Dec 2010 – Mar 2011 – WSBT Online Business Meeting Minutes

CA WORLD SERVICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES RECORD OF ONLINE BUSINESS BETWEEN QUARTERLY MEETINGS

December 2010 – March 2011

APPROVED

Since this report is a confidential CA document, for members only, it may contain members’ full names. This usage to facilitate communication within the fellowship was approved by the 1990 WS Conference. Such confidential use does not, of course, violate in any way out Tradition on anonymity in public communications media (press, radio, TV, etc).

Page 1 of 29

Friday, December 10, 2010

Kim S.: There is a motion by Terry, to accept the following disclaimer to be used in 4th quarter Newsgram 2010:

***Copyright protections require copies of HFC II sold internationally include adhesive stickers with a disclaimer regarding “How It Works”. Domestic sales are exempt per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10.

Second by Joy.

If there is no objection, I would like to honor the time line for publication/distribution of the Newsgram, and have discussion remain open until 12n CST, December 11th, when voting will commence.

Discussion>

>Richard S.: Point of Information: Did the WSOB have any discussion on the topic of the wording for a disclaimer last night? (If so, please include the discussion with a response, Thanks) >Kim: If Richard L. or Peter would respond to this please, as they both attended the WSOB meeting last night.

>Richard L.: The WSOB discussed and voted on:

***Copyright protections require copies of HFC II sold internationally include adhesive stickers with a disclaimer regarding “How It Works”. Domestic sales are exempt.

The vote was unanimous to accept this wording. It was not discussed with adding:

per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10.

I don’t see a problem with the wording: per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10. being added to the text.

>Randy: I support the additional verbiage and appreciate the WSOB’s efforts last night. As this addition was not WSOB approved and the number of board members are small, can we get a quick phone poll from the WSOB members to verify that a general consensus has been reached? >Richard L.: I can do that. We already had Elizabeth speak in favor and myself. I can contact the others and wrap it up.

>Peter: The WSOB agreed on the #2 verbiage and I am sure they would agree with the additional verbiage.

>Richard L.: Just got off the phone with Tom P. and Barry J. who were the only other voting members at the WSOB last night , and they are in agreement this the additional verbiage.

So Peter D, Elizabeth S, Richard L. and the rest of the WSOB are all in agreement, so we are ready to vote or push the button.

>Kim: Did anyone speak with Teresa?

>Richard L.: No, because Teresa was not present at the WSO Board meeting last night and this was voted on by all who were attendance, so if there is a friendly amendment to a voted decision by attending members of a group, it should be brought back to those voting members

>Kim: I believe that Randy was only asking for a quick phone call to poll the WSOB members to verify that a general consensus has been reached? I would think that would include Teresa…would be good to get her in the WSOB loop. It would be nice if she was contacted as well. I don’t see a need for a “friendly amendment”…

>Richard L.: Hi Kim, I left a V/M and an email to Teresa. Originally what was brought forward to the WSO last night did not include the additional verbiage:

Page 2 of 29

per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10. That’s why I went back to those who voted last night on it. I don’t mean to make this look like a pissing debate, but all of those who were in attendance and voted on this issue have already spoken on this and have approved it. If you want to wait, that’s alright with me. Thank you.

>Kim: thank you Richard L., Yes we will wait…discussion is open until 12n CST tomorrow. Saturday, December 11^th, 2001

>Joy: Since it is now past the time of discussion on the motion, I call for the vote on the HFC II Disclaimer. I vote yes to the motion.

>Kim: My apologies that I was not available to recognize that the time duration for discussion had come to a close. Nevertheless, when restating the motion yesterday, and opening the floor for discussion, it was stated that voting would commence following discussion which was to end at 1200n CST ; so there is no need to “call for the vote” (which requires a second, and may motivate unanimous consent to close debate and a two thirds majority vote, taken separately from and before the main motion vote…whew…). Don’t think we want to do that!

So with, please cast your vote now on the maim motion:

… to accept the following disclaimer to be used in 4th quarter Newsgram 2010:

***Copyright protections require copies of HFC II sold internationally include adhesive stickers with a disclaimer regarding “How It Works”. Domestic sales are exempt per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

>Kim: Thanks everyone…Motion passes unanimously.

“Thank you” to the subcommittee for their work…Terry please see that Cynthia gets the correct disclaimer.

>Terry: Yes I will Madame Chair. I will cc you and the WSOB.

To Cynthia: Thank you very much Cynthia for all you do in providing us with the Newsgram. We would like to add the following disclaimer to the HFC announcement in the 4th quarter

2010 Edition:

***Copyright protections require copies of HFC II sold internationally include adhesive stickers with a disclaimer regarding “How It Works”. Domestic sales are exempt per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10.

With that correction as stated the WSBT approves the 4th quarter 2010 Newsgram Once again thank you for your patience.

Monday, December 13, 2010

>Kim: I would like to entertain a motion to approve the May 1005 Quarterly minutes, and if there is no objection, I would like the motion to include both 1005 WSBT Quarterly minutes, and the 1005 WSBT/WSOB Board to Board minutes. If so moved, and seconded, I would recommend that discussion be open until December 14th, at 12n, when voting would then commence.

>Joy: So moved to approve the 1005 Quarterly and the 1005 B2B minutes.

>Richard S.: Second

>Kim: Thank you…

Page 3 of 29

There has been a motion by Joy, seconded by Richard S. to approve the May 1005 Quarterly minutes (1005 WSBT Quarterly minutes and the 1005 WSBT/WSOB Board to Board minutes). Discussion will be open until 12n CST on Tuesday, December 14th. Voting will commence at 1201p CST.

Tuesday, December 14th

>Peter: Will be away from my computer for a while so I wanted to let you know that I am abstaining from voting on the motion that is on the floor and in discussion.

>Kim: Please cast your vote now.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

>Kim: Thanks everyone, motion passes to approve the May 1005 Quarterly minutes (1005

WSBT Quarterly minutes and the 1005 WSBT/WSOB Board to Board minutes).

Thursday, December 16, 2010

>Kim: Joy has phoned me, and would like to make a motion to approve the attachment: response to Patrick P., regarding logos.

Terry: Second the motion

>Kim: There is a motion by Joy to approve the response to Patrick P., regarding logos, second by Terry. Discussion will be open until Monday, December 20^th.

Correspondence:

Dear Joy,

We have a matter that has been referred to the Regional Trustee for clarification and further direction regarding the use of the CA logo in-part or in-whole.

Summary:

A member of the Area brought to ASB meeting, a sticker that has a Heart, with Wings and a version of the CA logo and the word Hope Faith and Courage centered. It was claimed that this piece of artwork was used and approved to be used by the Denver World Convention. Regardless of the information provided, the ASB at that time, ruled that the artwork was a violation of the use of the CA trademark and the member was asked to not only stop selling the item but to remove it from circulation. A week later at the ASC meeting another Member challenged the ruling and argued that the CA logo has been modified and used to sell various types of memorabilia that it was not a violation. Without further debate the matter has been referred to you for additional clarity, a final ruling and future direction regarding the use of the CA logo.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Patrick P.

ASB Director At Large

CALA

Page 4 of 29

Response:

Thank you very much for your inquiry. The WSBT continues to address the concerns of the use of our copy written logo, motto, and trademarks. Most questions/concerns are “what our protected trademarks are”, and “what is acceptable and appropriate use of them, and by whom.”

Cocaine Anonymous has the following trademarks protected in the USA, Canada and European Union:

“We’re Here and We’re Free”

Cocaine Anonymous name

CA logo Hope, Faith and Courage

C.A. (USA and Canada only)

CA logo

If a C.A. group wishes to use any of the above C.A. trademarks/logo, The Service Committee for the Area (or District) must have approved it, and the Cocaine Anonymous World Service Office (CAWSO) must be contacted by an elected officer of the Area (or District) where the group resides with a statement to this effect. If a C.A. group chooses to be a “stand alone”, meaning not attached to the Area (or District) where the group resides, then the Cocaine Anonymous World Service Office (CAWSO) must be contacted by an elected officer of the group with a statement to this effect. Although the full process of approval is always followed, we are hopeful that members are referring to the World Service Manual. In the event they are not, we continue to educate the fellowship and refer to our “Statement of Policy”, stated below, from the C.A. World Service Manual, 2010 edition, page 13, for additional and useful information. It sets forth specifically who can and who can’t use our registered trademarks, etc. and how it should be used.

STATEMENT OF POLICY

Who may use the name “COCAINE ANONYMOUS,” the block letters “C.A.”, the official COCAINE ANONYMOUS LOGO* (hereinafter “logo”), future variations of the logo, the book title “HOPE, FAITH & COURAGE: STORIES FROM THE FELLOWSHIP OF COCAINE ANONYMOUS,” and the motto “WE’RE HERE AND WE’RE FREE”:

1. A Cocaine Anonymous “Group” as defined herein, for its function of organizing and operating a regularly scheduled C.A. meeting. A C.A. Group may not use the name, letters or logo for any other purpose (including without limitation, dances, conventions, memorabilia, or fund raising events) without the prior written consent of its Area/District Chairperson after a vote taken by the Area/District Service Committee.
2. A Cocaine Anonymous “District,” “Area,” or “Region.”
3. Cocaine Anonymous World Service Office, Inc. (a California corporation) and Cocaine Anonymous World Services, Inc. (a California corporation).
4. To avoid implied affiliation, when referencing the name Cocaine Anonymous, the

Page 5 of 29

block letter C.A., the official Cocaine Anonymous logo (hereinafter logo), future variations of the logo, and the motto We’re Here and We’re Free®, on publications such as flyers, newsletters, directories, the following disclaimer should be used: “In the spirit of Tradition Six, C.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution.”

Any media (printed, electronic, or otherwise) to be made available by the group, district, or area, to the fellowship, shall have prior approval from the respective service body.

The service body granting the use of the CA logo shall be responsible for ensuring that the proper CA logo, with applicable trademarks as shown below, is used on printed materials and memorabilia.

---

No other individual or entity may use the name “COCAINE ANONYMOUS”, the block letters “C.A.,” the official COCAINE ANONYMOUS LOGO* (hereinafter “logo”), future variations of the logo, the book title “HOPE, FAITH & COURAGE: STORIES FROM THE FELLOWSHIP OF COCAINE ANONYMOUS, and/or the motto “WE’RE HERE AND WE’RE FREE” without the written permission of the Cocaine Anonymous World Service Board of Trustees.

---

Cocaine Anonymous groups, meetings and service committees should only use, display, distribute or sell the following literature and materials: the WSC Approved Literature set forth in the Appendix, the books “ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS,” “TWELVE STEPS AND TWELVE TRADITIONS,” and “The A.A. Service Manual, combined with the 12 Concepts For World Service,” and Cocaine Anonymous World Service, Region, Area, District and group/ meeting approved flyers, meeting directories and other materials displaying the CA logo as described above.

---

The Cocaine Anonymous logo must be used in its entirety as shown below. The official logo includes the inner circle of the logo that contains the artistic text “CA”, the outer circle which contains the text “HOPE FAITH COURAGE” and the registered trademark symbol. No other text or design element may touch, overlap or show through behind the logo other than a solid color. The block letters “C.A.” may only be used alone when they bear no resemblance to the inner circle type style of the official logo. (Please see manual for actual picture of logo as it should be used)

---

The WSBT feels that the manual is clear on who can use the service marks, and for what and how they may be used. Anything outside of that is a violation. We trust that an individual and or group who may choice to use the C.A. logo, etc outside the scope of the suggestions in the manual will have done so without intent to harm or desire to injure CA, or the membership/fellowship.

We are not in the position to comment on a logo that was designed, and used from the 90’s.

Page 6 of 29

We are in the position to comment on was is reflected in the 2010 World Service Manual, and ask that all members refer to it when educating themselves as to how the logo should be used and distributed today and moving forward.

Lastly, we are guided by the long form of the Fourth Tradition which provides in part: “And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect [C.A.] as a whole without conferring with the trustees…. On such issues our common welfare is

paramount.” Also in the narrative text of the Fourth Tradition (page 147), the inquiry seems to turn to whether the action taken would/might “greatly” injure C.A. as a whole. In that same paragraph is the notion that the group’s sole objective has to be “Sobriety;” and “in all other respects there was perfect freedom of will and action. Every group had the right to be wrong.”

Serving with love and tolerance

The World Service Board of Trustees

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

>Kim: Thanks everyone, motion passes.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

>Peter: Hello everybody,

How are you all today? I hope you had a great Christmas. SGPVCA is having their annual C.A.Convention here in San Diego on March 10th, 11th and 12th, the same days of the Quarterly. Would anybody be opposed to change the date of the Quarterly so all of us Californians can attend the Convention?

To save time I would like to make a motion to change the date of the March Quarterly to a date that is acceptable to all.

>Kim: Peter, I have to call the motion out of order, but welcome conversation regarding the possibility of changing the date of the Quarterly. If my memory is correct, we went through several dates during that time, and that was the only one that worked for the group at the time. The prime time for us to meet would be 2/18 – 2/20, 2/25 – 2/27, or 3/4 – 3/6. I cannot meet on the last weekend of February. Is there or was there an objection to the other two weekends?

Thursday, December 30, 2010

>Kim: If there is no objection, I would like to entertain a motion to approve the August

1008 Quarterly minutes, inclusive of both the WSBT Quarterly minutes, and the WSBT/WSOB Board to Board minutes. If so moved, and seconded, I would recommend that discussion be open until January 4th, at 12n, when voting would then commence.

>Robert: I would like to make a motion to approve the August 1008 Quarterly minutes, inclusive of both the WSBT Quarterly minutes, and the WSBT/WSOB Board to Board minutes Second by Peter.

>Kim: There has been a motion to approve the August 1008 Quarterly minutes, inclusive of both the WSBT Quarterly minutes, and the WSBT/WSOB Board to Board minutes by Robert, second by Peter. Discussion will be open until January 4th, at 12n, when voting would then commence.

Page 7 of 29

Richard L. Please forward the Board to Board minutes to the WSOB. Thank you. Thursday, January 06, 2011

>Peter: Has there been a motion made to change the dates of the Quarterly to March 4, 5 and 6? If there hasn’t been, I would like to make that motion now or later, whichever is in order because I don’t want to be called out of order.

>Kim: Of course this is out of order… 🙂

Waiting for Kenny to vote…and for the final of the vote outcome.

Friday, January 07, 2011

>Kim: The motion to approve the August Quarterly minutes has passed. Thank you.

Friday, January 07, 2011

>Peter: I make a motion to move the Quarterly from March 11, 12 & 13 to March 4, 5 & 6.

>Kim: I am sorry Peter…

I have to rule on this…

I have spoken with a few members of the board, and the discussion has been that at the Quarterly in December there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the dates for the next Quarterly, and the recollection is that we would have scheduled the first weekend of March, but there was conflict with that date…If I recall, someone thought there was a convention that weekend (March 4-6), and they were firm about the dates. Also, several people have scheduled their time off with their employers the second weekend of March, and it does cause a hardship to re -schedule their days off. I think in fairness we should stick with the dates we scheduled, March 11-14. It’s unfortunate that the dates for this convention were not brought up in December…

Therefore, please confirm with the hotel our reservations to arrive on March 11th – 13th. Please also confirm our meeting space as well.

WSBT, please provide Peter with your arrival times and dates…and roommates.

Again, I am sorry…

Thursday, January 27, 2011

>Kim: there is a motion by Randy to approve Richard’s version of the WSBT/WSOB response in the most expedited method available to us. Second by Terry.

With respect to our time line, please review and provide feedback as soon as possible. The WSOB meets this evening, and we are hopeful that this piece can make the delegate mailing tomorrow. Thank you for your cooperation.

@Richard L., please have the WSOB review as well…

If there are no objections, voting will begin this evening, @8pm, PST

Dear Fellowship of C.A.,

On December 4^th, 2010 during the regularly scheduled Board to Board meeting that takes place during the WSBT Quarterly meeting, the World Service Board of Trustees and the World Service Office Board focused discussion on publication and distribution avenues for HFCII internationally. Additional discussion ensued regarding the sale and stickering of the current inventory of HFCII books, with focus regarding domestic sales.

Page 8 of 29

As a result of discussion, and subsequent motions at the time of the meeting, we are excited to announce the establishment of an ADHOC committee comprised of members of both Boards. This committee will be making recommendations concerning the course of action and strategies moving forward with respect to expediting the publication, reprinting, sales and distribution of the amended version of HFCII internationally.

With the confidence that this will happen quickly and the difficulties involved with the stickering, a motion was passed as a joint effort by both Boards to discontinue the stickering of the current stock of HFCII books in inventory for distribution in the US however due to copyright legalities books sold outside the USA will continue to be stickered until such time as a workable solution is found or that a reprint run can be undertaken.

For any further information on this issue please don’t hesitate to contact your Regional Trustee or WSOB.

Our hope is to continue to allow our membership access our fellowships storybook as we endeavor to give the newcomer the opportunity to identify and move into a place of hope that recovery is possible within the fellowship of Cocaine Anonymous.

In Love & Service,

Your WSOB & WSBT

Discussion>

>Joy: Love it just as it is, I vote yes.

>Richard L.: Kim, Peter and myself will be at the WSOB meeting at 8 pm PST tonight. If a motion is going to be made and voted on with the WSOB’s name attached to it, don’t you think that they should have an opportunity to review and comment on it before starting a voting process. I don’t think the WSBT would appreciate the WSOB making a motion to send a letter out to the fellowship with the WSBT name attached to the statement without their opportunity to discuss and review it. So I suggest we hold off any voting till after I report back with any comments or suggestions by the WSOB on this statement. Thank you.

>Kim: I’m sorry…I thought you all met at 7pm PST, and I thought you might think to move this forward on the WSOB agenda…

…and the motion does not exclude the WSOB…

Of course, in my opinion, we would certainly not distribute anything without the joint cooperation of the WSOB…that is the spirit of the process.

I anticipate both boards reviewing this… simultaneously…making this a priority. What timeline would you suggest?

>Richard S.: My understanding and belief is that we are voting so the WSOB can know that this is approved by the WSBT and if it is acceptable as worded for the WSOB to be distributed in our mailing tomorrow. I am responding to your concern and not debating (Madame Chair, I request latitude for this explanation).

Page 9 of 29

I signed the letter so I am responding your concern, I know the intent of this letter is to respond to concerns that already have arisen and will arise when the information about the decisions is disseminated to our fellowship.

I added the signature of both boards because this was the action of both boards and Randy properly reminded us to follow our process, there can be a document passed with the WSOB included as a signature by the WSBT that then is reviewed and accepted or modified by the WSOB and if changed or refused then sent back to the WSBT, this was my intent.

If we hold off on voting and accepting this then we miss the mailing, the vote of the letter doesn’t mean it is put into the mailing, the intent is let the WSOB know that we have passed it so it if accepted by the WSOB it goes in the mailing.

If these details provided a better understanding, Please reconsider your prior posted opinion. (I might be ought of order at this point)

>Peter: I vote yes on Richard’s letter and after the WSOB approves it tonight, which I think they will, then it can go out in the mailing.

>Randy: I understand Richard L’s concerns and agree with Richard S’s explanation. I did not believe in any way that this letter and its subsequent approval would not include the WSOB’s input, participation and approval as well. Looking back at the motion, I apologize that it did not reflect that requirement. I would like to vote a qualified yes to this motion.

If the letter is not substantially affected by the input and actions of the WSOB – then I vote yes.

>Russell: I vote to approve the letter.

>Richard S.: yes

>Richard L.: The WSOB discussed and voted on the delegate letter dealing with HFCII. The WSOB voted not to accept the WSBT recommended letter for the delegate mailing. It was felt that an announcement is already included in the Newsgram explaining the unified change of direction. The Newsgram is already going out in the delegate mailing which would make this action redundant. I Vote NO

>Terry: I vote yes

>Randy: In lieu of their action last night, I vote NO on the response as it currently does not have the support of the WSOB to include their signature. To avoid debate in the same email as my vote, I will attempt to address my concerns in a separate email.

>Peter: I voted yes pending the WSOB approval but since the WSOB voted against it my vote is now “no”. John B, our consultant, brought up some very good points against the sending of the letter.

>Randy: Hi family –

I’m not sure I’ve “paused” long enough after reading about the WSOB’s decision, but I’ll try to keep my thoughts on task. I do not believe a small asterisk at the bottom of the newsletter’s ad for the sale of HFCII represents an announcement to the fellowship. The asterisk in the ad says nothing about the establishment of the adhoc committee or any explanation as to the “why” question for this major change. I understood the asterisk was meant to act as a disclaimer for the recognition that books being sold in the US will be shipped without stickers.

As our delegates are the major source of “go to” information from our fellowship, I believe they deserve a more detailed explanation of this major change. The HIW issue was (and still is with some) a very emotional and elevated issue in our fellowship and the actions taken regarding the distribution of HFCII is a major result of the issue. I believe that our responsibility as the WSBT, and hopefully the WSOB shares the same, to provide information and announcements to

Page 10 of 29

our delegates regarding major policy changes is crucial to our fellowship.

I personally find the lack of any potential revised announcement for consideration from the WSOB very disturbing. I feel that we, as both boards, should feel confident enough about our decisions regarding changes in policy and procedures to “stand tall” and provide full disclosure to our fellowship as to our actions. No potential revised announcement from the WSOB seems to reflect a desire by the WSOB to provide no explanation at all.

The only feedback we have received from our mutual board members represented the WSOB’s decision to be based on the feeling that such an announcement would be “redundant” and that during discussion some “good points” were brought forward that changed someone’s mind. I believe in the “right of decision” and respect the process. I would only ask that we be provided the specific issues that resulted in the WSOB’s decision to withhold their support of an announcement to our fellowship at this time. I would also ask that we be provided any information as to the WSOB’s feelings toward such an announcement in the near future.

I do not believe we should rush this and some obvious discussion seems warranted. But I also believe that this should not be dragged on or swept away.

Final comments – the WSBT participated in our last quarterly in a joint motion between both boards that reversed a previous WSBT motion. Right or wrong by itself, I believe that joint action took place under the spirit of renewed cooperation between both boards. I also believe that the WSBT invited the WSOB to participate and reflect that same renewed cooperation between our boards in a critical announcement to our fellowship.

I don’t see where the WSBT would be required to have the WSOB’s approval in making this announcement, but I feel that it would represent our actions more accurately if it did. I look forward to the upcoming discussions and remain open to the issues that the WSOB feel important enough to address that led to their non-support of any such announcement at this time. That information will hopefully give us the ability to redraft something that would address those issues with a desire to construct an announcement that would be supported by both boards. >Russell: Thank you Randy, I read and re read your post and share your views on this.

Friday, January 28th

>Randy: Madame Chair –

Motion to rescind the motion to approve Richard’s version of the WSBT/WSOB response.

Second by Peter.

>Kim: Based on those that have voted in the time frame, the main motion did pass. Now, there is a motion to rescind the motion to approve Richard’s version of the WSBT/WSOB response by Randy, seconded by Peter.

This motion is debatable, and can address the merits of the subject matter.

The floor is now open for debate. If there is no debate or objections to this motion, voting will commence on Sunday evening at 6pm PST.

>Robert: I have been in bed sick the past three days finally over this dam bug. I have not been online since Monday. Today back top work and now back online. I have no idea where we are on the motion. So can some one please explain where we are?

>Kim: Robert… I would suggest that you simply get caught up on the group’s emails.

Or give me a call if you wish.

>Terry: I am in favor of this motion, going to save my nickel at this time.

>Russell: I simply wish to state I’m in favor of the motion to rescind.

>Kenny: I don’t believe I voted on the first motion. I favor this motion.

Page 11 of 29

>Kim: Kenny…two members of this board did not vote in the appropriate time frame.

Please note the current motion will go to a vote this evening, 6pm PST.

>Richard L.: Dear Trustees,

I would like to speak on why I am for this resend of the motion and not to see a letter to go out.

1. The letter was hastily written and was poorly written (sorry no personal offence) it was full of grammatical errors and run on sentences. The 3rd paragraph was one run on sentence. As Trustees, this should had been written slowly, thought out methodically and professionally written before going out to our fellowship.
2. The ADHOC committee was in charge of this (and doing a great job). Had they had the opportunity to finish, they would have ended with a happy note. Explaining that this change is also now helping the Fellowship in Europe with the printing of new updated HFC II books and the French Version of Updated HFCII books, as well as the international HFCII updated books. Nothing was ever mentioned about that to the fellowship in that letter.
3. This letter was caused by a knee jerk reaction because a member (former Trustee) who made a comment with the words WTF (WHAT THE F@$&) causing this so called emergency letter. We are Trustees and when the original Trustees decided to sticker the books, they announced it there regions. They can do the same with this decision and tell them the exciting news. Every time something is written or is said negative about HFCII, people stop buying the books! They think it’s bad or no good. Stop Tainting it!!!!

If this is out of order… I am sorry, But I want to stop the Madness Thank you

Richard L

WSOT (a concerned member)

>Randy: Hi Richard L. -I’m interested if your discussion points toward what you have termed “the madness” represent the WSOB’s opinion?

>Richard L: No this is my opinion only. This is my one voice, one vote that I am untitled to (as any other trustee is allowed) being discussed among my fellow trustees

>Randy: Thank you for the clarification regarding your personal response. I had asked on Friday for a more detailed explanation as to the WSOB’s position regarding the possible joint response. I am asking if you could provide that to us as well.

>Richard L.: This is the official response from the WSOT dated 1/27/11

>Terry: Some of this content offends me. Thank God I have deleted 10 emails responses today. Guess when the right words and grammar come out believe me I will respond. Love and tolerance is our code

>Richard S.: Richard L., Having now identified your earlier posting as being a personal one and not a WSOT report from the WSOB meeting, I believe some explanation is deserving and needed for the WSBT as to the language chosen in your post.

I have zero personal attachment to the letter and the motions, but have concern to what seems to be a tone in your communication that doesn’t seem supportive of the open communication and efforts of our two boards. Simply addressing the WSBT with the explanation that the WSOB felt the letter was “redundant” as the only explanation and then addressing additional concerns

Page 12 of 29

existed, as described in your personal opinion post, short changes our board from a full disclosure of the WSOB’s resistance. We rely on you as the WSOT for our information and communication – all of it.

1. Please specifically state what “the madness” is you referred to. I have no idea as to what “madness” you are referring to.
2. As far as the content of the letter, four members of the WSBT felt a letter from this board was important enough to independently get together and draft potential letters to discuss on our group. I personally found your perceived criticism of those who put forth effort in the draft an unhealthy practice for our structure as servants to the fellowship as a whole.
3. I also found the statement “Had they had the opportunity to finish, they would have ended with a happy note.” concerning. It seems to give no consideration for trustees coming together and presenting ideas as the direct result of the posting of the ad-hoc committee chair that ‘nothing could be done in the next couple days’.
4. As to taking claim to knowing the ’cause’ for the action for a letter gives me concern as I believe that any valid thought, regardless of who it came from or how the thought was delivered should be a concern to the WSBT serving this fellowship. It’s always positive when a member’s comments can spur some/all of the WSBT members into action and a feeling that we need to communicate with our fellowship.
5. I found your typing out WTF in all caps in your response an effort to discount the rest of the email’s concerns as emotional. Many of our members carry great passion to many of our issues and we need to address them all.
6. I am again confused by your underlined, bolded, italicized and punctuated remark that “Every time something is written or is said negative about HCFII, people stop buying the books” I’m not aware of any historical data that has ever been received to support this statement. I also don’t see the letter as being negative at all – it’s an exciting announcement as to the progress we are making.

If the WSOB is not interested in participating in any letter to the fellowship (per your communications provided as the WSOT), the WSBT might consider sending out a letter independently if we feel it’s needed.

I look forward to your response and the information you provide –

>Richard L.: Dear Richard S., My opinions are my opinions, Don’t mix them up with the WSOB. I wrote the WSBT group back on Thursday Night with an explanation of why they (the WSOB) didn’t approve it. This board of Trustees have always had the freedom to speak their mind openly. The comments I made are mine only and it’s not necessary for me to have to answer your questions in this public forum. You are not my leader, only an equal member of this board and we can discuss this one on one. The Madness I referred to is the division among us and the boards. We are not doing any benefit to the fellowship with unspoken anger. I want

Page 13 of 29

peace and understanding for all board members. No one board member wants to be shamed, quilted or punished because they voted a certain way. After our last quarterly meeting, a few members felt that way. So your questions are geared toward my second posting, after I posted the WSOB response, that Peter made a motion to resend. Maybe you and I can discuss these questions one on one over coffee and a cigar.

>Kim: I recognize that voting has begun…but world appreciate the indulgence of this Board to chime in…with love and tolerance. It may not be speaking to the merit of the subject matter, but I feel compelled to express a few things based on the Richard L.’s last email posting.

First, although I may have used the words “throw together”, I do not think the letter was written hastily, or poorly. Might I also remind the group that none of us are professionals writers, but several of us were willing to address the actions that were taken at the Board to Board, and I appreciate that the time and energy that was taken to do so

Second, the purpose of the ADHOC committee is to present a course of action regarding HFCII. Although they have addressed several issues, the letter did not appear to be a priority. Might

I add that they are not in charge of anything….and none of us can foresee the outcome of this sensitive matter. I believe in my heart that those involved in the drafting of the letter(s) to the fellowship would have welcome any additional verbiage…including information regarding the printing of our book in Europe, the French version, and any other international HFCII updated books.

Third, my request for the ADHOC committee to address HFCII in a letter with the

joint acceptance of both boards was not a knee jerk reaction. I did not care for the arena that Trevor expressed his concerns, or the way he did it…but I respect that he is a concerned member of this fellowship, and I felt it necessary that we address our actions in a letter to our fellowship. Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one member of this fellowship that is concerned, and a letter to our delegates would be a perfect avenue to get the message out. My request had nothing to with “WTF”…and BTW (by the way) I know what that means, and I am fairly sure most of us do, and I found it rude and in poor taste to spell it out. By the way. I never called the letter an “emergency”, I only was attempting to inspire those on the ADHOC committee to step up and participate in the letter writing in hopes that it would be available for the delegate mailing, or an addendum to the mailing. Again, I appreciate the initiative of those that did prepare two separate drafts, I also appreciate Richard S.’s insight to merger that two for this board to consider.

Lastly, although on more than one occasion we have presented the actions of the WSBT via yahoo groups, it does not set a presidencies or set historical dictation that we can and/or should only inform our fellowship via those means. I also believe and trust that the continued communications about the matters that affect this fellowship are warranted and necessary whether they are positive or negative. It is the spirit of our fellowship, our traditions, and concepts.

ONE more thing… I do not think that the letter is redundant, as the Newsgram has the following:

***Copyright protections require copies of HFC II sold internationally include adhesive stickers with a disclaimer

Page 14 of 29

regarding How It Works. Domestic sales are exempt per the actions of the WSBT and WSOB on 12/4/10.

And the letter reflects the action, the results, and our expectations.

>Richard S.: Richard L.

I strongly disagree with your remark that you do not have to respond to questioning in our forum (public). You made detailed and specific comments whilst mixing in statements of occurrences at the WSOB, We (this forum) deserve clarification to your remarks. I have never stated to be your nor anyone’s “leader” where this remark comes from is baffling; I will respond to your remarks because that is how we discuss issues.

I am not divided with any member of this board, if there is any feeling of “division” it is not from myself, nor do I have any anger, I have concern and I will express my concerns here.

I find it interesting and concerning that any bullying or shaming at our prior quarterly wasn’t brought up until now if you knew of this. I am unaware of any board member stating they were “shamed” on any particular voting, I know that I did not shame anyone for any vote. My buddy and members of the WSBT can be on opposite sides of a motion, I will and have helped them to find their platform and the proper Tradition, Concept or parliamentary procedure to stand upon. I am often in the minority and support the outcome of every vote and have never been shamed.

If you wish to have one on one conversations than I recommend you do that and not yell fire in a crowded room and run out, your remarks to our group and refusing to clarify seem quite similar to the aforementioned poor behavior.

I must decline your request to speak one on one to discuss these WSBT items as I will not discuss board business that deserves to be in the open for everyone to understand, behind closed doors, that is dividing and unhealthy, my concern regarding this type of behavior, along with your inability to effectively communicate and liaison to our board continues to grow.

>Kim: Short of calling us all out of order, discussion is closed. Please continue to cast your votes…Thank you.

>Joy: The ADHOC Committee did feel the letter was important. Sorry, but sometimes work takes president over my unpaid position. I posted to the ad hoc group you wanting them to write a letter, Russell and Terry, who are both on the committee wrote a draft letter and presented it to this group. The ad hoc committee is working to come up with the time line you request Kim. I have a career also and bills need to be paid. So, I am sorry if I did not produce the information you request in your time frame. I donate a lot of time to this commitment and sometime I have to work to support my family. January and February are my busiest months at work. It is called end of year and tax time. I can only do what I can do. I can only request my subcommittee to move forward with emails and respond to request you all have and let them do the work. That is the job of a chair. So, if you want someone else to be in charge of the committee, then please let me know, so I can focus on other things I have on my to do list.

>Kim: Thank you Joy.

>Terry: Are we still waiting for votes? I apologize but went on an email deleting spree. So not sure if we are ready to move on to next debate?

Monday, January 31, 2011

>Kim: Eight votes casted in favor of the motion, one vote not casted.

Motion to rescind the motion to approve Richard’s version of the WSBT/WSOB response has passed. Thank you.

Page 15 of 29

Monday, January 31, 2011

>Terry: MOTION: To reinstate the Feb 2011 WSBT conference call. Date Sunday Feb 13, 2011, Time 10am PST. I would like to limit debate to 48 hours, with voting to commence Wednesday Feb 2, 2011 6pm PST.

>Kim: is there a second to the motion?

>Randy: Second

>Kim: There is a motion by Terry to reinstate the February 2011 WSBT conference call, for Sunday, February 13th, at 10am PST.

The motion includes the limit of debate to 48 hours, with voting to commence Wednesday, February 2, 2011 6pm PST, seconded by Randy. The floor is open for discussion.

>Randy: I speak in favor of the motion. When we voted to set the call aside, I voted in favor based on the small amount of open business that I believed could be handled on line (responses, referrals, etc). With some of the new issues that have came up since our call, I believe we owe it to our fellowship to actively address our business in a schedule we committed to as trustees. Knowing that the March quarterly should include interviews for the DOO position and potentially a long board to board – either/both of these could impact our available time to spend addressing our current issues if we allow them to wait.

>Kenny: Point of order!

The debate has start to determine if it will be lengthy or not. To impose a time limit prior to a debate is pre-mature.

>Kim: Thank you Kenny, I will allow the motion to stand as is. I trust that the motion, inclusive of the limit to debate, is in reference to the length of time we debate as a whole, versus opposed to the amount of debate. I will allow for a subsequent motion if need be to extend debate regarding this motion at a later time.

>Kenny: Randy, (in the spirit of clarification)

I spoke in favor of the motion also. My decisions are always weighed heavily with the fellowship’s interests in mind. I persist resolutely committed to my obligation as a Trustee. I believe my fellow trustees share similar if not the same sentiments. A few things you mentioned I don’t fully comprehend when you stated: “With some of the new issues that have come up since our call, I believe we owe it to our fellowship to actively address our business in a schedule we committed to as trustees.”

1. Can you please make clear the “issues” that we will not be able manage online?
2. Can you give details how foregoing the conference call will be short-changing the fellowship?
3. How would this be neglecting/breaking our commitment as Trustees?

>Russell: I speak in favour of the motion; I believe there are a number of issues that would benefit from our attention prior to the March quarterly.

>Terry: I speak in favor of this motion: Let us get real and open the door:

We have business to discuss; I am going to be straight up.

There are underlying arguments going on which need to be dealt with besides the trying to read between the lines in emails. As far as I am concerned this needs to be brought out and dealt with a call between US all. There have been comments made and questions that need to be answered by all parties including things that have been discussed with me. And yes I am going to say this and may need to make amends for it later but frankly I speak my mind and I do not play sidebars so to speak to the he said she said shit.

Page 16 of 29

In the spirit of Unity let’s get passed this and move on. We never addressed some of the HFC II issues the adhoc committee reported on. Although the WSOB are the ones responsible for carrying out these action items and this is not all about the letter.. If the WSBT was tasked to or not tasked to review and discuss these action items then why were we involved with the adhoc committee in the first place? Personally I accept responsibility for not pushing it more into new business. I addressed some things on the call. However, a email during the call with the work of the adhoc committee had completed should of been sent earlier with a chance for everyone to review and discuss.. Also, when I made that motion I was going to call for a group inventory in addition and add that to the call but choose not to. The reason I added the limit to the debate was to give the WSBT chair time to put forth a agenda and for US to have time to schedule our personal time and go over agenda items prior to the call.

>Randy: Good questions Kenny –

I’ll try to be more specific. Since the WSOB meeting, emails of information and opinion have followed that have raised concerns and emotions that I believe are best addressed on a conference call – rather then allowing a “read between the lines” type of interaction that often takes place in email trails.

1. We were presented the WSOB’s response to the letter as a simple “no – it’s redundant”. With no alternative wording or action plan presented toward the WSBT’s desire to produce such a letter, I believe we should re-address the issue as the WSBT (and hopefully a joint response can still be produced).
2. I take the comment that any board member felt “shamed, quilted or punished for voting a certain way” in our last quarterly very serious and feel we should address this type of perception quickly, honestly and head on.
3. I have also received a phone call from our CAWS2011 chair that the WSOB had voted down both the video recognition request and the closing slide show request. That we have not been given that information as a board is concerning by itself. But the CAWS2011 chair was provided feedback that the WSOB believed both requests posed tradition violations. I have taken a few days to review our manual to refresh and further educate myself to the responsibilities of both boards. My experience in prior conventions has been such committee requests are to be reviewed by the WSOB for any administration concerns, budget concerns, etc. and that any “tradition violation” issues should be and have been forwarded to the WSBT. I would hope that the WSOB was made aware that the slide show had already been passed by the WSBT regarding the issue of tradition violations on our call during their discussion. And if so – or even if not – I am confused as to why the WSOB took on a decision regarding traditions that our manual seems to identify as the responsibility of the WSBT with NO feedback to the WSBT regarding that position.
4. I left our last quarterly with concerns regarding a board to board motion taking place that reversed a prior WSBT decision and the potential danger of “mingling” our two board’s responsibilities. But I also left the quarterly believing that the “spirit” of that action was a huge step in an effort to unify our boards. The WSOT is our primary conduit of communication between our boards and expressed recently in an email that “the madness I refer to is the division among us and the boards. We are not doing any benefit to the fellowship with unspoken anger.””. I would appreciate it very much if that perception of “division and unspoken anger” could be expanded on.

We have a limited amount of time in our upcoming quarterly to handle the business that is

Page 17 of 29

already slated regarding the DOO position and I believe that a thorough discussion is needed regarding these new issues. I understand our commitment as trustees is to meet face to face quarterly, actively participate on line and on monthly conference calls. We have business now that needs to be addressed and I would have not voted to set aside the call had I known of these issues. I hope that helps explain my support of the motion –

>Richard S.: I speak in favor of the motion;

Communication is of the utmost importance and one of our fellow board members has stated concerns and is seeking an available avenue for a healthy solution, I support this and believe that while I often speak up and out, having quite a bit to say; listening is the most important aspect of communication for me.

>Peter: The WSOB voted against the video and slide show because they believe it is against the Traditions. My recollections from the meeting was the WSOB received a written request from AZ. to approve the shows. After reading the Convention Statement of Anonymity, second paragraph, second sentence, ” we request that no photographic or video recording of the convention be distributed, published or downloaded in any general public forum, the WSOB voted against it. Is the WSBT the only board responsible for watching out for tradition violations? I voted against both “show” motions, one was passed and one was not passed by the WSBT. I feel the WSOB was looking out for the fellowship and not stepping over the line on a power trip. Why their decision was not relayed to the WSBT was probably an oversight on behalf of the WSOB liaison. I think we need to get together as two boards BOTH looking out for the best interest of C.A. as a whole.

The letter was voted against by the WSOB after hearing an opinion from the Consultant that we pay to help us out. At first I thought the letter was a good idea, but after listening to John, I changed my mind. I think maybe we should all listen to John’s opinion and then the Ad Hoc committee can come with a plan to inform the Fellowship. That’s why it was formed. I think everybody needs to know we are all in this for one thing and one thing only, the Fellowship of C.A. This is a big sand box and we can all play in it together, lovingly.

>Kim: ok folks…this continued debate about underlying issues is out of order.

Can we please keep the debate to the subject matter.

There is a motion by Terry to reinstate the February 2011 WSBT conference call, for Sunday, February 13th, at 10am PST.

The motion includes the limit of debate to 48 hours, with voting to commence Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 6pm PST, seconded by Randy. The floor is open for discussion. Thank you~

>Robert: I am against this motion. As I am unavailable at the time mentioned in the motion. I have had plans made back in Dec for this date. It has to do with Scout Sunday at my church. I am available an hour later but if it is at 10 am PST I will not be able to participate.

>Robert: I would like to make a friendly amendment to Terry’s motion that we start the conference call at 11 am PST instead of 10 am.

>Terry: I accept the amendment.

>Kim: Robert has made a friendly amendment to Terry’s original motion to start the call at 11am. Terry has accepted the friendly amendment. Not hearing any other objections to the original start time, and barring any objections to the new start time, this can be adopted by unanimous consent. Therefore voting may commence at 6pm PST on the following amended motion: To reinstate the February 2011 WSBT conference call, for Sunday, February 13th,

Page 18 of 29

at 11am PST. The motion includes the limit of debate to 48 hours, with voting to commence Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 6pm PST

Thursday, February 3, 2011

>Kim: Motion has passed…

To reinstate the February 2011 WSBT conference call, for Sunday, February 13th, at 11am PST. The motion includes the limit of debate to 48 hours, with voting to

commence Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 6pm PST.

thank you everyone…

@Richard S., please add information for the call to the calendar.

*I will work with Terry, as well as Randy and Richard S. on an agenda…

Sunday, February 6th

>Kim: Good day all~

At the discretion of the chair, and if there are no objections, I would like to forgo our usual “standard/standing” agenda for the conference call February 13th. Following correspondence and communication with Terry, Randy, and Richard S., I trust that our time on the call can best be used addressing the attached “limited” agenda.

Limit agenda:

1. Report from AD-HOC Committee – UPDATE – Joy
2. Clarification of communication from the WSOT – Randy (Questions)
3. Previous WSBT agenda items: CAWS 2011 – Randy

>APATAP 2011 – Status

Randy*Motion to approve a video collection of greetings from any/all areas across our fellowship to be shown in conjunction with the country/state recognition during Saturday night’s speaker meeting. Second Terry. Motion Fails

Randy*Motion to approve the APATAP slide show as presented to be shown after Monday morning’s speaker meeting. Second Richard S. Motion passes

4) Information regarding news release involving CAWS 2011 hotel property – Randy

5) WSBT protocol – guidelines, online involvement, and accountability – Kim

Friday, February 11, 2011

>Kim: There is a motion by Richard L. to transfer $12,500 from the money market account to the operations account, second by Kenny.

Discussion will be open for 72 hours, after which voting will take place.

The floor is now open for discussion.

>Terry: Will the maker of the motion please explain?

>Richard L.: Sure, my pleasure. This is not an out of the ordinary request. The operations account needs to be replenished to sustain the regular office functions at the WSO. At our last B2B meeting, Barry J and Tom P. told both boards that additional funds would still be needed at a later date and that date is here. The WSO after this transfer is still $10,000 less in

requests compared to last year at this time. Thank you

Page 19 of 29

>Richard S.: Point of Information: Is it possible to be given the December & January bank statements, check registers and petty cash reports in time for review of this motion for substantiation? We should have these records supplied every month.

While I’m asking, I didn’t recall receiving prior ones so checked and cannot find the October 2010 & November 2010 bank statements, check registers and petty cash reports posted, we should have these posted and available.

>Richard L.: Thanks Richard, Since it’s Sunday and I don’t currently have access to them, I will try and have them posted tomorrow when John B. is back in the office. I can currently send you the P&L Statement and the Balance sheets now. I am attaching them to this response.

(Balance sheet as of 12/31/10, and Profit and Loss 7/1/10 – 12/31/10 were posted)

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

>Kim: Thank you everyone, the motion passes.

Yesterday I received notice to present a 5th concept. I will open the floor for that at this time.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

5th Concept

>Richard S.: My Fellow Board Members,

I am moved to voice my thoughts on the motion that was just passed.

The motion to transfer that came to us was passed, I believe without sufficient information. I know I did not receive sufficient information to make an informed decision so I was forced to vote against the motion.

Two questions were asked;

The maker of the motion was asked to “explain” and the response given was a reference to some discussion at the B2B in December 2010 and followed that stating that this transfer ‘not out of the ordinary. No details regarding what the expenses or needs were, since there have been no reconciled bank statements provided from the WSO we ‘the’ financial planners and responsible party for operations in-between conferences of this organization are not doing our due diligence.

I asked for the bank statements, check register and petty cash reports, My obligation is to ask questions; ask for information and review the information. A P&L and General ledger were sent but there were no reconciled bank statements for any comparisons or justifications. When no information is provided I cannot make a decision no matter what the wording is, we are supposed to be supplied this information monthly and have not been provided the reconciled checking accounts since October which were Septembers bank accounts, I know that I do not and cannot go 4 months without checking and reviewing my bank accounts.

The interview session for trustee asks about financial abilities because this is part of our task and while we are not accounting experts (with the exception of Joy), collectively we are to make sound financial decisions, passing motions to transfer funds without any referencing documented history, current financial status or planned expenditures for the funds is careless and irresponsible with our fellowships 7Th tradition, sales income and fund raising savings.

Page 20 of 29

World Service Manual page 51- CA Conference Charter #9 reads:

9. The World Service Conference: Its General Procedures: The Conference will hear the financial and policy reports of the World Service Board of Trustees and its related corporate services. The Conference will advise the Trustees, Directors, and staff members upon all matters presented as affecting C.A. as a whole, engage in debate, appoint necessary committees, and pass suitable resolutions by a two-thirds majority of voting members present for the advice or direction of the World Service Board of Trustees and its related services.

Clearly, at the conference we must report and answer to the conference our expenditures, it would not be satisfying for myself to hear the current reasoning or explanation that we needed the money and we hadn’t asked for as much as we did last year so this transfer is ok.

World Service Manual page 40 – Responsibilities of The WSBT Subcommittees #1:

1. FINANCE Participates in the review and oversight of all WSO financial matters; ensures compliance with existing guidelines and budgets of CA World Services.

I made an effort to gather the information even when it wasn’t provided by the WSOT as it is supposed to be in an attempt to be able vote yes on this motion; After not receiving any reconciled statements from the WSOT by the end of a CAWSO business (referencing the WSOT’s remark that when my request was made it was a Sunday and he didn’t have access to supply these) I could not vote to transfers funds with no supporting documentation. The WSO is out of compliance with the Procedures & Policies guidelines, it is our obligation to follow our responsibilities.

The WSO Procedures and Policies document:

Under the heading from page 1 “At the end of each month process monthly closing package” page 2 section (d) states;

Scan copies of all Bank Reconciliations with account number blacked out and send to WSO Trustee for distribution to Trustees.

We have only received September 2010 Bank Statements and none since even after requesting these be provided.

World Service Manual page 8 – Twelve Concepts – Concept 6:

6. On behalf of C.A. as a whole, our World Service Conference has the principal responsibility for the maintenance of our world services, and it traditionally has the final decision respecting large matters of general policy and finance. But the Conference also recognizes that the chief initiative and the active responsibility in most of these matters should be exercised primarily by the Trustee members of the Conference when they act among themselves as the World Service Board of Cocaine Anonymous.

How was this motion showing any initiative or active responsibility by the trustee members when supporting documentation that we are supposed to have been supplied on a regular basis isn’t supplied nor available when requested?

Page 21 of 29

World Service Manual page 8 – Twelve Concepts – Concept 8:

8. The Trustees of the World Service Board act in two primary capacities: (a) With respect to the larger matters of overall policy and finance, they are the principal planners and administrators. They and their primary committees directly manage these affairs. (b) But with respect to our separately incorporated and constantly active services, the relation of the Trustees i! s mainly that of custodial oversight which they exercise through their ability to elect all Directors of these entities.

We are supposed act in two primary capacities as stated in Concept 8, I believe passing motions to transfer without any substantiation is failing one of our two stated and instructed primary obligations and capacities.

Having no sufficient documentation or stated expenditures, failing to fulfill our duties as outlined in our World Service manual specifically duties within our own Finance sub-committee, being able to fulfill our obligations outlined in our Charter and following the guidance of our Concepts, the 6Th & 8Th for this matter; I plead that the prior motion to transfer funds be reconsidered.

>Kim: I have near simultaneous motions, will accept the first recorded one on the group: by Russell to reconsider the previously passed motion: to transfer $12,500 from the money market account to the operations account. Is there a second?

>Terry: I will be a gentleman and second Russell’s motion to reconsider. In doing so I remove my motion.

>Kim: Thank you everyone, based on the 5^th Concept Statement, there is a motion to

reconsider the previously passed motion: to transfer $12,500 from the money market account to the operations account. Seconded by Terry. This motion is debatable; please keep the debate to the reasons for reconsideration. Debate regarding the original motion will be opened for debate only if this motion for reconsideration passes. The floor is now open for discussion.

Discussion>

>Russell: I speak in favour of the motion to reconsider.

I was stirred when reading the minority opinion to consider the responsibility that I, as a trustee, had failed to acknowledge. Whilst not necessarily new information, the content of the 5th concept statement allowed me to realize I (we) had possibly balked at requesting and reviewing financial documentation that had been asked for during Sundays call. My attitude is of mutual trust between the boards but my sponsor reminds me often ‘trust God but lock your front door at night’. The information within the 5th allowed me to consider I had not been allowed the opportunity to be informed and nor had I followed up on the valid request made during Sundays call for the financial documentation to be made available prior to voting. I believe to reconsider is prudence in its simplest form.

>Joy: In helping Richard L. out I am posting the information Richard S. has asked for.

DECBalanceSheet2010.pdf (37KB); DecemberP&L.pdf (39KB); DECP&L2010.pdf (50KB); DECReconSumm2010.pdf (287KB); NOVBalanceSheet2010.pdf (37KB); NOVBankStatements.pdf (1240KB); NOVP&L2010.pdf (47KB); OCTBalSheet2010.pdf (37KB); OCTBankStatements.pdf (1437KB); OCTP&L2010.pdf (46KB); OCTReconDetail2010.pdf (204KB

Page 22 of 29

>Richard S.: Thanks Joy, Will you be posting January’s documentation (reconciliation, P&L & Balance sheet) to the group for him / us also?

>Kim: Thank you Joy~

Wish we had these before…

I guess I will reserve my questions regarding the access and distribution of these files for the Quarterly.

>Joy: Richard S., Do you have a folder set up for CAWSO financial information for 2011-2012?

If so, can you put these files in there?

>Richard S.: Hi Joy, There wasn’t a folder so I created one

Will this work or is there another area better to use for financials?

FYI For Everyone’s information there is very little available space on our group so until we migrate off Yahoo group I will clean up or off (to the WSBT archives group) some of the older files.

>Kim: FYI… we don’t like to upload financial info to the yahoo group…

We prefer to only attach them to emails…

One, because of the information on the files.

Two, because they take up a lot of file space on the yahoo group.

If you all have another idea, I am open to suggestions.

>Joy: Kim, Then I guess we should not load then to the group.

>Joy: Here are all the Bank Statements and Bank Reconciliation’s from October 2010 to January 2011. Also included are Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Statements for each month.

Of course if anyone has any questions, please just ask. This is what I do for a living.

JanStatements.pdf (1183KB); DECBalanceSheet2010.pdf (37KB); DecemberP&L.pdf (39KB); DECP&L2010.pdf (50KB); DECReconSumm2010.pdf (287KB); NOVBalanceSheet2010.pdf (37KB); NOVBankStatements.pdf (1240KB); NOVP&L2010.pdf (47KB); OCTBalSheet2010.pdf (37KB); OCTBankStatements.pdf (1437KB); OCTP&L2010.pdf (46KB); OCTReconDetail2010.pdf

>Richard S.: Thanks much Joy, might you know if the reports for January are available? Knowing the reporting supplied is always a month behind, I believe that Feb 11Th WSOB would have been the time of availability for Januarys reporting.

>Joy: Richard, The bank Statements for January are included in the documents I posted. The P&L and Balance Sheet might not be ready yet, but the statements are included.

>Richard S.: Joy,

Yes, I saw the January bank statements, I was asking about the reports.

Richard L & Randy (WSOT & Lead Trustee to Finance) would you both please follow up on the reports?

>Joy: Kim, since there has been no more discussion on the motion to reconsider, I would like to call for the vote.

>Kim: As discussion has been open for only a little over 24 hours, I will rule that the “call for the vote” is out of order. Furthermore, with respect to Joy’s request…if there is no additional discussion by 1030am CST tomorrow, I request that you cast your vote at that time.

>Terry: I speak in favor of the motion to reconsider.

After reading Richards fifth concept statement I am changing my decision for a couple of reasons mentioned in that statement.

I was going to vote against the motion when I received the response from the question I asked please explain. Then the response being “This is not an out of the ordinary request. The operations account needs to be replenished to sustain the regular office functions at the WSO.” I will be honest since hearing no more discussion from anyone on that motion and

Page 23 of 29

seeming the response was ok with everyone I went against my gut feeling and agreed with the group.

However, we have recently started receiving all of the requested documents from our conference call. I believe this debate is necessary at least for me that and full disclosure of documents and actually realizing my duties as a Trustee as we trudge this path.

It is our duty to be as informed as possible and I believe I was not fully informed at the time of the vote and would like it to be duly noted.

>Richard S.: I speak in favor of this motion to reconsider; the motion was passed without being substantiated, a motion should not pass when there is a lack of or withholding of information when question are asked during debate.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

>Kim: thanks everyone…

The motion to reconsider failed.

Richard L.: Please notify the WSO that the transfer is a go. Since the office is closed on Monday, I would imagine that it can be done on Tuesday.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

>Robert: I move that effective immediately we halt the sales of all HFC 2 and Destroy all books that are currently have at the World Service Office. And that no sales of any HFC 2 books be sold until we have one uniform book that is available to the whole Fellowship in English and in French.

>Kim: Is there a second?

>Joy: I will second that motion!!!

>Kim: There is a motion by Robert: that effective immediately we halt the sales of all HFC 2 and Destroy all books that are currently have at the World Service Office. And that no sales of any HFC 2 books be sold until we have one uniform book that is available to the whole Fellowship in English and in French. Seconded by Joy.

The floor is open for discussion, with Robert up first to speak to his motion.

Discussion>

>Robert: The reason for my motion is due to some questions of Fellowship Unity regarding the actions that the WSBT and the WSOB did concerning the stopping of stickered books to the USA part of the Fellowship and the continued stickering of the books being sold internationally. My vote at the board to board meeting was based on the assumption that we would have books available to the entire fellowship in English and in French. But do to the lack of forward movement on this I feel it is in the best interest to destroy what we have and start all over again. AS I represent part of the Canadian Fellowship in my region Quebec, Ontario, and Canadian Maritimes I have had no negative feedback concerning the English version only feedback was the lack of a French version of HFC 2. So in the interest of having a unified fellowship I believe it is prudent that we destroy all remaining HFC 2 in stock and start this process from the beginning.

>Russell: I would like to speak against this motion.

Having considered the motion and how I feel the fellowship would feel about our disrespect toward their financial reserves (books=money, both cost of printing and OHP revenue) I think

Page 24 of 29

this is wrong. As European Regional Trustee I am also aware of the feedback from local members with regards to stickers/no stickers, HIW in HFC, no HIW in HFC….most simply don’t care, it’s just not that important. I do however realize how important it will be when we try and explain we’ve thrown away $thousands. Stickers or no stickers, the situation we are in at the moment is a temporary one. Our intensions are to move forward with French and overseas printing of books. I would be so disappointed with us as a Board if we destroy the current stock. We are constantly financially challenged as a fellowship, which is just how we should be, but as the principle financial planners I believe this motion would have a negative impact of trusting World Services with hard earned group donations. With HIW, without HIW, with stickers, without stickers….maybe our fellowship just doesn’t want to buy as many books as we think they should. Consider the power of the purse in this, that’s another way to see ultimate authority in action. In my opinion our current unsellable stock has nothing to do with the reasons I’ve been hearing about…the fellowship just don’t want to buy large numbers of our book. I am in full support of us continuing to try and get the books out in French and printed overseas, but not of destroying current stock of books. With concerns that I’m hearing about ‘from the fellowship’ I ask we consider if we are listening to the fellowship or the loud minority. Both are entitled and encouraged to speak and be heard but angry former trustees are not the voice of CA. Let’s be grounded with what actually is. I speak against destroying the books.

>Terry: I am speaking against this motion. I agree with both Robert and Russell on some points. I have looked at a few things and personally I believe a concerned member regarding his statement should just be that and not referenced as “angry old trustees”

I would like some clarity on a few things in Madame Chair will allow me some latitude.

1. Currently we have 22 – 24 thousand in HFC II copies in the WSO (Soft and Hard covers) basically looking at sales numbers at least 2 years of inventory if not more
2. According to what I have seen is it not true financially we have made 3 to 4 hundred percent or more on sales over initial costs of printing these books

My thoughts are this: We have done our job financially on these printings. We need to move forward and i believe that is our long term goal. I believe in the spirit of Unity of the whole fellowship when a clean updated version is available we print all Versions at one appointed time. That way there is no difference in the books being distributed to the fellowship. At that time the talk of what to do with old inventory I feel would be appropriate. No matter what WE do there is going to be multiple versions of HFCII out there. Stickered, Non stickered, or HIW and Non HIWs.

>Kim: Terry… regarding your “few things” that need clarification… maybe Richard L. can contact the office (WSO), and supply you/us with verification of your statements…

I would like some clarity on a few things if Madame Chair will allow me some latitude.

1. Currently we have 22 – 24 thousand in HFC II copies in the WSO (Soft and Hard covers) basically looking at sales numbers at least 2 years of inventory if not more
2. According to what I have seen is it not true financially we have made 3 to 4 hundred percent or more on sales over initial costs of printing these books

>Richard L.: Thank you Kim,

I will be more than happy to verify Terry statements and facts. Thank you >Kim: thanks Richard.

Page 25 of 29

>Richard L.: Here are the answers you requested from the WSO. I hope this helps.

From: johnbodkin@ca.org

To: RALEVE@aol.com

Sent: 2/25/2011 1:55:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Subj: RE: A couple of Questions from Terry

17525 soft cover

9838 hard cover

27363 total copies

Soft cover Sales since release looked like this:

Our total investment in printing of HFC2 in soft cover and hard cover combined looks like this.

DATE		PRINTER		part # STYLE				QTY			PRICE
11/5/07Media Lithographics				702Soft Cover				2000		2.43	4860
2/15/08Media Lithographics				702Soft Cover				3000		2.14	6420
2/15/08Media Lithographics				702Soft Cover				240			513.6
2/15/08Media Lithographics				702Soft Cover				-164		0.00	0
2/15/08Media Lithographics				702adj for back orders							-300.21
4/8/08RR Donnelly				702Soft Cover				5404		0.96	5187.84
4/8/08RR Donnelly				705Hard Cover				1,400		1.45	2,037.00
4/8/08RR Donnelly				717Hard Cover				9,044		1.45	13159.02
4/8/08RR Donnelly				716Soft Cover DIR				25592		0.96	24,568.32

The question of what our past budgets projected as a result of New Book Sales and whether or not we achieved those numbers… and for that, I would need to locate those old budgets and do a more detailed analysis.

Thanks,

John

>Richard S.: I speak against this motion; It is not financially responsible to “destroy” our assets which will recoup expenditures to finance new printings. I see this as a ‘knee jerk’ reaction rather than responsible planning. The statement for the destruction of our book turns my stomach. There can always be thoughts of H & I donations and other avenues but I cannot see book destruction aiding our fellowship, members, newcomers alike in anyway.

>Peter: I speak against the motion. I also agree with Russell and Richard S. There has been one or two letters and right away destroy the books. A mistake was made a while ago. We, as a Board, have take measures to correct the situation. How a person or two can say we don’t care about Canada or Europe is insane. We can please some of the people some of the time but not all

Page 26 of 29

of the people all of the time. I am speaking with a man from the UK about buying a large amount of books. John B handed me his info. I will pray for those who think we don’t care.

>Robert: First off I would like to thank all of you who have responded to this motion. I do appreciate the debate; I would like to further clarify my motion that this motion is the sum of a few parts so please indulge me as I break it down. Part #1 That effective immediately we halt the sales of all HFC 2. Part #2 and we destroy all books that are currently have at the WSO. Part# 3 that no sales of any HFC books be sold until we have one uniformed book that is available to the whole fellowship in English and French.

One of the reasons that I made this motion has to do with unity and unity has nothing to do with us all getting along unity has to do with it (i.e. a Cumbya type moment)

This we owe to A. A.’s future:

To place our common welfare first;

To keep our Fellowship united.

For on A.A. unity depend our lives,

And the lives of those to come.

This was the theme of the 1970 International Convention of A.A. (taken from the 12 traditions Illustrated page 3) also it states on page 3 of 12 traditions Illustrated “…And they’re still around-the members who are always sure that they’re always right…”oops but let us not forget the minority opinion cause they just might be right and the majority might be wrong. Believe me even though I made this motion does not necessary mean that I truly want to destroy the HFC 2 that we have in stock but what I am looking for is discussion. Yes we have options and I am open to amendments to this motion. But I also want to see the urgency to get moving forward on all translations and unfortunately seeing we are an International fellowship all our translations may not be completely uniform because some words to not translate properly.

The debate over How It Works is limited I believe as an approved group reading format provided by the WSO or on or website, How it Works is in the Big Book of AA so hence it is part of our “approved” literature in a type of default mode.

Also it is true that AA gave us permission to sell the book in the USA but not in any other country. When we met with AA back in Sept of 2009 we (the members of CA in attendance Tom P., Trevor S. and myself) believed that we could sell the book out in 2-3 years internationally but when they limited us by their letter to the USA we had no idea how long it would take to sell out our current stock. Since the Book Sale started we have only sold a total of 155 of HFC 2 to Canada. And to further address statements made about Canada as a trustee that represents Ontario, Quebec, and the Canadian Maritimes I have not received any negative feedback. When I explained at the ANR assembly what we did at the last WSBT quarterly and that we were moving forward with an International version as well as the French version they were all enthusiastically in support and that Assembly did take place in Montreal, with a number of Canadians in attendance.

>Peter: I speak against the motion. I also agree with Russell and Richard S. There has been one or two letters and right away destroy the books. A mistake was made a while ago. We, as a board, have taken measures to correct the situation. How a person or two can say we don’t care about Canada or Europe is insane. We can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. I am speaking with a man from the UK about buying a large amount of books. John B have me his info. I will pray for those who think we don’t care.

Page 27 of 29

>Kenny: I have to speak against this motion. In short, It will cause more problems than it will solve I believe. Personally, I do not like the idea of destroying any book especially our own. As previously mentioned, this is a part of our inventory. The aspect of unity versus money is without equal. I will argue that they the two are poles apart. We had a group conscious already. I believe that a loving God spoke through Trustees at that time. This definitely has fuel for an excellent discussions. I would like to personally thank you for engaging us in this vigorous dialog; it allow different viewpoints for consideration. I have to ask, would the fellowship approve of us destroying the books?

From the C.A. World Service Manual – World Service Board of Trustees – Description:

The only interest of the Trustees is to serve the best interest of our Fellowship. They are given such authority by and through the World Service Conference.

Here is a snippet the AA Four Absolutes: Remember our four questions, “Is it true or false?”, “Is it right or wrong?”, “How will this affect the other fellow?”, and “Is it ugly or beautiful?” >Randy: I speak against the motion. I believe the proposed action effects CA as a whole and any decisions regarding HFCII are not so pressing that they can’t wait for the Conference. When the WSBT moved on the original HIW issue with HFCII, it was truly a copyright infringement issue and actions were required immediately to put our fellowship in compliance. I’m concerned now that this motion, and even reflecting on our actions at the most recent B2B, carry concerns that should wait for the Conference. As Robert’s last email reads as if he changed his mind regarding destroying the books from his original motion on the 23rd and his posting on the 24th, I’m not aware of anyone speaking for the motion. As this issue is a HUGE decision, I would like to hear from anyone who may be in favor of the motion to speak up. Educated decisions can only be made when both sides are brought to light.

>Kim: If there is no further debate/discussion, and no one objects, I will now ask for you to cast your vote…

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

>Kim: Thanks everyone….With one abstention, the motion fails.

Friday, March 4, 2011

>Richard L.: The WSOB has asked me to present this motion because it requires the approval of

the WSBT. It has already passed at the WSOB level – Motion: I would like to make a motion to increase our Customer Service Worker, Sheila Spurlock, salary from $XX.00 to $XX.00 per hour.

>Richard S.: Second.

>Kim: There is a motion to increase the salary of Sheila Spurlock (Customer Service Worker) from $XX.00 to $XX.00 per hour, second by Richard S. The floor is open for discussion.

Discussion>

>Richard L.: I would like to speak in favor of this motion:

A few things about Sheila

1. The requested increase is for $X.XX per hour to bring her to an even $XX per hour.
2. Sheila is coming up on her one year anniversary date in April.
3. She has proven reliable, responsible, with 100% attendance record

Page 28 of 29

4. She has earned the respect of our customers, many of whom comment to Tom and John both verbally and in writing. There are currently four written customer commendations in her file.
5. She is trainable and demonstrates tremendous dedication to the work and the organization and is eager to learn.
6. She is coordinating with our fellowship and bringing volunteers to the office.
7. She has been cross trained on many additional operational tasks in the absence of administrative support other than the DOO, including Volunteer Center Coordination, Shipping and Receiving, Quick Books Receiving and Inventory procedures. Bank Deposits. Vendor relations with respect to ordering necessary inventory upon approval.
8. She has an uncanny ability to recognize forthcoming business needs for inventory and supplies and measuring the need for volunteer assistance.
9. I could go on and on but this is an employee worthy of retaining and developing.
10. We could not buy this kind of love and dedication for a company or fellowship.
11. Bottom Line – she is a valuable asset to the office

>Russell: I speak in favor of the motion…

Concept 11 shows me we should pay the going rate for our paid workers. It goes on to say ‘cheap help is apt to feel insecure and inefficient. It is very costly in the long run. This is neither good spiritually nor good business. This lady has shown great enthusiasm and willingness, she’s the voice on the phone when members call and feedback I’ve received (and my own experience) is she is helpful and efficient.

>Peter: I speak in favor of the motion and agree with everything Richard L said. I would cut and paste his remarks but I won’t. I think she is a star and an asset to C.A.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

>Kim: Thanks everyone, the motion passes. Richard L., please let the WSO know the outcome of the motion.

Page 29 of 29