Trevor S – Okay, I have a few notices of new business and we are at the point of the agenda where we will do some conference officers elections. Ruby C is about to be done with her term. I will read the conference co-secretary guideline requirements.
Trevor S reads co-secretary job description—(which has a housekeeping addendum)
Michael C – Nominate Ruby C.
Seconded.
Accepted.
Audz C – Nominate Maria K
Seconded.
Accepted.
Trevor S – Any other nominations? Seeing none, nominations are closed. We now ask each nominee to go to the microphone and give their service resume.
Ruby C – Obviously I know the job details, as I have been doing it here. I am absolutely willing to serve. I do have the typing, organizational and technical skills, I am willing to do another term. And I am not sure what else to add there.
Maria K – Thank you for sharing your experience. I have been nominated the last three years in a row for this position, and at first I was terrified at the idea, last year being a little less nervous, and now I stand being well suited for this position. I have typing and a paralegal background.
Whether it be Ruby or myself, we are both qualified for this position, and I am willing be whatever the outcome.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 19 of 28
Trevor S – I invite you both to leave please. Even though it’s an electronic clicker vote.
Vote for Ruby C – A and Maria K – C
Outcome: MARIA K
Trevor S: Thank you both for your willingness to serve, our next conference co-secretary will be Maria K. The next position to be voted on is Parliamentarian. Reads Parliamentarian requirements – Any nominations?
Justin C – I nominate Russell S.
Seconded.
Accepted.
Trevor S – Any other nominations?
Earl S – Nominates Dawn M.
Dawn M – I am extremely humbled, but at this time; I do not believe I have the qualities to fulfil that commitment at this time.
Trevor S – Any other nominations?
Simone M – Nominates Anne M.
Seconded.
Anne M – I meet the qualifications, in the interest of giving the delegation a choice, I will accept the nomination.
Trevor S – Seeing no other nominations, they are closed. Please speak to your qualifications.
Russell S – I have served all levels in our structure, I believe I meet the requirements and qualifications, albeit working on the even tempered and calm; I am willing to serve this fellowship another term.
Anne M – I told my service story at the Unity breakfast, I do meet the qualifications, it was said to me it is always good to give the fellowship a choice. I am willing to serve.
Trevor S – Thank you, please get out.
Russell S – button A, Anne M – button C
Votes cast. Outcome: Russell S will serve as Parliamentarian for another term.
Russell S – Next for elections is Conference Chairperson.
Russell S reads position requirements. Any nominations?
Deborah G – Anne M.
Seconded.
Kevin M – Trevor S
Seconded.
Earl S – Carl R.
Seconded.
Russell S – Nominations are now closed. Please step up to the mic in order.
Anne M – Same qualifications as before. I have the willingness to serve. I am willing to give the floor a choice. Thank you.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 20 of 28
Trevor S – I am absolutely willing to come back for another two years. I have a little over 20 years qualifications, chair for the last two years, experience as parliamentary…
Carl R – I am humbled that someone knows my name, I decline. Russell S – Thank you, both nominees please leave the room. Anne M – A // Trevor S – C
Outcome: Trevor S will serve as Chairperson for another term.
Trevor S – Thank you so much. Now I need a break. I did make the announcement earlier, that I would allow some 5th concept statements to take place if given advance notification.
Rick K – I would like to express my disappointment for the convention vote. I would like to appeal to the voters of the prevailing side, and having the correct financial status would allow to have a choice without prejudice for the option outside of the United States.
Trevor S – I have been notified the PI committee would like to bring a couple things to the floor.
*****
Stuart J – MOTION:
To change the verbiage on page 58 of the WSCPI Handbook under the heading WSCPI COMMITTEE OFFICERS DUTIES, QUALIFICATIONS & SELECTION
The PI Committee should nominate and select its own officers each year at the beginnings of the first during committee break out session at Conference to take effect at the end of Conference.
Seconded.
Trevor S – Any debate to this motion?
Kevin M – Parliamentary Inquiry – Is this a conference document or internal committee document?
Stuart J – This is in the WSCPI handbook; which is a Conference approved piece of literature.
Rodney D – Friendly Amendment; “to take effect at end of committee’s breakout session”.
Stuart J – No. We do not accept.
Anne M – I speak against motion. We just amended exact sentence in WSM and will conflict in the duties of the officer in selection. I feel there could be controversy between the two.
Rodney D – I speak against, as written. It would still mean their officers would not be elected until the end of conference.
Trevor S – It is stated to take effect, not elect, at end of Conference.
Rose J – Point of Order, is this more of housekeeping for PI manual?
Trevor S – It is my understanding that this is now to bring into light what was brought up from the Guideline choice.
Nathan B – I speak in favor, it does exactly that. This motion brings internal committee guidelines to that in World Service Manual.
Kevin M — Point of Order, these are internal, they do not need Conference approval.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 21 of 28
Trevor S – One second here. Stuart, come here. also, the trustee on PI committee – Jason L. (side discussion ensues)
Trevor S – It has and is a part of this conference, we will rule that it does belong here.
Wade S – Point of Inquiry, I understand the intent was to be in alignment with previously passed motion.
asks to reference
—original motion from yesterday’s conference session without strikes:
a. Motion on page 42 of the World Service manual under WSC COMMITTEE OFFICERS DUTIES, QUALIFICATIONS & SELECTION
“Every Committee should nominate and select their own officers each year at conference prior to submitting their closing reports to the conference committee to become effective after the gavel falls at end of session.”
Wade S – I would like to make a Friendly Amendment: To bring the wording of this motion in alignment with the previous motion.
Seconded.
Trevor S – Objection?
Kevin M – Yes. I should explain, I believe this is more in line with what is intended from the motion by the PI committee. And this would not improve what is currently in the PI manual, it is ambiguous.
Zach A– I believe that the previous motion is stated incorrectly to what we are trying to do.
Anne M – motion to amend motion.
Motion to make amendment.
Kevin M – withdrawn objection
Trevor S – Any objection?
Stuart J – I do not quite understand, the new language is not already better worded than the last motion that was presented?
Trevor S – So, we can withdraw this motion and bring it back when we have the better wording?
Stuart J – yes.
Trevor S – any objection? No. Okay, Motion withdrawn.
*****
Stuart J– Can we come back to this?
Trevor S – After our next order of business. When clear, please bring up a written copy for the secretaries and ourselves.
10 minute break ——————— return at 11:02 am.
Trevor S – Please return to your seats.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 22 of 28
Jessi G – I have announcements. . . TSHIRTS! Come to the office and fill out a form, and we also have lost and found items for you to look at in the office.
Trevor S – To be honest, I’m a bit concerned with the look of the room, please indicate by pushing any button you want, I need a vote count. We have 93 votes in the room, we only need 87 to conduct business. Please consider next year to arrange your flights accordingly.
*****
Dawn M – Motion – To adopt the concept of a pamphlet ‘Personal Conduct Matters and the First Tradition”
Seconded.
Trevor S – Would you like to speak to the motion?
Dawn M – Originally, members made the referral to LCF to consider a card/reading and guidance to meetings regarding personal conduct for various matters. They referred the referral to WSBT as they thought it was outside the scope of LCF committee. If they adopt a pamphlet it would be in the scope. When I arrived at Conference and met people, this was the referral that was being conversed.
Henry A – A lot of people might be bored with this; but, we are putting people in contact with predators and no person can ever be denied the ability to enter into Cocaine Anonymous. We do not get to dictate who can attend a CA meeting. Every group can do whatever they would like – even if it is the right to be wrong, but at this level, we cannot put our name on something like a code of conduct to restrict membership. It is an unfortunately difficult issue.
Bart Van Der P – I speak in favor, my district supports this SR14. We deal with this issue.
Kevin M – I speak in favor of this concept. I started an OSA a few years in, we gained a member who was toxic. Because it was online, it was hard to restrict and predict posting, and because of the platform, it was impossible to control. This member would prey on other members offsite, about 6 months later, we gathered Tradition 1 & 3, that states we must have unity, but we also have a member that is toxic for Tradition One. We had him in a 3 month timeout as compromise, and the member did not return. It was uncomfortable and it was not taken lightly. The fellowship must survive to be available for everyone. This tension between Traditions 1 & 3 needs to be spoken to.
Brenda M – I was chairing in an area where the Insurance policy paid during an altercation in which we settled. I approve this concept, because I think the discussion should be had. You have to set expectations of behavior in order to be able to tap them on the shoulder and align that behavior.
Justine K – I stand here with an example from UK – most emotive subject in assembly, I must do the job my area has sent me to do. I am fully behind in support. It is just approving the concept at this point in time. My concern is that the power of the purse may speak if this doesn’t get through.
Tom P – I speak against this motion. In our recovery text it states, “to kindly act once in awhile isn’t enough, we must be good Samaritan everyday….” These are the 12 Step Promises. This is what we get to accept in this game. This motion restricts how we do 12 Step work. Which is an issue. The person who is causing those problems, a pamphlet will not stop them. Bringing love
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 23 of 28
and compassion and addressing these attitudes, it is not easy. I used to go into fits when I first came in. I was loved and hugged and talked to, I’ve called police on people in our meetings, and have controlled these situations. The example and care that comes through the recovered addict will address this without this motion.
Justin C – I speak against motion. This is a motion that LCF brought, as a concept, and there was a vocal discussion in the breakout, it was not voted to approve. This is taking up people’s time and resources to work on a concept that may not be supported on the floor. These groups are autonomous, they can create their own byline within their purview to make that decision. Creating a pamphlet or a card will not stop an addict from behaving how they choose in a meeting.
Henry A – If there was a code of conduct at CA, I doubt I would be here today. They let me come up and describe my disease as I saw it at the mic. But you accepted me. I have to have hope for everyone that comes through the door. I have to have courage. With broken podiums, doors, police attended meetings. We have to have faith in CA, and know that we mess things up, and we are here together making things work. We have to have faith; if we could wreck this thing, we would have done it. It’s a nightmare some of the things that happen, you have to have hope faith and courage with this.
Michael C – I speak in favor, when people come they are looking for a solution, and relief, to find peace. That’s what we should be concerned about. There should be a divided line that states the kind of behavior that is acceptable. We take everybody, but behavior that makes someone else be afraid is not our goal. There was a predator attending some of our meetings, calling our phone line. A toxic person wasting time and displaying negative behavior. If that person is here for recovery, our rooms are open. If not, please don’t. This room is here for the same reason, help people formulate policy and help people get sober, help people get stronger. We will be seen as not the best option if we do not take the avenue to further that. The sick will always be around, but we should not condone behavior by saying, sorry we can’t do anything about it.
Audz C – I speak in favor. Violence & personal conduct; I think this is not to create a pamphlet to tell members how to behave. Instead it trains and tells the fellowship how to respond when violence is displayed. Reads excerpt from AA literature.
Lucas S – I speak in favor of this concept. We have 6 group requirements… Tradition 1, states that our common welfare comes first. It needs to be addressed, and it can be within this concept.
Kimberly C – I speak in favor. We had a group that was thriving, we had a very disruptive member, daunting and intimidating… that startled the newcomers. If we don’t hang together, we die separately. This kind of conduct in our rooms, drives people out to be alone. This will not change any body’s behavior. But it will bring us leverage and courage to verbalize our code of conduct, for the greater good.
Susan B – I’m a little torn, I will speak against. Reason being, I believe we start to tread on Tradition 2, but there is a solution. Much as the treasurer issue in the past, trustees created a stand alone document titled “trust is lost” I would hope our current board of trustees would
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 24 of 28
create another standalone document that would help have some general guidelines from the trustees would help those who need help.
Marshall S – I speak against motion. referencing Tradition 3. To control member’s behavior, and draw the line. I’ve acted inappropriately, offensively and I am here now.
Jean Pierre S – I speak in favor. It’s good to talk and hear these points of view, both in thinking and being there. Tradition 1 who is there, Tradition 2 who is in charge… when we stop people from being at another meeting we are abusing people. We can make people that are abusive are not welcome. We need to stand up for those who feel overwhelmed. If we can create a document that is read at the beginning of the meeting that lets the predator know they are being watched.
Jason L – I speak against. I just think it’s not our business. I don’t understand why you need a card to state that the law of the land is still in accordance while in the meeting. Things get out of hand and they should be dealt with. My partner says, when you put something in writing, it has more value. If we start writing how we feel how people should behave, at this level, not at the group level. Then where does it stop? Some of the behavior especially in psychosis, those things are shared in a meeting. What are we going to do next? Is that also bad behavior/offensive. We start going down a road with putting in writing what a subjective behavior looks like. It’s a completely different thing. Some of the stuff we are talking about is just newcomer behavior. I do not sack the guy or ban him from a meeting, and if we are overly prescriptive. We come in full of fear, comfort is hearing “loose” terms that make us feel at ease. If you can’t allude to sexual behavior in a meeting, and circumvent the pushback of uncomfortability then it can be made on a group level. I do not think it should be created on a conference floor, and this is a slippery slope to determine what is acceptable in a meeting.
Maria K – I speak in favor. Maybe some of what is discussed is taken out of context. We should have a document that helps those within that Area, district or group of how to manage inappropriate behavior. And how do we show these people not to abolish them for their behavior, but to show new behavior vs old behavior. I know we have all been inappropriate, offensive and being told that I can’t come back would’ve been detrimental. I think there should be a guide to deal with these things in an effective way, and conduct to be looking towards.
Trevor S – So far, there have been 10 for, 8 in opposition… just FYI, we will end at 1pm
Jeanette J – I speak in favor of motion. The maker asks that the concept be taken forward. I am reminded of recently a newcomer approached and said that a person in the meeting she knew from High School and he seemed off. In a couple of days, found out that he had committed a major felony, and she was then afraid of being in a meeting. What I understand is this concept is for guidance for the group as to how to deal with matter that come in the group. Not to tell anyone how to or not to act. This is an opportunity to educate and offer guidance as to using the principles and offer information to give them an opportunity to sit in a meeting. The euro region has tremendous growth, a lot of new members and meetings, we have other pamphlets that provide information is how we should sponsor others, etc, principles, concepts, ways to bring recovery to our community. The initial referral was sent to LCF, the maker has every right to come back now. It obviously shows that the maker has passion. It is an opportunity to move the concept into committee and hopefully is responded with open mind and inclusivity. And
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 25 of 28
good thoughts as to what should be considered for a pamphlet or not. Due diligence should be given for the idea of this informational delegation.
Jay N – Parliamentary Inquiry, do we still have the quorum on the floor?
Trevor S – I believe we do.
Norma Jean L – I feel passionate about this subject, initially I wanted to speak against the motion, because in our area, I remember going to a meeting years ago, and she would come in and smoke, and go to the bathroom and you could hear a bottle hit the floor, and people would say to put them out, and she would just come for the coffee and the snacks, and when it was asked who had a year sober, she stood up… if they had put her out I don’t know where she would be. I feel like it’s up to the trusted servants and the members of the group to display the concern of the fellowship. GSR/Secretary workshops teach the chair people of the meetings how to deal with these individuals. Just go to those people. Some of us have suffered from grave mental and spiritual disorders. Maybe we do need some guidelines, and if all else fails, call the police.
Zach A – I speak against, I am an addict. My primary purpose does not align with restrictions of those. We have a lot of open meetings. I am a leader, it is my duty to take action. This is a leadership issue. They haven’t been brought up in the program, to bring this up and lock it down. If we were to show our bad behavior, and we didn’t instill forgiveness and embrace an open-door policy, we are pushing away those that are dying and sick. I don’t think this will do that properly.
Albina K – Call the question.
Clicker vote 16 – for 105 // 6 against, motion to call the question passes
*****
Trevor S – Prepare to vote on the original motion.
Clicker vote 17 motion – for 52 // 62 against. Motion Fails.
Trevor S – 10 minute break, be back on time please.
—————————————————————————–
Trevor S – Please come back to order at 12:06 pm. 5th Concept Statement to the mic please.
Kevin M – I was sad to see this (referring to concept of pamphlet about personal conduct) was voted down as I believe a committee should look at the conflict between Tradition 1 and Tradition 3. There are people who take part of one and say it overrides the other. There are all kinds of angles to this issue. There needs to be some type of guidance from this body. We know that people coming into these meetings are ill, but we need to endorse some type of guidance.
Susan L – The hotel has given us late checkout, but you will have to get your keys re-keyed because they were turned off at Noon. You have to be in the checkout line BEFORE 1:30 pm or you will be charged the extended-stay fee.
Trevor S – Public Information has new business.
Michael C – Point of Order, quorum count please.
Trevor S – Sure.
Quorum Count done.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 26 of 28
Trevor S – We are 3 over what we need for quorum. Any vote cast that doesn’t get the 87 votes needed, will not be accepted.
Henry A – Parliamentary Inquiry – We are not permitted to abstain from a vote?
Trevor S – To abstain, press any button on the clicker besides A or C. It has been happening all Conference.
*****
Stuart J – Motion
To change the name of the “WSCPI COMMITTEE HANDBOOK” to read “WSCPI COMMITTEE GUIDELINES.”
Seconded.
Trevor S – Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Stuart J – Not at this time.
Tom P – Point of Order, has the PI Committee put this forward?
Stuart J – Yes.
Tom P – Has there been a motion from the Committee to do this?
Stuart J – The ones here agree with this motion.
Jason L – In favor of this motion. This is to clear up earlier confusion. This document is the guidelines just like any other committee guidelines, it was just named a ‘handbook’ for some reason. We’re not sure why. It isn’t a handbook, it is the guidelines for the committee approved by this Conference. The committee just want the name to come in line with other committee guidelines.
Trevor S – Seeing no other debate, please prepare to vote.
Clicker vote 19 – 102 for, 2 against, motion passes.
*****
*****
Stuart J –
MOTION:
To change the verbiage on page 58 of the WSCPI Handbook under the heading WSCPI COMMITTEE OFFICERS DUTIES, QUALIFICATIONS & SELECTION
The PI Committee should nominate and select its own officers each year at the beginnings of the first committee breakout session at Conference
To be replaced with
The P.I. Committee should nominate and select their officers each year at conference prior to submitting their closing reports to the Conference Committee, to become effective after the gavel falls at the end of Conference.
Seconded.
Trevor S – Do you wish to speak to this motion?
Stuart J – No.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 27 of 28
Trevor S – Seeing no debate, prepare to vote.
Clicker Vote 20 – 101 for, 2 against, motion passes.
*****
Jay F – We will be at this hotel for Conference next year, August 28 – September 1, 2019. The theme will be ‘Many voices, One Sound.’ Thank you for letting us be of service.
Trevor S – Are there any other announcements? Thank you all for sticking with us and sticking it out for Cocaine Anonymous and doing the business that needed to be done. Thank you to our outgoing co-secretary, Ruby. Thank you to all 4th year delegates who are rolling out. Thank you all for your service. As Anne is not present at the moment, Rodney, please make the motion.
Rodney D – Motion to adjourn.
Seconded.
Trevor S – Are there any objections? Seeing none, we are adjourned at 12:24 pm. Circle up and Ruby will lead us in a closing prayer.
Approved – Redacted Conference 2018 Day 5 Daily Minutes Page 28 of 28