Page 14 of 21
NEW BUSINESS:
Chair: Are there any items of new business? Other than referrals?
Chair: I was presented with the intent yesterday in two situations…for two motions.
Scott: Motion to amend a previously passed motion, specifically, the motion to accept the 2001-2002 proposed CA
WS budget, as submitted which was passed during the 2000 WSC to remove the line item of 12,500 for an H&I video
from the H&I Committee budget. Seconded.
Chair: Any debate. Scott, do you wish to debate?
Scott: We do not see any line item for this in this current year’s budget. If there is any money that comes up at the
WSO, the H&I committee can lay claim to it. I’m addressing the fiscal responsibility of this body to spend this money
right now, in lieu of our financial situation.
Discussion ensues.
Chair: A motion to amend allows the striking of a portion of the previously passed motion.
Discussion continues.
John: Call to question. Second.
Chair: Please prepare yourself to vote to close debate. Motion carries. Motion fails.
Chair: I’ve received notification of an item of new business…
Glen Tucker: Item of new business, dealing with the referrals…what I’ve noticed is that we have a tremendous amount of referrals that go through the conference, and what happens is that all of them have to be addressed, and a lot of them are duplicates, or already in place. I would urge the delegates that when someone at the area brings you a referral, please work with them and with the manual to evaluation whether the referral needs to be made.
Chair: The conference committee will take this under advisement, and try to address at the next conference.
Roy: Motion to rescind Motion #13 on the Convention Committee that regarding sending next year’s CAWS Convention Chairperson to this year’s CAWS convention. Second.
Chair: Any debate?
Discussion ensues.
Tony: Point of order – a motion to rescind allows for debate on the original motion.
Chair: It does nullify the main motion, however, I will stand by my ruling…I believe there was substantial debate on the motion last night.
Mark: Call to vote. Seconded.
Chair: Please prepare to vote to close debate. Motion carries unanimously. Please prepare to vote on the main motion.
Motion to rescind clearly fails.
Page 15 of 21
Chair: Any items of new business?
Steve: Motion to censure the World Service Board of Trustees. Seconded.
Chair: Steve, do you wish to discuss your motion.
Steve: I would like to request that my letter of June, 2001 and my memo to the chair of the WSBoT’s be inserted into the record. Letter 1: June 1, 2001, Dear Delegates, I am writing this letter to inform you that at this year’s World Service Conferece. I intend to bring a motion to formally censure the Worodl Service Board of Trustees. I believe that this motion is necessary because the Trustees have acted in a fashion inconsistent with our WSM andhave excercised thie ultimate authority pursuant to the 10th concedntp in a way that flies in thefacdfe of our service structureand the concepts.
I have attached to this letter a copy of the memo I wrote to the Chair of the WSBT in preparation for an appeal of their decision to elect one of the Trustees-at-large to the position of WSOB Director. As I point out in the memo, the only way they could legitimately do this would be to exercise their ultimate authority, which according to Bill W. should only be done in case of an emergency.
This situation was clearly not an emergency. The Trustees’ decision further worsended the problem of no WSOB participation at the WSBT. After I presented my appeal, the WSBT not only affirmed that they were electing the TAL to the WSOB, but they also voted to increase the number ofWSO Board members to ten, rather than the nine members allowed by our WSM. No member of the WSBT has been able to explain to me what “emergency” was averted by these actions that could not wait until the Conference could address these questions.
I do not take lightly my decision to bring a motion to censure. I consider most of themembers of the WSBT to be my personal friends, and I am aware that such a motion could result in animosity between the two Boards., After much study of the Twelve Concepts, however, and much reflection, I believe it is my duty to bring such a motion. What will be the effect of such a motion, if it passes? Nothing more than an official recognition by the WSC as a shole that the Trustees acted in a way that was inconsistent with the 12 concepts – a warning, if you will, that the Trustees need to consider suchdecisions more carefully in the future.
I know that the attached memo is not “light” reading, but is heartfelt. You may also find it helpful to review the article about this controversy that was published in the First Quarter 2001 NewsGram. And, of course, I hope you wil feel free to contact me, orany member of either the WSOB or the WSBT, if you have any questions or wish to discuss the issues further prior to the conference.
Thank you for your consideration,
Steve. E.
Second letter, dated 10/9/200 to Merredith A., Chair of the WSBoT’s from Steve E.
Dear Meredith,
Thank you for advising me via telephone about the results of a phone vote by the WSBT on Sunday, October 1, 2000. Unfortunately, because I am relatively new to this position, it failed to occur to me at that time that I cannot rely ona an oral representation of a vote by theWSBT when considering a motion such as this. Before ourBoard can ratify the WSBT’s electioln of directors, I will need a copy of the approved minutes of the meeting, signed by the WSBT corporate secretary.
Page 16 of 21
I do note, however, that you informed me that the WSBT had elected two new directors: Robin C., and Leon M. (who is currently serving as Trustee-at-Large). I find it hard to believe that the WSBT elected the TAL to the position of WSOB Director, for reasons that I will outline below. If, in fact, this was the vote of the WSBT, I will require certain documentation, which will also be outlined below:
- THE TRUSTEE ELECTION COMMITTEE FAILED TO CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES PURSUANT TO THE CONFERENCE APPROVED STRUCTURE AS EVIDENCED BY OUR WORLD SERVICE MANUAL.
I think it’s important to begin by noting that the TEC failed to abide by its own guidelines at the 2000 WSC. Specifically, I refer to the second paragraph of page 4.5 of the Manual, which states: “The WSO Trustee shall be selected from the candidates selected by the WSO Board not already a Trustee” (emphases added). I further refer ot the section outlining the Selctions and Election process for WSO Trustee, , beginning at the bottom of page 4.5 and continuing on page 4.6 particularly item 4 which states: “The Trustee ElectionCommittee will make its selection from the candidates ratified by two-thirds vote of the WSC” (emphasis added). This language is clearly mandatory, rather than discretionary.
I have unfortunately heard from mebers of the TEC that they were led to believee that failure to elect a candidate from the Conferece-approved slate in tis instance would no really leave the position vacant. These members were led to believe that the TAL could fill that position if no ratified candidate was elected. There is, however, no provision in that anyone explained to the non-Trustee members of the TEC that failing to fill this position would deny the WSO Board a voice and a vote on the WSBT.
I know that some members of the WSBT expressed concern that there was only one candidate on the slate for the WSO Trustee election. I have done some historical researcyh, however, and this has not been a problem in the past. To begin with, the last time a WSO Trustee was elected, there was also only one candidate on the slate (who was certainly no more qualified to serve than this year’s candidate was). And when the first CA Service manual was published outlint the election procedure for the WSO Trustee, the manual stated that “The WSOB selects up to two (2) Trustee candidates.” This language clearly implies that a single candidate would be acceptable. Since then the maniual has been revised to allow any Office Board member to submit his or her resume for consdieraton , but never has there been an indication that the Office should be required to sxubmit more than on candidate.
II. THE CONFERENDCEJ-APPROVED STRUCTURE AS EVIDENCED BY OUR WORLD SERVICE MANUAL DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY ALTERNATE METHOD OF SELECTION FOR WORLD SERVICE OFFICE TRUSTEE.
The procedures for nomination, ratification and election of candidates for World Service Office Trustee are clearly spelled out on pages 4.5 and 4.6 of the WSM. Nowhere in the Manual is there any procedure or authority for selection of a WSO Trustee other than that outlined in Section Four of the manual. In fact, other provisions of the manual relating to election, vacancy, replacement and terms of Trustees specifically exlude the positiohn of WSO Trustee. It is therefore very clearly the intent of the manual (i.e., the group conscience of our Fellowship as a whole) that the only provisions of the manual which apply to those procedures as they relate to the WSO Trustee are those specifically drafted for that position.
Further, during a debate on the Conferece floor regarding a motion to elect the WSO Trustee candidate from the Conference-approved slate, Walter J. (then Chair of the TEC) stated quite clearly that, “if no candidate receives a clear 2/3 majority, then the position is left vacant until the next Conference. That is the outline of the Election Committee guidelines for election process.” (Transcripts, Day Three, page 8) emphasis added). Then, after the vote was taken, Walter provided the following addendum: “That…just as a little point of information, we do have a Trustee
Page 17 of 21
At Large that is located inLos Angeles, so this position, the functionality of the position will be addressed, as the process yields, the rest of the Board will pick up that function.” (Transcripts, Day Three, page 14). Although it is nowclear that some of us understood that statement differently thatn others, no mention was made of an intention by the WSBT to actually fill the position – in fact, the opposite was stated.
To fill the WSO Trustee position in any other manner than that set out in our World Service Manual would be a clear violation of Concepts One and Two. The manual represents the group conscience of our WSC as a whole, which represents the collective voice of our society and is the ultijmate authority for our whole fellowship.
III. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN THE WSM FOR THE SBT TO ELECT A TRUSTEE MEMBER TO THE WSO BOARD OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED ON PAGE 5.1
The duly elected Directors who comprise the CAWSO Board pursuant to our Confernce-approved structure are set out an page 5.1 of the Manual The Trustee-at-Large is not on this list. Nowhere can I find any authority for the WSBT to elect and/or appoint a Trustee Mwember to the Board of Directors other than those specifically enumerated on page 5.1
It’s now my understanding that the TEC in its delibertations relied on soe internal TEC guidelines that implied that the TAL could in some capacity fill the duties of the WSO Trustee if the position were not filled. And I think what you told me on the phone is that the WSBT is now relying on that same “guideline” in its decision to grant the TAL a vote on the WSO Board. Until I received a copy of these guidelines from a TEC member very recently, there wa no copy ofany such guidelines to be found in the World Service Office, and I haven’t been able to locate a single delegate (other than those who served on the TEC) who has ever seen a copy. These guidelines have never been approved by the WSC. I can’t imagin a Servie Committte of our fellowship, particularly our WSBoT relying on any such guideline to the exclusion nd direct contrdction of the guidelines contained in the Manual, which represent the Group Conscienc of our entire Fellowship.
Leon: Point of order – I think this is not more discussion, but an emotional plea, and I would just like him to address the point on floor.
Jay: Parliaementary Inquiry – I would like to see a limit to debate…would I make that at this time?
Chair: It is not a privilege motion, so the speaker has the floor at this time. You may bring this motion up when you are recognized.
Leon: Point of order – I am hearing more debate towars the motion, but I’m not hearing the motion…
Chair: The motion is quite simple, and has been made.
Meredith: I will read the WSBT’s anser to the Motion to Censure:
Statements of Facts:
September 2000: The TEC announced that it would not be filling the WSO Trustee position because no candidate received a 2/3 vote of the TEC. The TEC Chair, Walter Johnson informed the Conferece floor that the BoT woiiuld assume the duties of the open position and indicated that the TAL would fill the duties of the WSO Trustee after no candidate received a 2/3 vote of the TEC. The TEC was concerned that the duties the WSO Trustee be covered, and relied upon the statement in the TEC Guidelines that the Trustees would fulfill the duties of a vacant position and that there was a TAL who lived in the vicinity of the office and would be able to attend Board Meeting and fulfill other duties of the WSO Board.
Page 18 of 21
The WSO Chair refused to permit the TAL to vote on the WSO Board. He said that it was a violation of the WS Manual the WSBT was violating by its directive.
October 00: The Board of Trustees voted to place the TAL on the WSO Board until the next Conferece, tgiving specific reasons and stating that the WS Manual does not address this contingency.
November 00: When presented with the group conscience of the WSBT, the WSO Chair requested his right of appeal on the decision made by the WSBT and then submitted a 9-page brief explainging why he believes the TAL may speak but should not vote on the WSO Board.
December 00: The trustees heard the WSO Chair’s appeal at the Trustee’ December Quarterly meeting. The WSO Chair’s document was carefully reviewed and discussed at length and another vote taken. The motion passed to place the TAL on the WSO Board, with a vote, until the next Conference. Also, the Trustees voted to temporarily increase the maximum size of the WSO board and elected a 10th director recommended by the WSO Board until the next Conference in order to address the argument of the WSO Chair that the WSO Board need additional new directors so that in the future there could be more qualified candidates for the WSO Trustee position.
The WSO Chair was verbally notified of the WSBT’s decision, at which time he informed us that he needed a letter confirming the decision. The Board ofTrustees wrote aletter informing the WSO Chair of the WSBT’s group conscience and reasoning and again directed him to ratify the TAL as a WSO Board member with a vote until the next Conference.
January 01: Despite the WSBT’s group conscience, the WSO chair continued to refuse to allow the TAL to sit as a Director on the WSO Board. He informed the WSBT that unless the WSBT used its ultimate authority and forced him tod do so, he would not ratify the TAL as a cite from the WS Manual exactly which sections were being suspended in order to take such actions.
When faced with thisultimatu, the WSBT wrote a letter providing the WSO Chair with the exact information he requested and informed him pursuant to his request that th e WSBT was indeed using its ultimate authority to place the TAL on the WSO Board until the next conjference in order to fulfill the duties of the vacant WSO Trustee position, as the WSBTs group conscience was not sufficient to persuade the WSO Chair to plac ein effect the decision of the WSBT in the reasonable exercise of its oversight and in accordance wht th eTEC and the commitment made to the 2000 Conference.
February 01: The TAL is ratified as a director on the Board.
Deneen: Point of order – Will you be ruling this out of order.
Chair: The Chair will not be ruling tis out of order.
Jay: I would like to move to limit debate to 10 people for and 10 people against. Second.
Chair: This motion is not debatable. Requires a 2/3 majority. Please prepare to vote. Motion carries with opposition.
So, we will be limiting debate.
Amy: Point of order – opposed to the motion. Clarify that it is not a motion of the WSOB. Personal motion from Steve Edwards. Statement of TEC Chair was in the transcripts. 4th concept does not apply in the manner Steve stated, but does apply to TEC decision. Responsibilities includes right to vote. BOT made best decision they deemed at the time. We could be wrong. But is censure appropriate if you disagree with BOT decision? I am trustee Steve refers to. I did not state that line in TEC overrides the WS manual. It is silent. TEC guidelines does address this issue. Best decision we could do at the time.
Page 19 of 21
Paulette F. – Against motion. TEC failed to fill position, BOT acted responsibly. 4.2 WS manual, description of TAL makes placement reasonable and correct.
Evan A – Appreciate guts to make motion. Thank Steve for his conviction. Speak to oppose motion. Interpretive liberties of the concepts. Does not believe intent was malicious. Not a case of self-will run riot. We need structure.
Deneen – Against motion. Provision 4.2 WS manual. Understanding that this was a temporary not permanent position. Believe that trustees did not act in this case in a way as to harm the fellowship or personally penalize any members of the board or overtly use their power of authority to direct the board without a complete understanding of what was necessary. Trustees were present to listen to the discussion of the open position. Board said that they needed the position filled, even though it had been open for some time. Believe trustees made the right decision.
Jean F – Against the motion. Believes the failure was to the board to not provide a slate of more than one candidate.
Actions of the WSOB chair necessitated the action of the trustees.
Meredith – call for a quorum
Scott – not necessary to hear debate. Out of order.
Mark K – listened to derogatory statements.
Leon – Point of order: state for or against motion
Scott – true
Mark K – for the motion. On the board, not having a member on the BOT, we are sometimes misinformed about what goes on. Saw that earlier as a result. This conference makes the final decisions. Motion brought by the chair and not the board – imbalance created when we do not have someone on the BOT. We are all on the same team. Disturbs me to hear that someone doing their job should be fired from their position, voicing my opinion even if they disagree, should remove me from my position. Commend person for speaking their conviction. Speak for the motion.
Mitch – POI
Kevin Flaws – Speak in favor.
Rick Hoffman: In favor.
Spencer: Point of order – I believe the statement he made…
Chair: That’s out of order.
Rick: When the trustee say that they were forced to use their ultimate authority due to the chair’s refusal Believe that the material mailed to the delegates pursuant to sr 14 and appreciate opportunity to make informed opinion. If I had more time to look over BOT opinion would have liked that too
John Whitaker: in favor. Only read one side. Did not have all info until today. BOT as checks and balances to extent.
Working body helping to keep things understood. Conflict to have one board member coming on to another board.
David Choate: wasn’t part of TEC last year. Not part of decision. Upon leaving conf. Became Trustee.
Point of Order: is he in favor?
David: In opposition. As stated in reports the other day, vote my conscience and listen to debate and vote the way I need to. I saw a couple of emergency situations. Duties include attending WSOB meeting. Started going taking notes, paying attention. While attending saw a problem. Vice Chair that could not perform for personal reasons, never saw him at the meeting. Office Manager needed to leave on maternity leave. Secretary rotated out and his status was unknown. In the year we had an 84K budget deficit. Wondered if we would go to office board meetings without a
Page 20 of 21
quorum. Vote on things affecting CA and if we can’t conduct the business of CA we have an emergency. The other situation was the fact that we voted on this to install the TAL but he had no vote. Again, a problem. The WSBOT govern the office board, had an employee not doing what we asked. The committee chairs’ don’t have a vote, but one person seemed to have a lot of power. It broke my heart to have to use ultimate authority. Watched as the motion to censure brought before us and it clearly bothered a person who is directly affected by this. One more time he was drug through the dirt and it bothered me that it occurred.
Tony Drake: motion to suspend the rules in order to call the question Seconded
Chair: suspending the rules is not necessary, but you can bring motion to close debate
Tony: Pass
Kevin Murphy: against the motion. Do not believe it is for the conference or the WSOB or anyone else to question what the Trustee’s deem an emergency. Their actions as a result of the emergency may be questioned. The BOT may have had several choices, but their choice was not irrational. One cannot censure for which choice they made in invoking the 10th concept. They were in horrible position. Did not have good solution. Don’t think they should be censured. The BOT ought to look to see if there is another emergency in another area.
A number of Trustees’ have talked about the TEC and brought that into discussion. I can speak to it in general terms. Election position is an emergency. Stating that the TEC did the best they could does a disservice to the situation. I urge no vote. If anyone deserves censure its not them.
Call vote. Second.
Motion to close debate carried. With some opposition.
Mitch G: Point of information. Do we have a body beside the 2 boards that could give definitive action of the WSOBT
was harmful or detrimental to CA as a whole.
Chair: If you want the conference transcripts.
Motion on the floor to Censure the WSOBT
Motion fails, with substantial unanimity.
Chair: Other items of new business?
None heard
Continue with the agenda.
Kevin: Information on conference. Referrals handed in will be transcribed into the minutes. If you have statements you want read into the minutes hand them in. intent is to have all referrals out in the first mailing along with yesterday and today summary. Master phone list on table in conference office, please verify your information
Announce: CAWS 2002 August 28, 2002 through September 1, 2002. CAWS 2002 Conference. Four Points Sheraton Hotel (current location) Flier has been handed out.
Laurie: thank everyone and look forward to seeing you next year.
Chair: Completed our agenda with 12 minutes to spare. Remarkable achievement.
Take opportunity to congratulate all of you for working hard and hanging in there. Thank our departing Secretary Brigid. Having worked with her, personally thank Meredith Amos Glaser our departing WSBOT Chair who is departing. She had volunteered to take on an extra year.
We will close the conference with prayer. And a little hope that you will take that aspect back with you as well as the
debates, procedures etc.
Meredith: Motion to adjourn
Second
Page 21 of 21
Motion Carries
BYE BYE. You are the weakest link.