Jay F. –
CLOSING REPORT
C.A. WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE 2019
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION AND OPENING COMMENTS
The Conference Committee has thoroughly enjoyed working with you and for you this past week to make our 2019 World Service Conference successful. Thank you to all delegates, committee chairs, Trustees, WSOB members, other Conference attendees, and both new and outgoing members for your service and participation.
Committee Introductions
Committee Members:
- Jay F. – Chair
- Jessi G. – Vice Chair
- Susan L. – Conference Coordinator
- Cindy C. – Conference Co-Coordinator
- Linda F. – Director of Operations WSOB
- Alesia F. – Admin. Coordinator
- Loni S. – Co-Secretary of the Committee Jerico M. – Co-Secretary of the Committee
- Dawn M. – Conference Committees Liaison and Referrals/SR14 Coordinator
- Loni S. – Conference Orientation and Programs Liaison
- Kenny S. – member
Page 15 of 46
- Sarah T. – member
- Patrice F. – member
- Vicki R. – member
- Justine K.– member
- Carly C. – member
- Bart V. – member
- Ruby L. – member
- Edwina S. – member
- Audz C. – member
- Misty C. – member
Conference Officers:
- Trevor S. – Chair
- Russell S. – Vice-Chair/Parliamentarian
- Alex Z.-Co-Secretary
- Maria K. – Co-Secretary
Conference Committee Trustees:
- Vanessa J.– Trustee at Large
- Sarah T. – European Regional Trustee
COMMITTEE WORK THAT RESULTED IN MOTIONS
Motion 1
Motion to approve the Conference Committee Guidelines as submitted in the Conference Committee SR14 mailing with the indicated changes therein.
Seconded.
Trevor S. – Debate? Seeing no objections, red line read will be accepted.
Page 16 of 46
Vote #5 for 131 / 5 against, Motion Passes.
Motion 2
To approve the amendment to the referral form administered by the
Conference Committee as set forth as follows:
See next page please (18 0f 46)
Page 17 of 46
Seconded.
Page 18 of 46
Trevor S. – Debate?
Jason L. – I just wondered, would you explain what we are doing there? Jay F. – We are adding a drop down with two additional options for registration fields in form.
Paul S. – My question has been answered.
Vote #6 for 138 / 3 against. Motion Passes.
Motion 3
That the 7th Tradition be collected one time during the Saturday session of the Conference each year, the timing of which is set by the Conference Chair, the proceeds of which become a part of the Conference Committee budget each year.
Seconded.
Trevor S. – Any debate?
Jason L. – I speak against, where I come from we do not tend to pass a basket at business meetings during session. we work on the basis that you do not have to put money in to work with the fellowship.
Tammy L. – Speak in favor, maybe not all places/areas pass a basket. Ours does and I think it benefits the Conference .
Ian Y. – I am not comfortable passing a tradition 7 basket during business meetings.
Nathan B. – I speak against. We do not pass a basket during the S&B committee breakout, why would be pass on floor to benefit one committee.
Page 19 of 46
Heidi J. – We’ve passed a basket at this conference, I do not understand why this motion is on the floor, is the recipient changing?
Jay F. – This was hopefully to cotify that this would be passed by conference and to which budget it went to. that was the whole purpose.
Greg B. – I speak against. I put a lot of money for the 7th tradition for my country as well, I am here because of that. I think it is in the right place in the meetings.
Paulo S. – Speak in favor. Looking at financials, the conference loses money and I feel it is my responsibility to support any way I can, it is not required. I think if the basket is passed, it should be indicated is place and go to the top line of the budget.
Rose J. – Speak in favor. We hold our area meetings, and have coffee and rent. Nothing is free outside of CA itself.
Henry A. – We have some bigger fish to fry here. Call the question.
Seconded.
Vote#7 for 123 / 17 against. Motion Passes.
Vote #8 on main Motion for 107 / 42 against, Motion Passes with noted opposition.
Tom P. – 5th concept
The motion is an earmarking motion, which we do not do. Some people want to consider other committees in their contributions. We just okayed an earmarking procedure as a fellowship.
Page 20 of 46
Lucas S. – Motion to Reconsider.
Seconded.
Henry A. – I am really sorry, I have emotions about this too, if you look at what is next on the agenda, these are important. Please be quick.
Heidi J. – There is more information to debate. I speak in favor.
Ryan R. – Speak in favor, there is more information.
Lucas S. – In favor, we should not rush to get through this report.
Zach A- Speak in favor. We should not rush.
Rose J. – Speak against motion to reconsider, the money is to help the conference committee.
Point of order
Jason L. –
Trevor S. – Debate of original motion.
Maya B. – Speak against. This was discussed with finance committee.
Ian Y. – Question called,Seconded.
Vote #9 to call the Question for 119/26 against, Motion Passes.
Motion to Reconsider
Vote#10 for 73/74 against, Motion Fails.
Page 21 of 46
Motion 4
To relocate the World Service Conference for the years 2022 and 2023 to a city further away than the 50 miles set forth in the Conference Guidelines, with the cities to be selected from being Cleveland, Dallas, Phoenix, and St. Louis.
Seconded.
Trevor S. – Debate?
Parliamentary inquiry
Is this a motion to suspend or change the manual?
this does not change a standing rule.
Jay F. – our contract with this hotel is up. The extension looking with new management was decided that the deposit requirements etc would not allow us to commit at that time.
We sent out a mass proposal to 30 cites with 70 responses. they were staggering. we realized we could save a lot of money to the fellowship. COSTS of : Room nights / staff rooms / F&B minimum / incidentals, etc. we found that we could save some significant money. the top ten bids yielded 107-125 per room night. 340 rooms at full price, saves $22,000, staff rooms savings at $4,200. the gateway meeting costs for the other rooms and 24% sales tax, costs 15,400, it is 1200 to be here today. it is ZERO at the top ten. power and internet savings, even parking is covered in these ther bid locations. Meal costs from 39+ to 30 and lower. We added everything like the WSOT – avg of 2000, and having pallets sent, ie. 1000.
44,000-45,000 savings. 10 hotels, 4 were in greater missouri area. We met with the visitors bureau etc to scope these top 10 out personally. we were able to invite the 4 area cities to submit formal proposals, and detailed to conference requests. They were distributed via SR14, and were researched
Page 22 of 46
via ratings, travel etc. Even researched to the cost per member for each city travel and averaged these options. All data pushed into an SR14. Conservative Savings would be 40-45k. Travel to these cities would be less financially burdening to the areas sending their delegates. There are shuttles and international travel opportunities.
MOTION is to move it for the next TWO years only.
Rose J. – Point of Information – i know our manual states that it is to be within a certain distance from the head office. is this to change it in the WSM?
Jay F. – It is not to change it in our guidelines but rather to try it for 2 years.
Paul S. – I would like to make a Friendly Amendment – to strike the cities of Cleveland and Phoenix.
Jay F. – We accept the Friendly Amendment
Trevor S. – Any objection from the floor? Seeing none, it is amended.
Isaac W. – What is the reason behind the reason for the 50 mile radius in the guidelines?
Trevor S. – I can answer that – it is in the guidelines since forever because the bulk of the people attending were from here.
Rick K. – I speak in favour – we are saving a ton of money and I think this makes sense. We spoke earlier about our financial situation and this can save us so much of that heartache.
Page 23 of 46
Taylor F. – How do you go about choosing the cities for proposals? Did you ask the areas to ask for help for those bids? Was it sent to the fellowship?
Jay F. – we talked about this last year. It has been in the guidelines forever that any area can bid on this. I traveled and did some site tours and we invited the fellowship to assist when we know we had something to look at.
Ian Y. – I speak in favour of the motion now that you have merged with the Friendly Amendment. I have a question…
Trevor S. – you cannot ask a question
Ian Y. – I will continue to speak in favour – 9 years ago the committee wanted to move away. The profit in savings for the fellowship is appropriate at this time. We can fly into many US cities easily from Europe.
Jason L. – I am confused about being contracted for the next few years here. So my question is, I can see why we are talking about 2022. Why don’t we just remove the 50 mile radius after 2021? Why restrict ourselves at all and not remove it all together?
Jay F. – We just wanted to try this for 2 years and give it a try rather than make a major change
Tom W. – Why are these cities more advantageous than Phoenix?
Jay F. – the Phoenix data was incomplete. Also regarding the proximity to the airport and spirit rotation.
Page 24 of 46
Susan B. – call the question
Trevor S. – No debate allowed
Vote #11 for 121/ against 9 passes with substantial unanimity
Amended Motion:
To relocate the World Service Conference for the years 2022 and 2023 to a city further away than the 50 miles set forth in the Conference Guidelines, with the cities to be selected from being Dallas, and St. Louis.
original motion Vote #12
for 139/ against 4
Motion 5:
That the Conference select the City and the Hotel choosing only between the hotel put forth by the Greater Missouri Area at the Renaissance Airport Hotel or the North Texas Area at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport Marriott; with the winning vote from the Conference floor selecting not only the City where the Conference will be held for those two years but the Conference Hotel.
seconded
Trevor S. – Do you wish to debate?
Jay F. – In our guidelines mention that the committee shall select the hotel and location, but further down it says it is selected by the floor. we wish to include the floor at this time. we looked at 50 different airports and the cost of the properties are the same for the 2 selected. Both hotels have several advantages, coffee locations are open until 1am, breakout rooms are all down the same hallway. this is a business decision and we would hope the floor will partake in this decision
Page 25 of 46
Nathan H. – question – is there a process in place for what you are doing?
Jay F. – part of our manual says we pick, but later in the manual says it gets brought to the floor. we are trying to be extra fair and judicious in our decision.
Kevin M. – I speak in favor of Dallas because the airfare from europe flies direct as it is an american hub. there are tradeoffs, but the airfare is the biggest deciding factor. St. Louis is not a hub.
Josh J. – question – I don’t know what I am voting for. I am for one of these cities or what I am speaking for or against.
Trevor S. – A for Dallas and C for St. Louis.
Henry A. – what about shuttles from the hotels etc. Can you tell me the difference?
Jay F. – They are both airport hotels and both are about a 5 min free shuttle
Rick K. – I speak in favour for Dallas because the flight costs to Dallas from LA is much more reasonable.
Nathan H. – question – which city is the most financially beneficial to CA as a whole?
Jay F. – I want to stay neutral but I have to be honest, on economics, it is a push. I would lean towards Dallas
Page 26 of 46
Stuart J. – I don’t understand how we are choosing 2 different destinations. what about other factors? what happens in 5 years? these are in the middle of the country. we are looking at time differences etc. As a European we have to add to the time regarding travel. how can I rescind the previous motion?
Trevor S. – Get back in line
Kevin M. – question – I want to know what is in short walking distance from each of these hotels? is there a grocery store, a burger king, etc nearby?
Jay F. – I stayed in both – they have some amenities nearby, including shuttles that take you nearby. there are ubers within $5. there are options in both cities very nearby
Henry A. – one hotel is smaller than the other. can you speak to that?
Jay F. – Dallas is the smaller hotel and we would be the only people in-house, St. Louis is quite a bit larger.
Ian Y. – I feel qualified in voting on this but is there a way that I can make a motion to have the conference committee to decide on this so that we can ratify it on this floor instead?
Trevor S. – you can make a motion to refer back to cmmt . the issue is that we cannot have the time then to make that decision or ratification on this floor at this time.
Michael C. – call the question
Page 27 of 46
seconded
Vote #13
for 123/ against 6
Please vote on the main motion
Vote #14
St. Louis 25/ Dallas 117
Congratulations Dallas 2022 Conference
REFERRALS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN MOTIONS
Conference 2019-1 From Justin C. Florida Area (Post-Conference) Regarding literature, pamphlets, publications, or other documents that are are either sent in delegate mailing, SR-14 mailing, or included in Conference Reports: that any formatted publisher files containing or resembling CA pamphlet “mock-ups” be first qualified as originating from the LCF Committee, having passed Point 7 of the LCF Pamphlet Publication Guidelines, or have been reviewed by the WSBT for traditions violations.
RESPONSE: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will endeavor to ensure that this process is followed.
Conference 2019-2From Daniel H. Arizona Area (Post-Conference)
H&I is reaching out to each area in order to identify area H&I chairs. PI is reaching out to each area in order to identify area PI chairs.
Can someone create a simple, online form or process that can be distributed to all areas so when new members are elected to positions they can be
Page 28 of 46
communicated to world so that world may better serve those officers throughout the year?
RESPONSE: Referred to the WSOB for additional consideration.
Conference 2019-3From Susan B. OSA (Post-Conference)
Please add NewsGram to the roster of Committees on this referral form. Thank you!
RESPONSE: On consideration of your enquiry we can confirm that referrals directed to the NewsGram are addressed by referring them to the WSOB.
Conference 2019-4 Justine K. CAUK (Pre-Conference)
When registering an Area for the WSC, it would be really helpful to receive an auto response or acknowledgement that you have registered or your registration has been successful email, just as you do when you complete your individual registration.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion, we are looking into this and hope to have this implemented in the near future.
Conference 2019-5Cynthia C. Washington State Area (In-Conference) received June 7, 2019 after the SR14 deadline
Please consider providing a list at the beginning of the Conference indicating how many people (returning members or newly-registered attendees) you believe are planning to serve on each committee. This might help those who are undecided choose a committee and increase the likelihood that every
Page 29 of 46
committee will have enough members. The information could be presented during orientation and/or included in the registration packets. Thank you.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your referral. Currently, returning members or new delegates can accurately assess the level of participation on each committee from the Conference floor during opening reports, which identify current committee members.
Conference 2019-6 Steve W. CAUK Area (In-Conference) received July 21, 2019 after the SR14 deadline
This referral relates to the master list of SR14’s , motions and the supporting information that is sent out to all Delegates at the end of June each year. We ask that the information which currently includes members personal details be redacted prior to being sent out to Delegates, this will allow more time to disseminate the information to the fellowship.
In CAUK we were on the verge of placing all of the information on our website so that all members could easily access the information. We then realised that if we did this then not only CA members but the General public would be able to access the information if they so wished or if they stumbled across it.
Due to the timings involved ie information received at the end of June we just did not have time to go through the process of redacting the documents making sure that no names / personal information was shown.
If we receive the information at the end of June and conference is held during the last week of August, we literally have no time to spare in getting the information out to the Districts so that they can in turn forward it onto
Page 30 of 46
Groups, so that they can discuss matters in consciences in time for the pre conference assembly which is held prior to our delegates attending Conference.
If we cannot get the information out to Groups in sufficient time, then our groups consciences are not relayed to our Delegates and therefore they are not informed when they attend Conference.
Receiving the SR14’s and supporting information already redacted would greatly assist the process of informing our fellowship quickly & efficiently and ensures a level of anonymity at the public level and ensure the protection of personal information.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your referral. We are currently considering the implications of using redacted documents and the process for making this possible. This will be worked on throughout the year by the committee.
Conference 2019-7 Tom P. WSBT (In-Conference)
Consider researching validity of statement being repeatedly made by conference officers during roll call and occasionally when conference members introduce themselves, that full names are necessary due to California state law. The conference is not a formal meeting of either CAWS, Inc. or CAWSO, Inc.
RESPONSE: We suggest that this enquiry be referred to the WSBT.
Conference 2019-8Justine K. CAUK (In-Conference)
I would like to make a suggestion that the introduction of conference is reviewed and shortened and some of the items are covered in the delegate
Page 31 of 46
orientation instead. A lot of the items were repeated from the delegate orientation and it was 1hr 40 mins before the conference started it’s business.
Thank you for your service
Justine
RESPONSE: We acknowledge your suggestion and appreciate your feedback. We are continually reviewing and working on the process of streamlining the delivery of the information in the introduction of Conference, in order to minimize the incidents of repetition, whilst also ensuring that delegates are fully prepared for business. This is already an Agenda item within the committee, which we will be reviewing prior to Conference 2020.
Conference 2019-9Susan B. OSA (In-Conference)
Please update all your forms and flyers to use the block letter C.A. logo in its proper form. CA is the abbreviation for the State of California. Thank you. Consistency is important for unity and our common welfare.
RESPONSE: The Conference Committee does, as always, strive to use the correct form of any and all logos, names, and such items.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AT OF THE END OF THIS CONFERENCE:
COMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS:
Committee Members:
- Jessi G. – Chair
- Vicki R. – Vice Chair
- Cindy C. – Coordinator
Page 32 of 46
- Jerico M. – Co-Coordinator
- Linda F. – DOO
- Dawn M. – Conference Committees Liaison and Referrals/SR14 Coordinator
- Loni S. – Conference Orientation and Programs Liaison.
- Alesia F. – Admin. Coordinator
- Justine K.– Co-Secretary of the Committee
- Audz C.– Co-Secretary of the Committee
Conference Officers*** subject to any elections which might be necessary
- Trevor S. – Chair
- Russell S.– Vice-Chair/Parliamentarian
- Maria K. – Co-Secretary
- Alex Z.– Co-Secretary
Conference Committee Trustees
- Sarah T. European Regional Trustee
- Vanessa J.– Trustee at Large
CLOSING COMMENTS
Thank you to everyone who came out and made this Conference successful! We are extremely grateful for the full participation of the Conference in the online referral process and the online evaluation process. We also appreciate the chance to have the Conference in the Cloud this year. We will be working out the kinks of these exciting changes over the upcoming year and again, want to thank you for helping us be a lot more Earth-friendly and stream-lining the process.
Page 33 of 46
The Conference Officers and the entire Conference Committee have been blessed to be here and work with you this week to create a successful 2019 World Service Conference. If you have any questions or concerns during the remainder Conference, please see myself, Susan (Conference Coordinator), or Cindy (Conference Co-Coordinator). As a reminder, we are seeking and encouraging all members to join and serve on this Committee.
On a personal note, six of the trusted servants of our Committee have finished the terms of their current positions effective at the end of this Conference. We all ever so much appreciate the opportunity to serve this Conference and our CA fellowship.
Thank you for allowing us to be of service to our Fellowship.
Jay F. – Conference Committee Chair
Trevor S. – Any questions for committee?
Stuart J. – 5th concept
I do not feel there was enough consideration given to these two motions regarding the times and travels for the european region. this fellowship is larger than the continental us, and it does not serve this fellowship to the best of the needs. it should at least be relocated to the east coast.
Jason L. – would you please consider that the amount of money that you collect within the conference is indicated in line item in your committee report.
Jay F. – We will.
Page 34 of 46
Rick K. – We motioned last night that we would skip through the referrals, will there be referrals accessed earlier?
Jay F. – The committee hears you and will take this into consideration.
Kevin M. – Would conference be able to collect committee material to be accessed by fellowship, and have better access to the referrals.
Trevor S. – as conference chair, i will make sure that that will happen especially in regards to the SR14, with proper prominence.
Shelby D. – how many delegates do you have on your committee?
Jay F. – seven.
Shelby D. – I don’t know how many chair positions you have, I know we voted in two, and the chair and secretaries. how many of those people are delegates.
Jay F. – The new regime, the chair is a non del, vice chair is delegate, secretaries are delegates, new service positions are3 non, DAIS is non-delgates.
Norma Jean L. – Question, we got Dallas, the last 4 years of coming to conference, the registration fee went from 20 – 60, any chance that will come down?
Jay F. – I can’t speak as to next year, perhaps in two years?
Taylor F. – do you feel the new language for delegate position suggestions are being considered in the structure of your committee.
Jay F. – yes.
Page 35 of 46
Trevor S. – Several positions in our committee require a non-delegate position, and thus the structure of those positions are unaffected.
Henry A. – earlier there was a motion passed to pass basket, motion was to reconsider, i would like to reconsider again as being that motion that voted.
MOTION to reconsider the reconsidered motion to pass the basket.
Henry A. – points were well taken, if they want to talk about this, they should.
Christopher –
Cynthia C. – Point of Order – motion to reconsider can be reconsidered? Please see s37, pg 309 line 35.
Trevor S. – motion to reconsider reconsidered motion is only an option with unanimous consent.
AGENDA
Trevor S. – position on our dais for election would be co-secretary. *reads qualifications and duties*
Jay F. – Nominates Alex ZM
Trevor S. – any other nominations? seeing none…
Jay F. – can I make a motion for acclamation?
Trevor S. – any objection to electing alex for another 2 years? seeing none, Congratulations Alex.
New Business
Page 36 of 46
Break until 11:45am
Page 37 of 46