE AND BYLAWS REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND OPENING COMMENTS
Opening Comments
On behalf of the WSC 2016 Structure and Bylaws Committee, we are deeply honored to have the opportunity to serve and would like to thank you for a wonderful conference. As the S&B committee we have the privilege to work on the WSM, which strikes at the heart of every service
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 18 of 88
oriented member and gives us as a committee much pride and joy. My committee and I have had a unifying and , believe it or not, spiritual conference. Now we all know S&B is the best committee and we’re not just talking about the snacks. But S&B on its own is not the conference. And the joy I experience here is due to all of us coming together. One addict working with another for our primary purpose. This is the spirit that moves these committees. We have 6 motions we will be making as a result of the referrals we received from end of last conference to this year’s conference. For those referrals that resulted in no action taken. We hope that you will find our responses well-crafted and informative.
Committee Introductions
| Chair | Dana V. | |
| Vice-Chair | Jason McE. | |
| Co-Secretary | Jimmy Y. | |
| Co-Secretary | Jon H. | |
| Committee Introductions | ||
| Dana V. | Chair | Scott S. |
| Jason McE. | Vice-Chair | Rodney D. |
| Jimmy Y. | Co-Secretary | Ernest M. |
| Jon H. | Co-Secretary | Michael C. |
| Jeanette J. | Trustee | Julia C. |
| Maria M. | ||
| Robert S. | ||
COMMITTEE WORK THAT RESULTED IN MOTIONS
REFERRALS THAT RESULTED IN MOTIONS
Referral S & B 2016 – 7
Referral (and motion) to be presented at the CA World Service Conference 2016 submitted per SR-14 about shortening the date when the WSO would need to receive materials for SR-14.
Please modify the one deadline in SR-14 to reduce the 120 day receipt requirement to 90 days effective at the end of Conference 2016.
In regard to SR-14, change deadlines as follows (please reference page 46 of the 2016 CA World Service Manual):
14.Any material that has significant effect on the World Service Conference including but not limited to WSC bids, literature changes, new Area Petitions etc. that is to be reviewed by the Delegates for possible consideration by the Conference must be received by the WSO at least 120 90 days before the WSC so that all Delegates can receive and review the material at least 60 days prior to Conference.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 19 of 88
*****
Ernest M. – Made motion.
Motion: To change Standing Rule 14 on page 46 of the WSM, 120 90 so it would read Standing
Rule 14 Any material that has a significant effect on the World Service Conference including
but not limited to WSC bids, literature changes, new Area petitions etc. that is to be reviewed by
the Delegates for possible consideration by the Conference must be received by the WSO at least
90 days before the WSC so that all Delegates can receive and review the material at least 60
days prior to the Conference.
Seconded
Tony D. – Reread motion. Any debate on the motion?
Tom P. – Against this motion. We went through this several years ago due to challenges of Delegates getting materials early enough to be able to take it to Area meetings, then have GSRs take it to the groups, get the info back to the Area meeting, then back to Delegates, etc.
Jay P. – Against the motion, agree with what Tom stated. Some Areas do not meet monthly, so they need that time.
Stu E. – Against the motion, agrees with both statements.
John W. – Question, is WSO ok with this change?
Dana V. – They are the ones who submitted it. This gives you as a Conference sub-committee an extra 30 days to submit the info to WSO, it doesn’t change the Delegate mailing timeframe for when WSO sends the info out to the Delegates. Tony D. – Prepare to vote.
Vote 08 – 89 for and 52 against. Motion does not pass.
*****
Suzanne V. – 5th Concept statement – She was for motion – Concerned that motion was not understood completely. If WSO agrees that the decreased timeframe is sufficient to meet Delegate Mailing timeframes, why would we not want more time to get SR-14 info in to the WSO?
Kevin M. – 5th Concept statement – Everyone who spoke against this motion was factually incorrect. People who spoke against had the timeframes wrong. Timeframe for delegates to see the SR-14 info has not changed, this just means WSO has less time to prep the materials for mailout.
*****
Devin R-F. – Motion to reconsider.
Seconded.
Tony D. – Is there any debate to reconsider?
Suzanne V. – In favor to reconsider – additional explanation should have helped people to
understand what the motion really is.
Duane M. – In favor, agree with Suzanne.
Michael C. – In favor to reconsider, please look at all facts.
Kevin M. – In favor to reconsider, now that everyone has heard the correct info.
Tony D. – Reminder, this vote is only to reconsider, we are not voting on the motion itself.
Vote 09 – 132 for and 15 against, motion to reconsider passes.
*****
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 20 of 88
Tony D. – Is there any debate on the original motion?
Suzanne V. – In favor to change SR-14 as this gives WSO less time to process info submitted by the committees. Delegates have the same amount of time to review info and take that info to their Areas.
Susan B. – Point of Information, clarify please. Is this specifically so that addendums fall within SR-14 timeframes so we don’t receive addendums to the Delegate mailings?
Dana V. – Anything falling under SR-14 has not changed. This only changes the time the sub-Committees have to submit the items to WSO.
Tim A. – Point of Information, WSO did not submit this referral.
Dana V. – Correct, Conference committee submitted this referral.
John W. – That was my question earlier, was WSO in support of this change? Question again, is WSO ok with this change submitted by the Conference committee? Dana V. – Yes.
Jim S. – In favor of the motion, this makes sense. Conference works for the committees and this gives the committees more time to get the items to the WSO.
Michael C. – In favor of the motion, electronic technology has helped us do things quicker. This will help us to progress forward.
Rose J. – Point of Information, need clarity, this sounds like we are the cutting time we have to review SR-14 items.
Tony D. – Explained the timeframes. This only cuts the WSO timeframe to prepare the items for the delegate mailing.
Peter O. – In favor of the motion.
*****
Devin R-F. – Call the question.
Seconded.
Tony D. – Motion made and Seconded. Prepare to vote.
Vote 10 – 132 for and 9 against, motion to call the question passes.
*****
Tony D. – Rereads the original motion, this needs 2/3rd votes to pass.
Vote 11 – 131 for and 15 against, motion to change SR-14 passes.
*****
Referral S & B 2016 – 8
Please add to the District Vice Chair roles and responsibilities description that the Vice Chair for a District be expected to Chair a Sub-committee in the same way that an Area Vice Chair is.
*****
Chris J. – Made motion
Motion: To add on page 22 of the World Service Manual under District Vice Chair duties a new item,
- Chairperson of one standing committee
Seconded
Tony D. – Rereads motion. Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Chris J. – No.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 21 of 88
Jason L. – In favor, this piece has been missing from the District duties. This helps fill in
positions in the District.
Tony D. – Prepare to vote.
Vote 12 – 132 for and 5 against, motion passes.
*****
Referral S & B 2016 – 8.5
Change under Conference Officers point 2 page 42 “Officers may be elected to serve a total of three terms for that particular office.” please look at a total of two terms instead of three terms
*****
Loni S. – Made motion
Motion: To change page 42 of the World Service Manual under Conference Officers, Item 2, The term of a Conference Officer shall be for a period of two Conferences. Conference Officers
The Conference Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson may be elected to serve a total of two terms. The Conference Co-Secretaries may be elected to serve a total of three terms for that particular office. Effective at the WSC 2004, the election of Conference Co-Secretaries shall be staggered, with the intent that only one Co-Secretary rotates out at each Conference. Seconded
Tony D. – Reread motion. Do you want to speak to the motion?
Loni S.– No
Jay F. – Speak against this motion. We have seen many different directions for Conference to go. Why would we want to shorten the officer terms when this has been working very well so far and other boards have the same requirements?
John W. – Was this vetted out with the Conference committee? Where did this come from? Tony D. – Clarification, this did not come from the Conference Committee.
Michael C. – We gave this due course and spoke with the maker of motion that this was to help with rotation and help eliminate burnout of Officers.
Jay P. – Against motion. We have every opportunity for this floor to speak its conscious during elections. These positions take unique skills for these jobs and the length of the officer term doesn’t influence our processes on the floor.
Kevin M. – In favor of this motion, the referral was submitted by WSBT. There is the possibility for someone to be a Conference Officer for up to 12 years. This referral is a more democratic process.
Jeanette J. – Point of Information, if there is incorrect info in the notes, how do we correct that? Tony D. – Bring the info to Trevor.
Jay F. – Correction, this was a referral by one trustee, not the WSBT.
Russell S. – I’m looking at SR-13 and I speak against this motion. Reads part of SR-13. This should have gone to the Conference Committee before you took it this far.
Kevin M. – This is in the WSM and the S&B committee is the one responsible for making changes to the WSM.
Stu E. – In favor. I agree with Kevin’s statements. I believe in the spirit of rotation. This is good to allow change.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 22 of 88
John W. – Speak against the motion. In the past, we could determine which committees these referrals may effect and we would discuss the referrals with them or at least consult with them. If S&B is not getting input from the potentially impacted committee, that is not helpful.
Anne B. M. – Speak against the motion as it is crafted. I think all officer terms should be the same length. Why is the secretary position different?
Michael C. – We did consult with a Conference Committee member and was told this was not SR-13. The motion was crafted in an effort to help things work in proper order. We do due diligent on all of these referrals.
Tony D. – Just to clarify, you brought this to one member of the Conference Committee and asked about SR-14, not SR-13.
Rose J. – Against this motion, I think I understand where the motion comes from, but we need the best people we have to lead us. There was a time when Officers had to stepped down due to personal reason. I feel Concept 4, 6 and 9 also apply to this issue.
Suzanne V. – Against this motion. I don’t think it was thought through enough.
Tony D. – Seeing no more debate. Before you vote, to clarify, this issue did not come to the Conference Committee beforehand. Prepare to vote Vote 13 – 49 for and 97 against, motion fails
*****
Referral S & B2016 – 15
Regarding the WSC COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON Duties, could you add a bullet with the following: should submit a quarterly report for the committee to the trustee assigned to the committee
*****
Cathel McC. – Made motion
Motion: To enter a new item on page 42 of the World Service Manual under WSC Committee Chairperson:
- The chairperson is responsible to submit a quarterly report for their committees, to the Trustee assigned to that committee
Seconded.
Tony D. – Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Cathel McC. – No.
Tony D. – Seeing no debate, prepare to vote.
Vote 14 – 130 for and 8 against, motion passes.
*****
Referral S & B 2016 – 19
add on page 52 under the World Service Trustee they are the primary signer of all contracts that C.A. enter into.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 23 of 88
****
Paul S. – Made motion
Motion: To add on page 50 of the World Service Motion under Trustee Negotiation Committee,
as the last sentence: The World Service Trustee is the primary signatory of all contracts negotiated by the Trustee Negotiation Committee
Seconded.
Tony D. – Reread motion. Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Paul S. – No
Bob L. – Point of Order, who is the Trustee Negotiation Committee?
Tony D. – Explained what the Trustee Negotiation Committee is.
Tom P. – I believe this motion infringes on the relationship of doing business with the fellowship. WSO decides who signs the checks. This motion crosses the spiritual relationship we have with the WSO and the business relationship. We grant committees the right to determine best work practices by setting such specifics. I speak against this motion. Rose J. – Point of Information, does this mean this is limiting who can sign?
Paul S. – This limits who can sign a contract when said contract is brought before the WSBT. Duane M. – This motion only clarifies what we are doing right now. This only refers to CAWS business, not everything. This is just clarifying what we are already doing.
Dana V. – It was a trustee who submitted this and we spoke with a few trustees about this. John W. – Speak in favor, contracts are business, not spirituality, WSO are the ones who handle the business.
Ira L. – I am the current Lead Negotiator. This is just a clarification to make the WSM consistent with what is happening. This is a very simple process. Items still go through committees.
Henry A. – What is the significance of the word ‘primary’ in this motion?
Paul S. – It implies that while some contracts require multiple signors, this mean this is the first signor.
Paul S. – Speak in favor, this helps ensure fiscal security by defining the actions for something
that could have major financial impact.
*****
Michele D. – Call the question.
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to call the question.
Vote 15 – 126 for and 9 against, motion to call the question passes.
*****
Tony D. – Prepare to vote on the motion, reread motion.
Vote 16 – 120 for and 16 against. Motion passes.
*****
Tom P. – 5th Concept statement – Now that we have tied the hands of the WSO, what happens if
the designated trustee has a health issue and can’t sign? My problem is us as a Conference tieing the hands of the committee to do what they need to do. We have taken away the ability to conduct business in that instance.
*****
Jim S. – Motion to reconsider, he voted on prevailing side.
Seconded
Tony D. – Reminder, keep debate to the motion to reconsider only.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 24 of 88
Michael C. – Speak against the motion to reconsider, we brought forth what we did, it was clear, concise and it passed with substantial unanimity.
Kevin M. – Speak against the motion to reconsider. We heard significant debate, members of the WSBT seem in favor of this and have stated that this is for clarity reasons, this states in the manual where the authority lies.
Dana V. – Speak against the motion to reconsider . . . . started to debate original motion
Jim S. – Speak for the motion to reconsider because of the new info brought up in the 5th
Concept Statement, I think we need to reconsider.
*****
Deven R-F. – Call the question.
Seconded
Tony D. – Prepare to vote on the motion to call the question.
Vote 17 – 81 for and ?? against, motion to call the question fails.
*****
Tony D. – Back to the debate to reconsider.
Henry A. – Agree with what Tom P. stated in his 5th Concept statement.
Earl H. – Clarification . . . . he started to debate underlying motion.
Jeanette J. – Speak against the motion to reconsider, believes that the 5th Concept statement wasn’t accurate information.
Stu E. – Speak in favor to reconsider, think we can re-write the motion to be better.
Jill E. – Against the motion to reconsider, just because a person doesn’t like the result of the vote doesn’t mean we need to reconsider.
Jimmy Y. – Speak for motion to reconsider, think many of us have questions that need to be asked/answered in regards to the original motion.
Suzanne V. – Speak against, the basis to reconsider is not correct.
Susan B. – Speak against to reconsider. . . . Started to discuss underlying motion….. don’t think this really matters.
Peter O. – Speak against the motion to reconsider, heard nothing to change my mind on this.
Anne B. M. – Speak against to reconsider.
*****
Michele D. – Call the question.
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to call the question.
Vote 18 – 94 for and 34 against, motion to call the question passes.
*****
Kevin M. – Parliamentary Inquiry – Chairperson, please clarify exactly what the yes/no vote will do in situations of this nature.
Tony D. – OK
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to reconsider the original motion.
Vote 19 – 109 for and 35 against, motion to reconsider fails.
*****
Referral S & B 2016 – 6
- TRUSTEE NEGOTIATION
To assist the World Service Trustee by serving as a group conscience in the review of all contracts negotiated on behalf of Cocaine Anonymous, involving the amount of $500 USD or
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 25 of 88
greater prior to engagement on the part of Cocaine Anonymous. A contract is defined as any signed document between Cocaine Anonymous and any other person(s) or business (es), that indicates a commitment of services or goods between the two defined entities.
Also as part of this group conscience, there will be consideration of the stated needs/goals/purposes of the Committee which originates the contract. There will be a coordinated effort by the Trustee Negotiation Committee and the World Service Trustee to ascertain what still must be negotiated and by whom (the specific situations may vary); also to be fully considered are the respective timing needs of the originating committee. Further, before any contract is finalized and signed, the Trustee Negotiation Committee and the World Service Trustee will coordinate its efforts and revised contract suggestions with the originating committee to ensure that the needs/goals/purposes are being met post-negotiation.
*****
David S. – Motion made.
Motion: To add on page 50 of the WSM as a second paragraph to Section 4, Trustee Negotiation Committee:
Also, as a part of this group conscience, there will be the consideration of the following:
- What the originating committee needs.
- When the originating committee needs the contract to be completed.
- Maintaining open communication between the originating committee, the WSOB, the TNC and the WST.
- Originating committee is to review the contract before it is signed.
Seconded.
Tony D. – Reread motion. Do you want to speak to the motion?
David S. – No.
Tony D. – Is there any debate on the motion?
Ira L. – Against this motion, think the original info provided on this referral was unclear so this motion is unclear.
Tony D. – Clarification, this came from a member of the Conference committee. The point is just to have contracts come back to the originating committee so changes don’t cost the fellowship money. Example is the Conference hotel contract. It was signed with changes we didn’t approve and we were stuck with those changes.
Jay F. – In favor, I submitted this motion, we worked with S&B on this language. Contracts need to go back and forth for review by originators and the trustee signor. *****
John W. – Motion to table until next Conference.
Seconded.
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to table.
Kevin M. – Parliamentary Inquiry, is a motion to table until next Conference acceptable?
John W. – My intent is to have this discussed between the two committees for more clarification.
Tony D. – Do you want to refer to committee?
John W. – Yes, refer back to committee.
Tony D. – Is there any debate on the motion to table to committee?
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 26 of 88
Anne B. M. – I would like to refer back to committee. It was stated this was given to WSBT, but as the WSBT Secretary, I’ve never seen this referral.
Richard S. – Against the motion to refer to committee, this is a well crafted motion.
Dana V. – Speak in favor of referring back to S&B as I think we can craft this to be clearer.
Tom P. – Against referring to S&B, think we can vote on this here.
Susan B. – Against the motion to refer back to S&B, this motion makes sense.
Henry A. – If S&B thinks they can do better with this, why not just rescind the motion? Michelle D. – Speak in favor to send this back to S&B, this is unclear, let them rework this motion so everything is clear.
Peter O. – In favor to refer to committee. I see no issues with holding off on the vote for a year. Duane M. – In favor to refer back to committee. The S&B committee says they want it back, let them have it.
Laurie R. – Against motion to refer to committee as this is clear, concise and was in SR-14 mailing.
*****
Jimmy Y. – Call the question.
Seconded.
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to call the question.
Vote 20 – 134 for and 4 against. Motion to call the question passes.
*****
Tony D. – Prepare to vote on the motion to refer this back to Structure and Bylaws committee.
Vote 21 – 110 for and 30 against, motion passes to refer back to S&B.
*****
REFERRALS OR ITEMS TABLED UNTIL NEXT YEAR; AND ITEMS THE COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE WORKING ON THROUGH THE YEAR
Referral S & B 2016 – 7.5
That once a new Area has been recognised by The World Service Conference that a World Service Manual be provided in the language spoken by that Area.
It has become apparent that new Areas, e.g. Norway, are not provided with a manual in the language that can be understood by their members. Instead of expecting a fledgling fellowship to carry out their own translation I believe it would be extremely helpful if our World Services paid for manuals be translated and provided as quickly as is reasonably possible so that these new members are afforded the same opportunity as most of us have. It is too easy for members to form their own incorrect understanding of our Fellowships service structure and procedures or even be misled.
Referral S & B 2016 – 18
The current guidelines state that when an Area is created that Area is given 3 votes on the conference floor no matter how many meetings that area has. 1-75 meetings have 3 votes. This seems out of portion to some areas. We are suggesting that an area is given 1 vote for 1-25 meeting, and a is given an additional vote for every 25 additional meetings.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 27 of 88
REFERRALS OR ITEMS REFERRED TO OTHER COMMITTEES; WORLD SERVICE OFFICE, OR BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Referral S & B 2016 – 10
I write to request CA (structures and bylaws committee) seriously consider making a significant change in the way CA as a whole conducts our annual conference by holding it bi-annually instead of annually.
1.As a delegate who has attended three conferences I am not alone in my experience that the agenda does not warrant a conference each year.
2.More areas around the world may be able to participate if they are to send delegates bi-annually. This would lessen the financial burden on each area.
3.The fellowship would save money each year from not having the conference.
4.Electronic communication has greatly improved since the inception of CA in 1982 significantly changing the way the CA fellowship as a whole and its members, delegates, office staff, office board, and trustees are able to communicate and conduct committee work throughout the year.
5.Current hotel contract could be amended.
This was referred to the Conference Committee
Referral S & B 2016 – 11
Update WSCC Guidelines
This was referred to the Conference Committee
REFERRALS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN MOTIONS
Referral S & B-1
I recommend the fellowship limit the use of delegate proxies by areas to one year out of three. The use of a proxy distorts the group conscience in that the thoughtful and current participation of the delegate or voting member who is not present is not included in the overall group conscience experience. Proxies should be a tool to accommodate emergencies that an area may encounter, not a normal operating
No Action Taken
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 28 of 88
It is not a workable addition to the proxy process. If revisions to the proxy process are needed members should submit a comprehensive referral.
Referral S & B 2016 – 2
At many levels, right up (or down) to WSC boards or committees, people in CA service often use parliamentary procedure in whatever manner they have seen it used. This is not entirely inappropriate. To quote Robert’s Rules of Order, 11th ed. “In matters not governed by any adopted rule, a society may be guided by established custom…”
This isn’t always a problem, but when it is I, and many in service in the Fellowship, resolve the issue of procedure by referring to Robert’s Rules of Order. In fact, I, and probably you also, have watched The CAWSC Chair and Parliamentarian passing the latest edition back and forth, on the dais, as they discuss complicated points of order away from their microphones. It makes sense since The World Service Manual offers guidelines ‘adapted’ directly from RRO. References to Robert’s are so ubiquitous in our service work that I always assumed they were adopted. It is only recently that it occurred to me, in fact it was pointed out by a knowledgeable old timer, that CAWS did Not have an actual parliamentary authority.
RRO is very clear that, when adopted as a “Parliamentary Authority”, the rules Do Not take precedence over Charters, By-Laws, Special rules of Order, Standing Rules, or the laws of the land. If the Traditions, Concepts and Warranties (which are pretty much our entire By-Laws) are honored, a Parliamentary Authority can only help to ensure a fair and democratic process for finding the Group Conscience.
As I described above, it’s what we already do, except in some rare but troubling instances when people seek to impose their own will on the group, or to make it up as they go along. I believe those instances do tend to hinder the process of finding the voice of the group conscience.
The only way that I foresee adoption directly affecting WSC procedure is to require a Special Rule of Order be established in the case of Friendly Amendments. But even that might be unneeded if the Chair simply allowed them to be offered. I haven’t studied that particular aspect too deeply. I can’t imagine it would present a real obstacle if we wanted to adopt. Still this falls under SR-13 and SR-14. So…
For the above mentioned reasons, and many, many others, I ask the committee to Consider bringing a resolution to Conference in 2017 adopting a specific parliamentary authority. Possible outlines Might look like
- Resolved that the 2017 WSC adopt Robert’s Rules of Order, 11th edition, as its parliamentary authority.
Or, further reaching, but more flexible.
- Resolved that the CA WSC adopt Robert’s Rules of Order, 11th edition, as its parliamentary authority, and recognize it in all cases where The Conference, or any of its Boards or Committees, have NOT decided by group conscience to use another published parliamentary authority, or decision making system.
Or,
- Something else.
No Action Taken
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 29 of 88
A set of rules, derived from Robert’s Rules, 10th edition, has been adopted and listed in the World Service Manual, beginning on page 76 of this year’s manual. To the degree they apply, they supersede any conflicting text in any edition of “Robert’s Rules.” However, for more complex questions, the Conference officers have historically referred to the then-current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order for guidance in their ruling.
Note that the Conference has multiple authorities, both practical and spiritual: Robert’s Rules, the 12 Traditions and Concepts, the World Service Manual, the Standing Rules, the By-Laws and the Conference Charter.
Most of the time the applicable authority is clear and well-established. In some instances, there is a question or conflict, and we empower the Chairperson to make a ruling to resolve it.
Since the Chairperson is elected by Group Conscience, and the ruling is always subject to appeal and correction by the Conference, allowing this discretion seems preferable to rigidly defining the balance of our practical and our spiritual authorities.
Referral S & B 2016 – 3
Please provide additional direction within our World Service Manual as to how a new Area may be created where its proposed boundary encroaches on the boundary of an existing Area or where two existing Areas wish to revise the position of their shared boundary. The World Service Manual currently refers to a singular Area or proposed Areas submitting a petition however it does not appear to provide guidance on how a dual petition should be submitted or the process for an agreement to be reached between Areas prior to a dual petition being worked up.
No Action Taken
We believe in the spirit of Tradition 4, in fostering Unity instead of disunity. We believe there in no neutrality in C.A.
Referral S & B 2016 – 4
Submitted materials for consideration at the World Service Conference, including referrals and other documents to be reviewed by the World Service Conference Chair and Vice Chair so as to decide if said materials need to be part of an SR-14 mailing.
No Action Taken
Having an opinion from a collective of two is not sufficient input to make this decision.
Referral S & B 2016 – 5
Please add a change control section to our World Service Manual that describes the changes made to the Manual from the previous years version. This section to be superseded on a yearly basis with the past years changes being held as an ongoing and separate log to be accessible on line.
No Action Taken
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 30 of 88
Currently the WSM identifies changes from the previous year’s Conference as a part of the last page of the WSM, currently page 84 of the 2016 WSM. All historical requests may be made to the archives committee.
Referral S & B 2016 – # 5.5
Change page 52 of the WSM, to reflect the newer language in point 1 of page 56, as attached.
No Action Taken
This is housekeeping.
Referral S & B 2016 – 9
When Western Pennsylvania joined our area several years ago, we petitioned and it was approved. That should not have changed the name of our Area. We are still the Ohio Area which Western Pa happens to be a part of. We are listed in the WSM as the Western PA/Ohio Area. Please correct this to at least show “Ohio/Western Pennsylvania Area”.
Although we are actually the Ohio Area as no petition was ever made to change our name, we are willing to compromise and show Western PA.
No Action Taken
This is housekeeping
Referral S & B 2016 – 12
To Change the status of a Region so its capable of having its own bank account. Regional Conference. Office and Literature Storage Facility.
In the UK we are looking for are large districts to become Areas It would make sense that these Areas became a Region and as such be able to set up the above mentioned criteria.
It seems logical as CA growth worldwide means in the future it will be impossible for all the delegates from all the growing Areas and regions to attend just ONE conference. Especially Regions like Iran where it would prove impossible for delegate to get to USA to attend. I know
- in Great Britain have always had their own conference and have a General Service Office which works really well.
The wonderful growth we are experiencing in the UK I hope will be replicated all around the world and I believe our current structure will not be able to accommodate that growth. Regional conferences will also allow smaller Areas to actually be a part of. For example, Ireland who aren’t big enough yet to attend the World Conference could attend the UK conference. This would bring about enthusiasm and participation. I’m sure this idea could be rolled out to other interested Regions of CA too.
No Action Taken
We do not see any positive effect from these changes because Regions have no authority outside of the election of a trustee slate and appointing a delegate to participate on the TEC.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 31 of 88
Referral S & B 2016 – 13
‘Revise the World Service Manual to allow for the creation of Regional Service Committees to serve their Areas, Districts and Groups’
Due to CA ever increasing size I believe we now should empower the regions to support the Areas, Districts and Groups within them. Allowing for regional offices and literature storage facilities. Regional Conventions and conferences could also be held allowing for greater participation from members in dealing with local matters that may only be specific to that region. This will in turn create greater enthusiasm and growth.
No Action Taken
Having regional conferences and committees outside the world service conference would undermine its authority, create conflict and confusion, and violate our first tradition of unity. We also do not see any positive effect that can be brought about by these changes at this time.
Referral S & B 2016 – 14
To Change the status of a Region so its capable of having its own bank account. Regional Conference. Office and Literature Storage Facility.
In the UK we are looking for are large districts to become Areas It would make sense that these Areas became a Region and as such be able to set up the above mentioned criteria.
It seems logical as CA growth worldwide means in the future it will be impossible for all the delegates from all the growing Areas and regions to attend just ONE conference. Especially Regions like Iran where it would prove impossible for delegate to get to USA to attend. I know
- in Great Britain have always had their own conference and have a General Service Office which works really well.
The wonderful growth we are experiencing in the UK I hope will be replicated all around the world and I believe our current structure will not be able to accommodate that growth. Regional conferences will also allow smaller Areas to actually be a part of. For example, Ireland who aren’t big enough yet to attend the World Conference could attend the UK conference. This would bring about enthusiasm and participation. I’m sure this idea could be rolled out to other interested Regions of CA too.
No Action Taken
The referral has the same wording as 12 and appears to have been sent in twice. Our response is in Referral 2016-12.
Referral S & B 2016 – 16
My question is to follows Is a alternate delegate who is here for his first conference allowed to be voted in for the trustee election slate for next year’s voting process.as I read in the bylaws it doesn’t have any info for alternates, only states a delegate. Do we even know that they will be
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 32 of 88
back for their vote at next year’s conference.
No Action Taken
In answer to the delegate’s question:
On page 55, several qualifications of a Delegate member of the TEC are listed. The first qualification specifically says they must be a current WSC Delegate. Accordingly, it would suggest that an Alternate Delegate is not eligible for election as the Region’s Delegate member of the TEC, nor as the alternate.
Referral S & B 2016 – 17
make the book alcoholic anonymous part of CA approved literature. In new areas of CA it might not be clear that we use this book and not other fellowship recovery books.
No Action Taken
This suggestion has arisen several times in the past. The Conference has always decided that only literature created by, and under the control of, the World Service Conference may be “Conference Approved.” However, there are several other items, all owned by Alcoholics Anonymous, which are “approved for use” in CA meetings. These are the Big Book, the AA 12 & 12, and the AA Service Manual.
This is largely a semantic difference, but it makes clear that these AA properties are not subject to the control of CA, but are simply used by us as tools of recovery.
NEW COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AS OF THIS CONFERENCE
| Chair | Rodney D. | |
| Vice-Chair | Chris J. | |
| Co-Secretary | Cathal McC. | |
| Co-Secretary | Jimmy Y. | |
| Committee Introductions | ||
| Rodney D. | Chair | Julia C. |
| Chris J. | Vice-Chair | Loni S. |
| Cathal McC. | Co-Secretary | Paul S. |
| Jimmy Y. | Co-Secretary | Imani A. |
| Jeanette J. | Trustee | David S. |
| Ken S. | Kevin M. | |
| Dana V. | Jon H. | |
| Ernest M. | Jill E. | |
| Michael C. | ||
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 33 of 88
CLOSING COMMENTS
As an outgoing delegate of 5 years, I appreciate the knowledge, wisdom and experience I’ve gained here at conference. Both at the S&B committee and on the floor. I have made friends from all around the world that I never expected. I will continue to cherish those friendships after I leave. I want to thank not only the members of the S&B committee but everyone I have met here in my 5 years. You have taught and opened my mind through opening your hearts to me. I have seen CA grow in the last 5 years. When I remember South Africa becoming an area and listening to their experience. Or the year that every CA World Convention bid was international. Showing the growth that we work so hard to achieve here. Being able to witness this growth on this level has been very humbling. I will forever be grateful to CA for allowing me to be of service and share in this experience.
Respectfully Submitted:
Dana V.
Your OUTGOING S&B Chair
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Tony D. – Any questions for S&B?
Jason L. – Thank you for your work and report. I submitted a referral requesting clarification on when new Areas are created in regards to area boundaries. I don’t understand your answer to this referral. Don’t think it answers my question.
Rodney D. – The answer refers to the autonomy of the existing Areas.
Jason L. – There should be some method for negotiating these boundary issues. How does an existing Area and a new petitioning Area negotiate these boundary issues? There is nothing in the manual for this.
Kevin M. – We discussed this quite a bit. There are three New Area Petition forms now, we can’t make a form for every situation. S&B feels these forms can be used for many situations with enough explanation from the submitter.
Tom P. – About referral 1 & 18 – Do you intend to address the fact that the Conference is getting distorted by the addition of new Areas being created with no new members being added. How do you intend to address this in the Manual?
Dana V. – For the one we took no action on, there were too many variables to address. People are not using the proxy vote process correctly.
Rodney D. – We felt that one referral might impact the second one.
Jason L. – I submitted a referral requesting the Chair & Vice Chair of Conference to review items to determine said items were really SR-14. In the SR-14 mailing, there seemed to be a lot of items that really weren’t SR-14.
Rodney D. – Conference committee needs to answer that.
Tony D. – If someone submits something and states it is SR-14, it is automatically sent out in SR-14 mailing.
Stu E. – Jason brought up something I’ve also noticed about the SR-14 mailings. It would be great if SR-14 mailings were in one mailing and other items in a second mailing.
Jason L. – I asked S&B to look at making an ongoing log to changes to the WSM. It would be nice if this was an electronic log of ongoing changes. Can this be passed onto Archives? Dana V. – You would need to submit your referral to Archives directly.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 34 of 88
Susan B. – When you submit a referral, you can only submit it to one committee, correct? How can a member submit a referral to multiple committees?
Tony D. – They can re-write the referral and send it to a different committee. Also, the receiving committee can send the referral to another committee as needed.
Break until 1 PM PDT.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 35 of 88