Sep 2, 2023 – Conference Committee Report – Day 3

• Reviewed, resolved, and/or approved over 110 credentialing requests from over 60 different areas.

• Interesting fact… The delegates, trustees, directors and members represented here reflect cumulative sobriety of almost 2500 years = over 900,000 days = over 2 million hours!

30 | Page

Committee Administration

• Prepared the committee budget for the 2024 conference and revisions to the 2023 committee budget.

• Attended to 13 referrals made to the in-conference committee during the year producing committee approved responses.

• Prepared the 2023 conference agenda.

• Generated quarterly reports for the WSBT.

• Organised memorabilia to be sold at the conference.

• Coordinated with the Unity Committee to provide a Unity Breakfast at this year’s conference.

• Started compiling a conference committee handbook

• Monitored and forwarded incoming referrals to the appropriate WSC Standing Committees, updating the necessary data on Formsite.
  • At the time of writing this report, we have received and tracked a total of 85 new referrals for the standing committees and boards of conference.

• Checked and followed up on all outstanding referrals from previous years backdated to 2016.
  • There remains open from previous years 124 referrals that are with various standing committees and boards dating back to 2016.

• The referral master document has been uploaded to the Box and is available for review. It is saved in the following location:

Delegate Information Main File/2023 Conference Materials/2023 Referral Master Lists

In addition, the Conference Committee has been reviewing and coordinating with the World Service Office concerning certain administrative tasks such as Credentialling and Registration can be handled by an employee of our non-profit organization to continue to ensure sensitive and personal data is handled securely and safely. Many of these tasks have been handled by the Conference Committee and will be transitioned to the World Service Office over the next couple of years.

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AT CONFERENCE:

Position	Name	Email	Phone
Chairperson	Justine K	justinekite@hotmail.co.uk	+44 7736691352
Vice-chairperson	Gillian M	g.mcgee4014@gmail.com	+1-905-302-4416
Committee Secretary	Robyn G	Rlgreenway7@gmail.com	+1-512-549-0790

31 | Page

Coordinator	Vicki R	bnvrosamond87@aol.com	+1-214-478-3931
Vice Coordinator	Misty C	mistycaws@gmail.com	+1-714-809-
Referrals Coordinator	Carly C	carlycharles1975@icloud.com	+44 7487
Committee Member	Jay F	Finesilver1988@gmail.com	+1-303-596-5592
Committee Member	Marcel V	mentormarcel@live.nl	+31 61562 1882
Committee Member	Kate F	katefishereventing@gmail.com	+44 7875050155
Committee Member	Rob W	robartinaction@yahoo.com	+1-303-885-0422
Committee Member	Susan L	susan.calkins@gmail.com	+1-512-699-8002
Conference Chair	Russell S	r.sedman@yahoo.com	+44 7927 288736
Conference Vice-Chair/Parliamentarian	Duane M	duanemiller59@yahoo.com	+1-951-830-7854
Conference Co-Secretary	Amanda T	amandatimoney@hotmail.com	+44 753 9965997
Conference Co-Secretary	Albina K	akowalko@yahoo.com	+1-718-885-7600
WSOB Vice Chair	John B	wsovchair@ca.org	1-818-321 3211-
WSOB Director of Conferences and Conventions	Robert B	docac@ca.org	1-713-657-5187
WSOT Representative	Laurie R	WSOT@ca.org	1 -310-600- 9992
WSBT Representative	Gary P	MWRT@ca.org	1-216-322-4316

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE MOTIONS:

MOTION 1: TO APPROVE THE REVISED ‘REFERRAL’ DEFINITION IN THE WORLD SERVICE MANUAL.

(Page 58 in the WSM 2023 Edition)

Strike entire page titled “Referrals”.

32 | Page

INSERT NEW LANGUAGE:

REFERRALS

Referrals for consideration by C.A. World Service Conference Committees may be made by any member of the fellowship. Referrals can be submitted either directly via the link at CA.org or with the support of the ASC World Service Delegates.

Referrals are classified in two ways, Current Conference Referrals and Next Year Conference Referrals.

The timeline below illustrates when each referral type applies.

(See attachment 1) Conference Committee ATTACHMENT 1 (with chart)

Referrals are received throughout the year and are recorded and tracked carefully by the C.A. World Service Conference Committee.

The World Service Conference Committee distributes referrals to the WSC Committee selected by the referral maker and tracks referrals that are transferred between committees.

Each WSC Committee addresses its referrals as the committee sees fit; however it is guided in this process by the Standing Rules for the C.A. World Service Conference.

The World Service Conference Committee also collates an annual record of all referrals received throughout the years preceding WSC; this is known as the ‘Referrals Master List’ which is circulated to all World Service Delegates via the Pre-Conference Delegate Mailing.

WSC Committees work throughout the year on the referrals that they receive and may elect to:

• Bring a motion to the WSC floor for approval
• Keep the referral in committee for further work or research
• Transfer/refer the referral to another WSC Committee or service board
• Decide that the referral is not currently in the best interest of C.A. to pursue at the present time. This response ought to provide an explanation of why no action will be taken.

It is important that each WSC Committee respond to each referral that it receives including those that remain in-committee from preceding years or have transferred into it from other WSC Committees or service boards as well as new referrals.

33 | Page

Referral responses may be sent directly to the referral maker but must always be included in either the WSC Committees opening or closing Committee report to the C.A. World Service Conference.

All referrals that have been submit to WSC Committees and may result in motions at a World Service Conference must meet WSC Standing Rule requirements.

Current Conference Referrals:

A Current Conference Referral (CCR) is any referral received within the calendar year of the WSC for that same year and prior to the gavel falling at the beginning of that WSC opening conference session.

Next Conference Referrals:

A Next Conference Referral is any referral which is submitted after the gavel falling at the beginning of that WSC opening conference session and prior to the calendar year of the next WSC.

The status of all referrals is to be recorded in the next available closing WSC report immediately after the referral has been received by the WSC Committee that it has been sent to.

Special Note: All Conference referrals are now submitted on-line through the applicable on-line Conference portal.

MOTION 2: TO APPROVE THE DFW AIRPORT MARRIOTT NORTH HOTEL FOR THE 2026 & 2027 CONFERENCES FROM THE SUGGESTED 3 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

CONFERENCES.

See Attachment 2 for a detailed review of the top hotel proposals.

Conference Committee ATTACHMENT 2

MOTION 3:

MOTION: TO APPROVE THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REVISED GUIDELINES AS FOLLOWS;

(See attachment 3) Conference Committee ATTACHMENT 3

#1 – Page 3 – WSC CONFERENCE COMMITTEE GENERAL GUIDELINES (Item 3):

Add “if required” after “on-site inspection”

#2 – Pages 10-14 – PROPOSAL FOR HOSTING WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE:

Delete the entire section

#3 – Pages 15-17 – PROPOSAL FOR WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE VENUES:

Add an entirely new section (replaces deleted section) See attached.

34 | Page

See attachment 2 for a strike-bold version of the Conference Committee Guidelines reflecting the above changes.

Conference Committee ATTACHMENT 2

REFERRALS THAT RESULTED IN MOTIONS:

Not applicable

REFERRALS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO OTHER COMMITTEES:

NotApplicable

REFERRALS STILL IN COMMITTEE:

REFERRAL #11616647 – Pre-Conference (16-Aug-22) – Peter W, UK

I write on behalf of our home group in London as the appointed GSR. We recently attended our District meeting and discussed the various SR14 motions. At that time we were shown all the SR14s in the usual form of SR10s ie add, omit, lined through and bold type as is procedure.

We also discussed the SR14-11 re Gender Neutral referral. At this stage our group requested the proposed changes in context and with the strike outs or bold type as procedure dictates. Our group was informed that with this motion there is no SR10, why not? I have consistently asked for a reason that protocol has not been followed in this regard and moreover as this motion referral implicates such a huge change , with the further referral requested that service documents also be changed, why hasn’t the SR13 procedure been followed either?

Firstly we cannot have faith in making an informed decision without proper procedure being followed by the S and B committee. We as a group do not have confidence in the process being carried out correctly.

Secondly we have members in our 30 strong home group that have varying degrees of literature and grammatical understanding, as well as language barriers, therefore we feel the draft referral as per SR10 is a must.

Our group has had numerous meetings and conversations about this referral, which is a healthy sign.

• And we would at this time like to forward some questions to be satisfied as follows-
• Why choose the WSM as the document for the motion?

35 | Page

• How have S and B arrived at the understanding that this motion is non political/cultural in essence, when these changes are reflective of a current Geo political / cultural movement? Therefore an outside issue (Tradition 10, particularly to the 12 and 12 Washingtonians etc)?
• What evidence do you have to support any claim that the current pronouns in the literature cause some people to disconnect with the message of recovery?
• Are there risks that changing the existing pronouns in the literature may cause some members who currently connect to feel disengaged?
• What is the risk of personal anonymity becoming diluted going forward, regarding one’s personal, political or cultural beliefs.
• Why is a movement that has such ambiguity outside of our fellowship being considered for such a change within our spiritual entity ?

These are some of the questions put forward by our group.

We thank you in advance for responding to our communication, and can we ask that we have correspondence prior to our Pre Conference Area assembly.

CLOSED REFERRALS:

REFERRAL #12639038 – Pre-Conference (28-Feb-23)

In the spirit of collaboration and fuller participation on WS standing committees, i would like to suggest that the Conference Committee Chair(or Vice chair) schedule a quarterly call with standing committee chairs to (briefly) update on their committee’s work, issues affecting the fellowship, etc.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your referral.

The Conference Chairperson and Parliamentarian interact throughout the year with each of the Standing Committees Chairperson and Officers. There are already regularly scheduled meetings set up with the officers of each committee, these meetings are prior to SR14 cut-off and prior to WS Conference. We don’t believe at this time anything more is required but will accommodate if and when such needs arise.

REFERRAL #13304057 – In-Conference (07-Jul-23)

Notice of errors in Appendix tables.

Thank You for the Conference Committees SR-14 submission. There seems to be several errors in the table labelled “Average Time Zone Change”, located in the

36 | Page

Appendix. For example, the difference between PDT and BST is 8 hours, not 9.

This gives a question:

Does this affect the validity of data in the tables that follows this one?

RESPONSE:

Thank you very much for your referral and highlighting our mistake with this matter. The document has been corrected with little to no effect on the final results.

REFERRAL #11715600 – Pre-Conference (03-Sep-22) – Jonathan H

Referral is based on page 48 of the WSM definition of the conference officers for the co-secretary positions. This position is supposed to be staggered for good reason to ensure that there is always a person of experience sitting on the dais.

Based on the concurrent 2-year terms that are being used the only way to fix this issue would be to have a term for one secretary shortened to a 1-year term or extended to a 3 year term. So no one feels slighted, I would personally suggest the term extension option.

My suggestion would be to do this at the 2023 conference so we can get back on track to meet the requirements of the WSM.

RESPONSE:

Thank you very much for your referral and highlighting our mistake with this matter. We will correct this at the start of next conference and will endeavor to do better.

REFERRAL #1829697 – Pre-Conference (21-Sep-22) – John B, WSOB

I would like to make a referral to the World Service Conference Committee for the sole purpose of seeing how our referral process is handled. I am currently in the process of getting to the bottom of why the WSOB had over 50 Referrals since 2017 in various status. Additionally, I have spoken with other concerned members from a variety of committees who cannot seem to track back to find who, how, when, and why their referrals were processed and then no further notice or conclusion was easily, readily, or historically available. Thank you for understanding what this referral is about and it may certainly stay in our committee for the time being.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your referral. The World Service Conference Committee understands the reason for your referral. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We will continue to address the concerns expressed herein throughout the coming year and beyond.

37 | Page

Ref: 12074617 – Pre-Conference (04-Nov-22) – Lee B

I know the conference is for the business of CA, however with so much recovery in the building, how about 1 speaker meeting one evening just do we can be reminded of why we are there. I would love to some experience strength and Hope from someone. Just a thought, see you next year!

RESPONSE:

“Thank you for your referral. The Unity event will return this year and they will have the opportunity to bring a speaker or speakers Response by Misty: “Thank from Conference. The nightly 12-step meetings are going to continue to be participation so everyone can get a chance to participate.”

REFERRAL #11690934 (CONF 2022-11) – Pre-Conference (30-Aug-22) – Jay F, Colorado

This referral is about the process for approval and modification of the hotel contract for the Conference. I would ask that the Conference Guidelines make clear that once the contract is negotiated, or if there is an amendment to any signed hotel contract, that it FIRST go to the Conference Committee for approval, then to the WSOB, then to the TNC. It seems that the Conference Committee is often ignored in this process and it should not be.

RESPONSE:

While we agree with the intent of this referral, we do not agree that all contract changes need to be approved by the Conference Committee. The Conference Coordinator is typically involved in any contract negotiations and/or renegotiations. The World Service Manual, Page 73, states, “Provide ongoing contract administration of previously negotiated CAWS contracts…” Additionally, the WSC Conference Committee Guidelines, Page 3, states, “The WSOB and its Board of Directors are responsible for negotiations of contracts related to the Statement of Purpose of the Conference Committee. This includes WSC hotel contracts and taping contracts, which will be coordinated with the Conference Committee.” It is the position of the Conference Committee that Contract Negotiations and Renegotiations are the direct purview of the World Service Office and the Director of Conferences and Conventions specifically; thus, Concept 3 and the “Right of Decision” comes into play. The clause also states that contract negotiations will be coordinated with the Conference Committee, also satisfying Concept 4.

REFERRAL #11596477 (CONF 2022-09) – Pre-Conference (14-Aug-22) – Claire C, London

With reference to SR14-11, Motion 1 submitted by S&B Committee -“To make changes to the WSM to be gender neutral excluding the 12 steps……”

38 | Page

Could you please confirm why this motion was able to be sent out as an SR14 when it has not complied with SR10. The proposed changes are not shown in strikeout or in bold as per SR10.

This is an enormous change to be considering to a document which is actually our collective conference of the entire world – World Service Manual (WSM), and yet groups around North London have been asking why they are unable to see a document with the proposals set out.

The same with Motion 2 – where it mentions “any service documents published in the future” – this does not set out any proposals and is hugely generic.

For instance, any gender neutral language is not easy to convert; “they,them” can often imply the plural, this could cause many miscommunications within the manual guidelines themselves, if not written with great care and grammatical vigilance. To merely say “to be gender neutral” can also be very subjective, and not always clear cut.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your referral. The subject was discussed, several times and at length, prior to any presentation regarding the changes. On review of the proposed changes it was realised that the ‘changes’ were simply grammatical housekeeping. Housekeeping changes, as such, do not rise to the requirements of SR10. This was explained by the Conference Chairperson, there was no appeal of decision made. SR14 does not, specifically, state or imply that the SR10 exercise is undertaken, although healthy precedents have been set by Standing Committees such as LCF.

Motion 2 within the S&B report, that you’ve referenced, was not brought to the floor. It was discussed prior to conference and withdrawn. If it had been delivered to the floor as an attempted motion it would have been called out of order under SR13.

Its intent was best served by a series of referrals to the various Standing Committees, at this time we are unsure if S&B or individual members interested and involved in the desire to have this addressed have actually done so.

REFERRAL #12282097 – Pre-Conference (18-Dec-22) – John B, WSOB

I would like to suggest that the referral number, or unique identifying number, assigned by Formsite when sending the maker of a referral the acknowledgment email. As an example, and for your reference I have included a copy of my original receipt for Ref: 11715600 made 9/3/2022. There is no unique identifier other than date for me to reference. The unique identifying number “Does not appear anywhere”.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your referral, we have now amended the acknowledgment email to

39 | Page

include the unique identifying number for your records and future reference.

REFERRAL #9757185 (CONF 2021-10) – Pre-Conference (01-Sep-21) – Jay F, Colorado

I would propose that the Conference Committee establish a set of guidelines to follow and then report to the Conference whenever it proposes a new hotel to host the conference. These guidelines would include at a minimum:

-local fellowship involvement if any

-number and location of restaurants and other similar amenities near the hotel

-a summary of an actual site visit by someone/or a team doing a site inspection at the proposed hotel before the hotel is put forth by the Conference Committee

-logistics actually in operation to get our attendees to and from the hotel, not what the website indicates

-a review of the key sites with recent reviews of the hotel on google maps, yelp, the local hotel site and others

RESPONSE:

The proposed ‘PROPOSAL FOR WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE VENUES’ in the Conference Committee guidelines has been updated and covers the needs of the Conference activities and the needs of individual delegates wherever possible.

REFERRAL #9227555 (CONF 2021-07) – Pre-Conference (04-Jun-21) – Justine K, CAU

Can an online or virtual ‘world service conference’ be looked into for future years? 2020 proved that we don’t necessarily need to be meeting face to face for a world service conference.

I know that 2022 & 2023 are already in planning status so I’m not sure if we could change these but thereafter there is no need for us all meeting face to face every year. We have the capability to put on a virtual conference (as proved by the work undertaken by the conference committee this year) and propose we look at this for future years. The reasons and benefits of this would be that it would be more inclusive for a number of reasons;

• Smaller and new areas can’t and won’t always be able to afford to send a delegate. If it was online or virtual, although there would still be a cost to register, it should be significantly less than sending someone in person.
• An online/virtual conference would encourage more members to step up and do service. Some of our members couldn’t physically attend a conference due to family commitments so would be more inclusive to those with families.
• Some of our members have disabilities and are unable to travel the distance to conference. By having a virtual/online conference, this would be more inclusive for those with restricted health issues.

40 | Page

• It would also save the fellowship a huge amount of money. As an estimate based on the 2019 attendance, it costs approx $220,000 in travel costs for the attendees to go to conference, most of which comes from tradition 7 money. This is completely unnecessary in this day and age. I believe the money could be much better spent with tradition 5 in mind. In addition to the travel costs, there is the physical cost of holding a face-to-face conference (as an estimate ~$40,000.
• It would help our carbon footprint to have a virtual/online conference.

I understand that there may be some challenges – ie. time zones but this can be worked through ie. just working a reduced number of hours per day or a reduced agenda? Do we really need committee breakout sessions for as long as we have them? These work perfectly well throughout the year as does the regional assemblies and caucus’. Perhaps consider having 1 face to face conference every 4 years and the remainder online? There are so many positive changes that could occur by having an online or virtual conference, the inclusivity of our members to attend and to step up and do service in addition to the $000,s we could save or put to better use, when are we going to move with the times?

RESPONSE:

The response to three referrals (#9227555 (CONF 2021-07), #10218557 (CONF 2022-04) and #10351721 (CONF 2022-06)) is posted after REFERRAL #10351721 (CONF 2022-06).

REFERRAL #10218557 (CONF 2022-04) – Pre-Conference (20-Nov-22) – Claudia & David, Germany

During our Regional Caucus Nov 20, 2021, the MER delegates looked back at the experience of the 2021 hybrid conference. We felt that it helped with some long-standing issues, particularly for long-distance travelers.

In the spirit of participation and democracy in thought and action, we would advocate for the opportunity of hybrid participation in future conferences. Could you please inform us about your plans for online participation / hybrid conference going forward? This would enable equity and inclusion by empowering groups who otherwise cannot represent their areas as delegates:

• Delegates with mobility issues
• Delegates whose areas can’t afford long distance travel cost (up to and above 1,000 US Dollars per delegate)
• Delegates who would have difficulties entering the US based on visa restriction (countries of birth, criminal record etc.)

RESPONSE:

The response to three referrals (#9227555 (CONF 2021-07), #10218557 (CONF 2022-04) and #10351721 (CONF 2022-06)) is posted after REFERRAL #10351721 (CONF 2022-06).

41 | Page

REFERRAL #10351721 (CONF 2022-06) – Pre-Conference (17-Dec-21) – Cameron F, OSA

With the current state of world affairs and COVID-19 rolling pandemics… and in lieu of Concept Four: 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. I think the time has come that every World Service Conference, commencing with the 2022 World Service Conference, be at minimum a “hybrid” conference giving delegates, committee chairs and trustee, both in-person and virtual access and attendance.

RESPONSE:

The following is the response by the WSC Conference Committee to three referrals listed above (#9227555 (CONF 2021-07), #10218557 (CONF 2022-04) and #10351721 (CONF 2022-06)). This response is also relevant to any other such referrals on the topic on online or hybrid Conference.

No Action Taken.

Thank you for your respective time to make these referrals to our committee. We also thank you for your service to our fellowship and to the Conference itself. We have studied this matter from several perspectives using logistical and practicalities to direct us on one hand, while also being mindful of our need to respect and balance the Concepts as applied to this entire matter. When we do this, the unescapable conclusion remains that a hybrid Conference is not the best direction for our fellowship or for the Conference itself on an ongoing basis.

Each one of these three referrals has a similar theme in suggesting/arguing that a hybrid conference is the preferred course going forward. Here, so that we are all clear, we understand that a hybrid Conference involves some combination of delegates in one location along with some varying group of other delegates which are either at their home location or, as was the case two years ago, at a hub location centrally located to several proximate areas. In our analysis and narrative below, we are mindful not only of these three referrals, but of the concern by some members of the Conference who expressed concerns to members of our Committee directly of by asking additional questions during our report and even during Conference week and since then. It is our desire below to share our experience, strength and hope related to this important matter.

Overview:

The first response is that the good is the enemy of the best. While the Conference was able to happen while hybrid for the one year in 2021, there was significant feedback that indicated that a multiple day Conference held across different time zones was extremely challenging to those on the dais, those doing the planning, and those attending both in person in the main Conference

42 | Page

location, as well as those participating either at their homes or similar locations, or those who were part of a hub location as was the case in 2021 with a hub location in the UK. Overall, the clear conscience of those participating that year was that such a virtual Conference was simply not as effective.

There will always be restrictions for anyone to serve in certain capacities. This is true in all civic and service organizations. Requirements to serve will always make serving not possible or probable for some. (i.e. A person with small or school age children might not be able to attend, and travel restrictions based upon past history are two examples). Further, the cost of doing business is the price all businesses must come to terms with, our fellowship is no different in this regard. Our fellowship embraces and encourages a return to a useful life. There are many ways to serve our fellowship and it is encouraged that our members engage in service that they are ready, willing and able to perform in the spirit of both the 4th and 9th Concepts.

We cannot and should not attempt to be all things to all people. We serve as we can and if love and tolerance is our code, then acceptance cannot be far behind.

Cost Implications:

There have been many comments and questions regarding the cost implications of an online aspect of a future Conference. This topic itself has raised many points of consideration. There is the necessity for us to review and clarify some pertinent ideas and guidance.

The issues and challenges raised by lack of physical attendance becomes immediately clear for those involved with contractual obligations with the host hotel. For C.A. to secure the meeting rooms and services we require from a hotel we are committed to meet a certain amount of room night bookings (often plus food & Beverage sales).

By experiencing a reduced physical attendance, which would occur as some Areas/members would seek an easier softer way to attend, the cost burden would then be placed on those attending in person (higher room costs) and our World Service finances would likely be very negatively impacted.

An online option for 2023, 24, 25 would have a negative impact on our already agreed performance agreements with the selected Hotel. 2026 & 2027 negotiations are already underway and will likely be finalized just after this year’s Conference in September 2023. So we are looking at the possibility of a virtual component which could not happen practically for at least 5 more years. Note also please that to attempt to reduce our physical attendance commitments would likely put our group out of the running with hotels that provide such meeting room needs…or the additional cost for meeting room hire would increase substantially and increase the cost of conference by tens of thousands dollars. By moving the Conference out of Los Angeles, to Dallas, we saved over $50,000

43 | Page

per year overall for our fellowship, now, by trying to implement a virtual component, we estimate that a significant portion of that savings could be lost. That savings allows us to continue to discharge program services and carry the worldwide message of hope, faith and courage.

There is another cost factor too, namely, there are significant staffing and connectivity expenses to hold a hybrid Conference, as we learned in 2021. There were more staff needed to control the input and output and the varied hubs and individuals. Plus, we had to secure additional monitors and screens to see each other. Also, vote tabulating was difficult as was ensuring that a quorum was always present. Lastly, it should be noted that the one hub in the UK at the Conference in 2021 cost CA world large amount of funds, the exact number has not been ascertained or shared with our fellowship. We estimate that adding these items back in to the cost would exceed over $35,000 in today’s dollars.

There have been many claims that the expense of attending WS Conference is too much for some C.A. Areas. While understanding this point it is important to clarify again that with the ‘right’ to participate comes a responsibility to be self-supporting.

We have reviewed the activities and cost implications of the 2021 hybrid Conference and while on the surface it may have looked ‘cheaper’ it actually generated many hidden costs that were eventually put on CA World Services to pay. Of course, we understand that 2021 WSC was a unique circumstance and it was beneficial that we came together in whichever way we could,

to allow our World Services to try and regain momentum after such a challenging 2 years. Many of our European members attending online chose to meet at a ‘hub’ hotel and while some of the costs were met by the areas there were additional unbudgeted costs met by WS’s. There was no evidence to show that there was a saving to ‘C.A. as a whole’ and our research actually leans us toward a conclusion that costs were actually increased by having hybrid and hubs yet participation was hindered, even compromised. Due to CAWSO bookkeeping styles at that time, and lack of invited involvement by the Conference Committee (not by their choice), many of the additional costs paid to facilitate a ‘hub’ were hidden and/or not listed against actual WS Conference budgets.

The Right of Participation:

The argument that small or new CA Areas are being denied the right of participation is not actually the case. The right to participate is open to all C.A. Areas, the opportunity and invitation is extended to all such areas as long as they meet the basic criteria laid out in our WSM. Areas should not confuse an inability, or unwillingness, to meet a financial responsibility with being denied the opportunity to participate. These same areas do have the right to proxy one or more of their votes to others who might be attending, so that their areas’ voice,

44 | Page

conscience and votes still can be considered, even if a representative from that area cannot be in actual attendance during that Conference.

The unfortunate truth is that many who could physically attend may be denied that opportunity when a seemingly ‘cheaper’ option is offered of not attending in person and being able to zoom in (or whatever future technologies might be available in any given year). There remains a strong necessity, logistically and spiritually, for all Conference participants to be in the same location at the same time. In our experience, the vital group conscience the Conference is charged with seeking and then following, cannot be found if we aren’t together as one body. Something often magical occurs when we debate together in one room that eludes us when participants zoom in from all over.

A Direct Look at our Fourth Concept:

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.

This concept about allowing delegates, office staff, trustees… to vote in our Conference and preventing one group from having ultimate authority over another.

Delegates, WSO Board of Directors, and WSBT are given not only a voice but a vote. The question is does On line participation enhance that principle? It has been demonstrated that online meetings and participation can be helpful for a meeting that lasts a few hours or less. But when it comes to a multi-day Conference it is much less than effective. The vast difference in time zones is fraught with challenges over multiple days when it comes to the full and effective participation of members. In our second tradition of the original 12 Step fellowship it was determined “the good is the enemy of the best”. The Right of participation cannot be used to say we are denying participation because of expense. Our 7th tradition speaks to us being self-supporting. Also, we witnessed several times our delegates in Europe and in other locations around the world, losing the ability to reason and stay focused when our floor proceedings went to even 10pm in Los Angeles which was 5 am or 6 am in the morning in Europe and even later in other countries. It just didn’t work.

While it would be amazing to have more participation at our Conference, one must be mindful that the Big Book we use so diligently asks us to consider that God is either everything or he is nothing.

The principles of any successful and effective multiday Conference would beg to have all in the same physical space. While a virtual Conference may seem nice

45 | Page

and an easier softer way, Is it what’s best? We have proven that it is not best by our clear personal experience.

The Negative Impact on Small Areas

We are aware of the argument that offering an online component might help smaller areas to participate at the Conference itself. That said, we know of several small areas that fund raise all year in order to be able to send one delegate to the actual Conference. Further, small areas are still provided two votes at the Conference, these votes can be proxied to delegates from other areas who will be attending in the smaller area, or any area frankly, cannot afford to get its delegates to the actual Conference. This is not a perfect solution, but on balance, it presents a fair solution to those areas whose delegates cannot make it to the actual Conference.

Unity/hub

To us, there is still something meaningful and important when all Conference attendees are in the same room at the same time as debate and voting occurs. The collective conscience of our fellowship is more likely to be heard in such settings versus having some of our members live with others participating from various locales around the world.

Also, from a unity perspective, we all do better if we are together to hear and experience debate and then God’s conscience. This is less likely to occur when we are not in the same places.

Some people assert that having hubs helps this unification, even if there are several hubs throughout the CA world. Our experience is to the contrary. While the one hub in Europe was successful at some levels, it was still expensive, the cost of which was absorbed by the world service office and some of the participating areas. Further, it appeared to several of our members, that the hub seemed to vote as a block on many items. This dynamic is in and of itself disunifying and unfortunate.

Spiritual Balancing:

In our experience, at the Conference level of service, there is often the need for a balancing of the practical and the spiritual. Here, arguments can be made about helping small areas or allowing members with disabilities to participate if there were to be a virtual component. While these arguments are compelling, we must remain mindful of the distinct need to find a collective recognizable group conscience from those in the same room, while effectively exercising the right of decision at the right time during debate and voting/decisions. Both sides present compelling consideration(s). That said, for now, we side with the need to have us all be in the same place for the lowest economic cost overall to our fellowship versus allowing these other suggested factors to detract us from our primary purpose.

46 | Page

Our Committee remains open to a continued study of these dynamic issues. We will do this on an ongoing basis even if there is no active referral on this topic before us. We do note that none of our similar situated fellowships have adopted a hybrid Conference model yet either. We would invite any of you to join our Committee and become involved in future similar discussions which will surely be put forth each year going forward.

PRESENTATIONS OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES OR TASKS (no motions) Not applicable

CLOSING COMMENTS:

The conference officers and entire conference committee are excited to be here and working with you to create a successful 2023 World Service Conference.

If you have any concerns during the conference, please see myself, Vicki R (Conference Coordinator) or any member of the Conference Committee.

We are seeking and encouraging new members to join and serve on this committee.

It is a wonderfully challenging and fulfilling committee to serve on.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to the fellowship.

Respectfully Submitted:

Justine K

WS Conference Committee Chair

MOTION 47: TO APPROVE THE REVISED ‘REFERRAL’ DEFINITION IN THE WORLD SERVICE MANUAL.

seconded

(Page 58 in the WSM 2023 Edition)

Strike entire page titled “Referrals”.

INSERT NEW LANGUAGE:

REFERRALS

47 | Page

Referrals for consideration by C.A. World Service Conference Committees may be made by any member of the fellowship. Referrals can be submitted either directly via the link at CA.org or with the support of the ASC World Service Delegates.

Referrals are classified in two ways, Current Conference Referrals and Next Year Conference Referrals.

The timeline below illustrates when each referral type applies.

(See attachment 1) Conference Committee ATTACHMENT 1 (with chart)

Referrals are received throughout the year and are recorded and tracked carefully by the C.A. World Service Conference Committee.

The World Service Conference Committee distributes referrals to the WSC Committee selected by the referral maker and tracks referrals that are transferred between committees.

Each WSC Committee addresses its referrals as the committee sees fit; however it is guided in this process by the Standing Rules for the C.A. World Service Conference.

The World Service Conference Committee also collates an annual record of all referrals received throughout the years preceding WSC; this is known as the ‘Referrals Master List’ which is circulated to all World Service Delegates via the Pre-Conference Delegate Mailing.

WSC Committees work throughout the year on the referrals that they receive and may elect to:

• Bring a motion to the WSC floor for approval
• Keep the referral in committee for further work or research
• Transfer/refer the referral to another WSC Committee or service board
• Decide that the referral is not currently in the best interest of C.A. to pursue at the present time. This response ought to provide an explanation of why no action will be taken.

It is important that each WSC Committee respond to each referral that it receives including those that remain in-committee from preceding years or have transferred into it from other WSC Committees or service boards as well as new referrals.

Referral responses may be sent directly to the referral maker but must always be included in either the WSC Committees opening or closing Committee report to the C.A. World Service Conference.

All referrals that have been submit to WSC Committees and may result in motions at a World Service Conference must meet WSC Standing Rule requirements.

48 | Page

Current Conference Referrals:

A Current Conference Referral (CCR) is any referral received within the calendar year of the WSC for that same year and prior to the gavel falling at the beginning of that WSC opening conference session.

Next Conference Referrals:

A Next Conference Referral is any referral which is submitted after the gavel falling at the beginning of that WSC opening conference session and prior to the calendar year of the next WSC.

The status of all referrals is to be recorded in the next available closing WSC report immediately after the referral has been received by the WSC Committee that it has been sent to.

Special Note: All Conference referrals are now submitted on-line through the applicable on-line Conference portal.

Seconded.

Russell S – Please vote, all in favour/opposed – motion passes unanimously

MOTION 48 : TO APPROVE THE DFW AIRPORT MARRIOTT NORTH HOTEL FOR THE 2026 & 2027 CONFERENCES FROM THE SUGGESTED 3 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

CONFERENCES.

See Attachment 2 for a detailed review of the top hotel proposals.  Conference Committee ATTACHMENT 2

Seconded

Speak to motion – not at this time. Any debate?

Sarah T – Does the contract effect room nights.

Marcel V – No

Joanne P – Did you look at cities outside of the US such as maybe Dublin? We have not been able to send any delegates.

Marcel V – We did consider a lot of cities outside of the US – we looked at Dublin, these are our recommendations.

John Ha – have you considered looking at Phoenix now that they’re moving?

49 | Page

Russel S – these are questions that don’t align with the selection of other places for conferences.

John Ha – I respectfully disagree with that.

Macel V – we did consider that; we didn’t know the office was moving at that time.

Gary P – Speaking against the motion, the east coast has not been taken into consideration and whether it’s closer to the east coast.

Miriam F – Speaking against the motion.

Stu E – I speak against the motion. Due to it not being closer to the east coast. I feel we are ignoring the European region.

Wesley B – I speak against the motion. Not closer to the east coast. I feel like we’re falling into a very familiar pattern.

Patrice F – I have a question. What happens if we don’t pick a place this conference.

Russell S – We don’t pick a place.

Patrice F – If we don’t pick a place now are we in contract just next year and not for 2026.

Russell S – We have a contract for 2024 and 2025.

Misty C – I speak in favour of the motion. We did due diligence. We gave you the top 3 bids. We are here for a business meeting.

Joe C – Speaking against the motion, our area is not being served. We hear a lot about the bottom line but that wont matter if our fellowship is fractured.

Daniel Sn – Speaking against the motion, there should be better place where things are closer and not further.

Jay F – Speaking for the motion. Ther are things in our package that help us financially for room nights. Economically this is good for the fellowship. We’re saving money. It might be irresponsible for us to wait 2 more years.

Marcel V – Speak to the motion. We investigated 45 cities all over the world, only the best 6 are reported. These are the best options.

Tammy H – Parliamentary inquiry – members may participate on the floor as he’s a member of the conference committee.

50 | Page

Judson W – I speak in favour of the motion. Convicted felons in the US are not allowed to travel internationally and I know this is touchy but it’s a valid point. That might be an outside concern.

Barry He – I speak against the motion. If it’s all about the money, then we shouldn’t approve the budget. Once again, we’re looking at the easy path forward.

John B – Mr. Chair may I give my time to David C?

Russell S – No

John B – In favour of the motion.

Tom T – I speak in favour of the motion. The extra costs of flights are coming from the areas.

Michael C – I speak in favour of the motion. We send people here to conference. It’s not about “our turn”, it’s about looking at it responsibly and cost effectively.

Renzo P – I speak in favour of the motion. Of course, I would like it in my backyard, but we need to look at what is best for C.A.

David C – I speak against the motion. We are blessed with a global fellowship. I fear that the fellowship will be split in half. It’s about unity and the pulling us all together.

James H – Question, a lot of delegates come carrying two votes from Europe, there’s also a massive growth in Europe.

Robert B – We have growth rates yes; we see this shifting towards east. In the next 10 years we’ll have it most likely in Europe.

Wade G – Friendly amendment. That we include the top 2 choices to vote on giving us the choice of 2 hotels for conference.

Dallas is in Washington DC and Dallas is in Texas.

Marcel V – We do not accept the friendly amendment. We did a lot of work, and these are the best options.

Kim C – I speak against the motion. We hear about Americans with felons, Canadians with felons come to the U.S. and anyone can come to the US they just have to fill out paperwork.

Johan T – Motion 49: Call the question.

Seconded

51 | Page

Russell S – All in favour of calling the question.

Motion passes with opposition.

Please prepare to vote on the main motion.

All in favour/opposed.

Motion passed with noted opposition.

Sheree H: MOTION 50: TO APPROVE THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REVISED GUIDELINES

Seconded

Russell S – Would you like to speak to motion?

Sheree H. – Not at this time.

Russell S – Any debate, seeing none prepare to vote, All in favour/opposed.

Russell S – Motion passes with substantial unanimity

Susan B – I think it’s time that North America experience what Europe has been going through. Sometimes we just have to take a risk. There’re people in every country that can’t travel. We’re going to lose what we have if we don’t “really” acknowledge them. We can make it to conventions, we can make it to a conference.

Justine K reads the closing comments from their report. A special thank you to Vicki our conference coordinator.

Russell S – Any questions for conference?

Susan B – Why were we not told that the incidental fee was $40 a day?

Justine K – It was stated on the fact sheet that went out.

Sarah T – A referral from 2016 came through from your referrals, what can you do for this referral? Should the maker of the referral resubmit the referral?

Justine K – We have changed the process and it’s down to the committees to manage their own referrals. If it is not in there, it’s lost. Please resubmit them.

52 | Page

Parthi T – Was there any Canadian cities looked at? Can I implore the conference to put out 2 referrals.

Justine K – Yes, Toronto. Please come join our committee.

Steven C – Is there another way maybe a scholarship or fund to help out those delegates with the greatest expense to get to conference?

Justine K – We’ve managed several ways to get people here. We have done CATW as well. We raise funds.

Wesley B – Thank you. We were in L.A. for 40 years. What does it take to get Bous to move forward?

Misty C – We are looking at this from a business perspective, if you have any other ideas, please let us know.

Bob K – Question – you stated that mainland Europe and European region was 35% but what I researched from the global resources report it was 45% rather than 35%.

Robert B – If we didn’t offer credentialed votes, we’re not sure about the meetings themselves.

Rafael M – I came to the hybrid meeting when it was held at conference. What about a hybrid meeting for conference?

Justine K – We investigated this for a whole year. This is still open for investigation.

We’re not shying away from it.

Jay F – I worked on the hybrid committee, there were referrals that we explained about why at the time, hybrid won’t work. If you have further suggestions, please come find us and help us.

Stu E – What would it take to start planning for 2028 and to look to having a conference in Europe? Can’t we budget for this?

Robert B – We looked in London and even had a subcommittee, we took a lot of things into consideration. Germany, Amsterdam, and the UK were looked into. One of the big issues were finding a hotel to host a conference. Convention hosting is not the same as conference. There is a sincere desire to find something that works for the fellowship as a whole.

John B – I trust in this process. Did you really look into all options for Europe.

Justine K – we did look into all options.

53 | Page

Gary P – Thank you for starting the move (out of one state to another).

Sarah T – Delighted that they’re all talking about this. This is a nice place. Virtual referral, the clear conscience and it’s not effective? It is effective and it did work. We voted in several trustees. There are a lot of people that can’t make it to conference. For people to say they can make it to conventions and not conference is not a fair comparison. Can you please look into it, and if not, go to LTP?

Justine K – We will continue to look into this.

Joanne P – I wanted to highlight about individuals not being able to travel because of criminal records, you can get into different countries with a record, it may be harder but it’s doable. Translations to be considered as well. How to become a delegate, etc.

Kim C – Were there people from those areas that you were considering for a different conference on the committee?

Justine K – We did have people from the places that we were considering, if anyone wants to join the RFP committee, we welcome that. We are open to looking at these areas. I hope it to be in Europe one day.

James H – 35 credentialed delegates come from Europe. I know of areas that cannot afford to send their delegates to conference. This has been brought up many times about the conference not being held in another country.

Robert B – How do you equate a meeting with 50 versus 2. How many votes does an area have based on meetings they have. An area that doesn’t send anyone, they are still counted into that.

Russell S – The participation from the European region is no less or no more than the other regions. All of this is pulled together. The perception is that European attendance region is less, it’s a very healthy attendance.

Pilar R – We need to go back to our areas with enthusiasm whether we agree or not with the votes.

Misty C – Please recycle your badge holders. Starting 10/1 we are going to be hosting monthly workshops. Flyers will be passed out and open to everyone.

Russell S – If delegates don’t familiarize yourself with the BOX you will not get the notifications necessary.

Misty C – Correct.

Russell S – We still have some items of business. Suggest a 15-minute break. Please return at 4pm

54 | Page