Tony D. – Election of Conference Officers is next. Secretary positions are not open this year.
Trevor S. – Reads the Conference Chair duties/qualifications.
Tony D. – Are there any nominations or volunteers?
Devin R-F. – Nominate Trevor S.
Trevor S. – I accept.
Dwanna R. – Nominate Russell S.
Russell S. – I decline.
Bill D. – Nominates Duane M.
Duane M. – I decline.
Tony D. – Seeing no other nominates or volunteers… Congratulations, Trevor. Trevor S. – Reads Parliamentarian qualifications Tony D. – Are there any nominations or volunteers?
Jim S. – I nominate Russell S.
Russell S. – I accept.
Michael C. – Nominates Stu E.
Stu E. – I decline.
Mark N. – Nominate Cliff W.
Cliff W. – I accept.
Rob W. – Nominate Richard S.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 84 of 88
Richard S. – I accept.
???– Nominate Ginger L. Ginger L. – I she decline.
Tony D. – Asks each candidate to give qualifications. (each candidate comes to the mic and gives qualifications) Tony D. – Asks candidates to leave the room.
Sarah T. – Can we discuss this as I am only knowledgeable about one of the three candidates? Various members provide info about the candidates and discussion ensues.
Tony D. – Please prepare to vote.
Vote 55 – First round of voting removes Cliff W. from the ballot.
*****
Jimmy Y. – I am writing a referral about this voting process, why was there debate on the first ballot but not on the second ballot?
Tony D. – Some places don’t debate ballots at all. Please submit the referral if you are so moved.
Vote 56 – Congratulations, Russell.
*****
Tony D. – Any new business?
*****
Jim S. – Motion to remove any reference to the H&I Can from the H&I Guidelines.
Seconded.
Tony D. – Rereads motion. Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Jim S. – Not at this time.
Ginger L. – Against this motion. I don’t think the long term ramifications of this motion have been considered. Significant funds have been raised for H&I through the use of the H&I can. Removal of this fundraising option would be detrimental to the amount of funds available to be donated to CAWSO from an Area.
David C. – I questioned the H&I committee about this. I am in favor of this motion. An SR-14 had gone out about this issue and it would have done just this. However, the current committee changed their mind to address this issue this year. This issue has been going on for a number of years and needs to be settled. The SR-14 went out and I feel this needs to be debated by this floor. H&I cans are not used in European Region any longer. Some saw it as creating funds that were outside the budgeting process, also why are we not passing a can for other committees as well?
John W. – Against this motion. The H&I committee could not come to substantial unanimity on this issue. We have been trying to find other answers to this issue.
Natalie L. – I believe this needs to be tabled and taken care of by the H&I committee.
Rob W. – This went out in SR-14 last year as there was a non-US based member was on the committee. The current guidelines read that a new Area needs to put out an H&I Can. New areas general do what the guidelines suggest. The European Region is growing quickly and they don’t use the H&I Can.
Michael C. – I am against the motion as worded as it impacts on Tradition 4. I think this is an issue that needs to go out as SR-14 again.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 85 of 88
Carla S. – against as written, we already have guidelines on how to spend funds, but see where this can lead to accountability issues
Stu E. – I speak against, we get donations from meetings for both 7th Tradition and H&I. This allows us to spend designated funds on H&I without impacting 7th Tradition funds. This has been an effective tool for a very long time. Wording in this motion needs to be better.
Jason L. – Seems clear that we should set aside money. I speak for the motion. It does affect 7th Tradition as people need to choose where to put their funds. This has been debated for a long time. If this is taken out of the guidelines, we are not telling people to not do it, we are just not telling them to do it.
Jim S. – I am in favor of motion. How is it spiritual to set aside funds in this manner? We need to trust our leaders to make the right decisions about funds placed in the 7th Tradition basket. Let go, trust God, it will be alright.
Jay P. – We do a lot of H&I and collect a lot of funds in the H&I Can. The H&I Can lets members speak directly to where they want their funds spent. If you don’t want to do it in your Area, don’t do it. The Can is a suggestion, not a requirement. It is effective to raise more funds for the fellowship. This debate has been happening for a long time. It is obvious there is no right or wrong way to do this.
*****
Kevin M. – Call the question.
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to call the question. Vote 57 – 111 for 6 against, call the question passes *****
Tony D. – Restated motion, prepare to vote.
Vote 58 – 28 for 93 against, motion fails.
*****
Morgan T. – 5th concept statement – This isn’t about taking something away from the groups, it is about taking away wording that suggests this is necessary.
*****
Dan P. – Motion to suspend rules to extend the session 2 AM.
Seconded
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to extend session.
Vote 59 – (exact vote count not captured), motion to extend passes
*****
Tony D. – Is there any other new business?
*****
Paul B. – Motion for the WSCPI committee to co-host with the Colorado PI committee and participate in the 2nd Annual PI Summit in Denver, CO.
Seconded.
Kevin M. – Was this resolved earlier?
Tony D. – No.
Tony D. – Restates motion. Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Paul B. – No.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 86 of 88
Anne B. M. – As this motion is very specific for the 2nd Annual PI Summit, does that mean the
motion if only for this one event?
Paul B. – Yes
John W. – What are the plans for that Summit? Do you have an agenda, something we can look at to understand what is planned? If we are going to support an activity, I feel we need more info.
Paul B. – No.
Michelle D. – Point of Information, if this body elects to send that committee to the Summit, who will pay for it?
Tony D. – They already stated there is no cost.
Michelle D. – Why are we voting on this?
Rob W. – I don’t understand the intent of this motion.
Tony D. – The committee wants to get the support of the Conference.
Dana V. – If this doesn’t pass, are you planning to do the Summit anyways?
Jon H. – Can you repeat the question?
Dana V. – You have already met once without being approved, are you still going to meet if this isn’t approved?
Jon H. – We are not asking for funds. Yes we would still do this.
Jimmy Y. – Speak against this motion as if it fails, it may jeopardize the work that needs to get done.
Laurie R. – There was a request for funds submitted to the finance committee. *****
John W. – We don’t have enough info to debate this. Motion to refer back to the PI committee.
Tony D. – Restates motion, do you wish to speak to this motion?
John W. – Not at this time.
Carla S. – I don’t feel it should be referred back to committee as this has been discussed already.
Rose J. – For the motion, this needs to go back to committee.
Paul B. – I rescind my motion.
Tony D. – Any objections? Motion is withdrawn.
*****
*****
Stu E. – Motion to allow the PI Committee to use the proposed changes in Referral PI 2016-2 for a period of one year so they can test the proposed changes and report back to this body in one year with the results. The PI manual will not be changed in any way. Seconded.
Jason L. – This is about the language, correct? The PI committee took this motion back and they are not even here to debate this.
Jay P. – It appears we getting close to doing committee work on the floor.
Stu E. – The intend of the motion is they already did a study on how well the changed PSAs are working. I would like to see how well the proposed changes work and what the results would be. There is nothing forcing the PI committee to do this, just allowing them to test the changes if they wish.
Troy L. – Speak for the motion, it is the drug specific mention of cocaine/crack that is not as effective on the radio as a non-drug specific message.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 87 of 88
Ryan R. – In favor of the motion, I would love to see the results of how well these proposed
changes work.
*****
Quorum call
Vote 61 – 106 votes present
*****
Kevin M. – I am against the motion as I don’t agree with the premise of the motion and I do not view this as a valid test. I proposed both versions of the PSAs as what works in one area might not work in other areas.
Jon H. – I am voting against the motion. I helped draft the original motion and we had discussed leaving the current PSAs and making several new ones. Please let us do our work.
Jay F. – Speak against the motion as Conference hasn’t approved the language they want to test. Jason L. – The committee didn’t really like the suggested changes to the original motion and this isn’t appropriate to try to make a committee do something they don’t want to do.
*****
Tom P. – Call the question
Tony D. – Prepare to vote to call the question.
Vote 62 – 99 for and 5 against, motion to call the question passes
*****
Tony D. – Restates motion, prepare to vote.
Vote 63 on motion – 30 for 71 against, motion fails
*****
Tony D. – Seeing no other new business, the Conference Committee will announce next year’s dates.
Jay F. – We will be at this hotel next year from 08-30-2017 to 9-3-2017. Please thank the delegates, turn in your clickers and fill out the evaluation form we sent to you. Tony D. – Thank you to everyone who has helped us here.
Tony D. – Thank you for letting me be of service.
Jay P., Ira L. & Duane M. – Motion to close. 1:23 AM PDT.
APPROVED REDACTED Day 4 Daily Summary Corrected on 27-Mar-2017 Page 88 of 88