Tony D.: Everyone take a seat. September 3, 2011 at 9:50 a.m. We have a few pieces of new business. There is a motion to rescind the motion for the TEC to provide a brief resume of candidates:
Duane M.: MOTION: To rescind motion from the 2010 Conference that the TEC provide a brief resume of candidates.
Second.
Tony D.: Would you like to speak to the motion?
Duane M.: Yes, we feel this is a waste of time as we need to trust the regions Michael A.: I am against this motion as written. Maybe this information can be made electronically to save paper.
Jason L.: I speak for the motion. We are not able to get all the information regarding the candidates from the resume anyway.
Kurt L.: I speak against the motion. I am very uncomfortable with the notion to vote on something I am unable to fully review. Why would we not want every delegate to be fully informed?
Dathan M: I speak in favor of the motion. We have a TEC committee that is going to thoroughly review the candidates and the reading of the resumes on the floor just wastes time.
Susan B.: I speak against the motion. I believe the motion previously passed is reasonable.
Cynthia S.: I am speaking in favor of the motion. I am on the S&B and it was not about the paper. We looked at the resumes and discovered that the only real difference was sobriety dates. We do not feel that this can give a real in depth look at that person. I believe we need to trust the TEC to do their job.
Bob C.: I speak against the motion. One of the most important parts of the group conscious is that it is an informed decision. I believe that conference is responsible to consider the candidates, even in a brief resume.
David B.: I speak for the motion: I believe that getting a resume in such a short time before the TEC convenes is not enough time for me to review and make an informed decision.
Approved Page 18 of 29
Mike S.: I speak in favor of the motion. I believe our process works!
Patrick P.: I speak in favor of the motion. It is our Caucuses that take the time to gather the information regarding the candidates and we need to support and trust the process.
Earnest M.: Point of order… Is he speaking for or against the motion?
Tony D.: He began with stating that he is speaking for the motion.
Eric T.: I speak in favor of the motion. We are not actually voting; only ratifying.
Inconvenience was not a part of bringing this motion to the floor.
Bill H.: I speak in favor of the motion. One of the first things I learned in sobriety was to trust the process; that includes ALL pieces of it. The regions know who they are nominating and I do not believe they will bring anything but qualified candidates.
Roy R.: Call the question.
Tony D.: Motion passes.
Original motion to rescind: Motion passes with simple majority.
Michael A.: Call a count
Tony D.: Ian Y. and Brian T. will count. All those in favor to rescind? All those opposed? Motion passes 81 favor 36 opposed.
Kurt L.: I would ask the group is it appropriate to trust people to create a budget
…
Terry M.: Point of order…Is this a 5th concept statement?
Tony D.: Yes
Kurt L.: without providing valuable documentation? I think our fellowship should be as informed as possible and the resumes help with that.
Kelli F: MOTION: Historians and Founders and replace with Historical Contact Information. Who Were The Founders of Your Area? and replace it with Who Could Be Contacted for Historical Information? Second.
Tony D.: Do you want to speak to the motion?
Approved Page 19 of 29
Kelli F.: My concern is that erroneous information could be given out, as to who the historians are. We are an ego deflating program and the title seems a bit egocentric.
Siobhan A.: Is there a reason we ratify from the floor?
Bob C.: The Trustees passed a resolution that there are no founders.
Patrick P.: I want to make a Friendly Amend to use the word organizers.
Kelli F.: I do not accept.
Cynthia C.: Friendly amendment to replace Can they be Contacted? to Would you be willing to contact them?
Kellie F.: Yes, I accept
Patrick P.: We have an objective to achieve; to make sure that we provide a clear understanding of where we come from….our history.
Kurt L.: This is a really good example of trusting the process.
Jennifer S.: MOTION: To table this motion and allow the committee 30 minutes to revise the motion.
Tony D.: MOTION PASSES.
Donovan B.: Point of Information. Aren’t we going to take a 1/2 hour break?
Tony D.: That committee gets 30 minutes to revise their motion; we continue with business.
Jason L.: MOTION: To have the Conference Committee compose a guideline defining Pre, At Conference, and Post Conference referrals and how they are dealt with under CA WSC Standing Rules 13 and 14. The guidelines are to be included in our WSM following the approval at Conference. Second.
Tony D.: Would you like to speak to the motion?
Jason L.: Yes. The reason I brought this motion to the floor was because there were 2 items sent out as SR-13 and SR-14 and they did not satisfy the qualifications for either. In the UK we hold a pre conference meeting for material to look at and have discovered that we do not get information in time to get it to our fellowship to make informed decisions.
Approved Page 20 of 29
Jay F.: Motion to Table until old business of last year.
Second.
Tony D.: Motion fails.
Duane M: I speak against the motion per the 10th Concept.
Paul M.: I speak for the motion. Personally I feel that by doing it this way will allow us to bring back the information we need to in an appropriate time frame. Mike S.: I speak against the motion. The committee has the referral system now and will be working on it.
Jennifer S.: I speak against the motion. It undermines the committee working on the referral.
Jason L.: This referral 5560 was submitted in 2008, and another in 2010 and a new referral this year and none have been addressed.
Siobhan A.: I speak against the motion. My concern is that if we don’t get the response that want we will use this guideline to manipulate the process. Bill H.: Call the question
Tony D.: Motion passes.
Robin L.: Call the count
Tony D.: Motion passed 89 for 30 against.
Roy R.: MOTION: To expand the WSCCC executive election committee to include the whole convention committee & all Trustees … no second
Elizabeth S.: Does the Conference Chair intend to address changing the dates of the Conference because business is ending early for the 3rd year in a row.
Trevor S.: We are aware of the situation and have not come up with a definite solution; it will be on the conference committee’s agenda to address soon.
Roy R.: To expand the WSCCC executive election committee to include the whole convention committee & all Trustees. Second.
Tony D.: Ruled out of order.
Jason L.: MOTION: Full resumes of all Trustee slate members be added to the pre-conference Delegate Mailing. Second.
Approved Page 21 of 29
Tony D.: please line up at the microphone for debate.
Jason L.: The Regional election of member of Trustee is supposed to be done 5 months prior to Conference. I don’t see any reason why they can’t be sent out electronically in the Delegate mailing 2 months prior to Conference. We can review rather than rubber-stamp.
Siobhan A.: I speak against the motion. My concern is that the body on the floor and the fellowship will begin to influence the TEC process. I believe in the spiritual nature of the TEC process as it is now.
Scott K.: I speak against the motion. I believe this is an end run around another motion previously defeated.
Joy H.: I speak against the motion because not all Regions have their meetings 5 months prior to the conference.
Terry M.: I speak against the motion. Couple of reasons. One is the spiritual nature of filling out the questions for the resume. I had to look inside myself and personally, I believe looking at the answers to all the questions, it takes away from the spiritual nature. Then all of a sudden, I am judging before I start processing. Decisions could be influenced.
Peter O.: I speak against the motion. We don’t need to micromanage this process.
Elizabeth S.: I speak against the motion as I believe that it is important to believe in the group conscience. The Areas submit the names because they believe the choices are good ones, then they go to the Regions, etc. I would like everyone to know who all is being interviewed but that is not how the process works. We now have representation on the TEC from each region. We have to believe that they are speaking the voice of their region and I believe in the group conscience. I understand that sometimes my fear gets in the way and I want to know more. But I believe we need to leave things the way they are and work the process from where it begins to all the way through.
Sonya S.: Call the question. Second.
Tony D.: Motion clearly passes. Original motion fails.
Approved Page 22 of 29
Tony D.: Any other items of new business. Are you ready, Kellie?
Kellie F.: MOTION to remove from the table the motion regarding the Archive oral statement. Second.
Tony D.: Motion passes to remove from table.
Kellie F.: MOTION: Strike Historians and Founders Replace with Historical
Contact(s)
Strike Who are the founders in your Area? Replace Who are the historical contacts in your area?
Strike Can they be contacted for this project? Replace with Would you be willing to contact them for this project?
Tony D.: any other debate on the motion? Seeing none, prepare yourselves to vote. Motion passes unanimously. Any other items of new business?
Jason L.: 5th Concept Statement – I appreciate that the Regions take due diligence with the slate of nominees and the process that TEC provides; however, I’m confused why this Conference believes that it is reasonable to vote based on no information. Why take a vote based on an uninformed conscience? Siobhan A.: Is it not a legal requirement for the slate to be ratified by this Floor? Is there a reason why we ratify on the Floor?
Tony D.: It is in the WSM and we will not debate this now.
Bob C.: It was previously mentioned that the previous Trustees selected the new Trustees. Then it went to the Floor and all the important decisions are made by the conference floor as a whole, it was decided that the Floor be involved in the decision as part of the process that was put into place.
Michael A.: MOTION to reconsider the previously approved motion regarding the Conference Committee and the SR 13 and SR 14 report. Second.
Tony D.: This motion is debatable and requires 2/3 vote. Debate will be about why you think this should be reconsidered. If this passes, the original motion will be represented.
Michael A.: I was confused and did research to get more information.
David B.: I speak in favor of reconsideration because more information has been received since that vote was taken and perhaps we need to look at this again.
Approved Page 23 of 29
Duane M.: I speak in favor of motion to reconsider because I believe when hands went up, people were miscontruing what they were voting for.
Kim S.: I speak in favor of the motion as that there is information that needs to be brought to the Floor to better inform the Conference.
Tony D.: Motion passes with 2/3 majority. Original motion MOTION: To have the Conference Committee compose a guideline defining Pre, At Conference, and Post Conference referrals and how they are dealt with under CA WSC Standing Rules 13 and 14. The guidelines to be included in our WSM following the approval at Conference.
Second.
Jason L.: At the moment, we do not have appropriate guidelines. We often find ourselves with a number of referrals put forth in the Conference for several years now. While investigating, I went to numerous people, Conference Chair, Regional Trustee and no one could answer the questions. Eventually, Kim S. answered the questions. I find that concerning. Our members can actually put forward referrals that are meant to be dealt with and some are not. The responses in the closing reports from both committees were short, pat answers. Part of the problem is they aren’t made very clear and they aren’t read out in the report if no action is taken. If we don’t understand, how on earth are the people in our Areas are supposed to understand it. I was asked and told to do this and I don’t believe that I am trying to end run the process. Our procedures are not working for the moment.
Michael A.: I voted on prevailing side last time and I voted on what I was hearing not knowledge. We haven’t even given the Conference Committee time to respond to this referral since it was received at 11:30 last night. We should give them opportunity to reply to this referral.
Duane M.: I speak against the motion. I respect our friend from the UK and admire his passion. We should also respect that this referral was received late and the Conference Committee is not in this alone and we will be working with them on this issue. This year we are committed to doing the same. We have a
Approved Page 24 of 29
game plan to answer our member’s from the UK questions and in spirit of Concept 10 a chance to participate.
Jay F.: I speak against the motion. It was my primary responsibility to process all the referrals. One motion two years ago was to S&B, it is true that we received the referral from S&B Thursday night late. I go back to issue why we have process this year now that every referral goes into a spreadsheet and you receive an email that your referral went where it was supposed to go. Give us a chance to correct this rather than mandating that we do it.
Russell S.: I speak in favor of motion. I’ve heard debate and I am aware, as someone who has submitted referrals over the years, there never seems to have been any conclusion. The way the different referrals are handled and there is no reference as to how certain referrals were referenced. People told me what they believed it was to be but it has been several years since I put a referral in requesting answers to these questions.
Cynthia S. I speak in favor of motion. I believe this was brought to the floor to behoove the Committee to do something they haven’t done before. We wouldn’t be forcing this to be done, if something had been done in the past.
Ryan E.: I speak against the motion. Committee didn’t receive until late last night, we should respect their authority to deal with the referral. If Jason’s point is to draw attention to this issue, it has been done.
Paul M.: I speak for the motion for lots of the reasons that have already been stated. We really need something now to take back to our Areas and not just a promise in order to maintain confidence in this democratic procedure.
Ferman G.: I speak in favor. I am new. When I read it, I didn’t know what it was. I had Lawrence to help me through my understanding.
Kim S.: I speak against the motion. Some information is that this is on the radar for many years. The process is slow but evolving. With new technology, with referrals on line, but people do have to handle the process and I appreciate the representation of your Area’s concerns. They do have something in place and is continually evolving.
Approved Page 25 of 29
Jason L.: Was I correct in hearing that the European Trustee has been bringing this forward for 6 years. I see he is nodding.
Duane M.: I speak against the motion. I want the body to understand this motion definitely fetters the ability of the Committee to handle the referral. What we look at is what the maker of the referral is intending. We are looking at detailing the entire process not just the 3 terms. I understand this frustration and I can’t say it enough that our Committee has a track record and we will look at the spirit intended. We will go further into it as we do all of our referrals. Please do not make a motion to micromanage or tell us to do what we have already committed to do.
Brian T.: I speak against the motion. I have worked on 2 committees for many years and I see most come to vote that may resemble other referrals. I am a big fan of letting the Committees do their work. Let’s see what they come up and if they refuse to do something, then that is the time to bring this forward.
Kurt L.: I speak for the motion. This is just asking for clarity and not to radically alter. Seems to be paralysis by analysis.
John M.: I speak for the motion. This is not about disrespecting any committee or concept. This has been on the radar for so long. It is about clarity. I believe it is the next right thing to do.
Janice C.: Call the question. Second.
Tony D.: Motion clearly meets the 2/3 majority.
MOTION: To have the Conference Committee compose a guideline defining Pre, At Conference, and Post Conference referrals and how they are dealt with under CA WSC Standing Rules 13 and 14. The guidelines to be included in our WSM following the approval at Conference. Second.
Robin L.: I would like to request a hand count.
Approved Page 26 of 29
Tony D.: We will do that. Prepare yourselves to vote. Motion passes 71 to 58. Any other items of New Business? Seeing none. We have a couple of things to handle.
Bill H.: MOTION to suspend the rules to finish today’s agenda. Second.
Tony D.: Motion passes meeting 2/3 requirement. Next up, we have elections.
Susan B.: Could the Chair please not adjourn until the Archive Oral History form has been presented to the Floor?
Tony D.: We will try. Let’s take about a 10 minute break and resume at noon and then we will have elections.
BREAK
Tony D.: We are called back to order at 12:07 pm.
Robin L.: Is there someone who goes by the name Sonya F.?
Floor: It is Sonya S.:
Trevor S.: I would like to bring the Floor’s attention regarding the behavior of members. It is highly reprehensible to attack members verbally or physically. Jason L.: The vote we just took, I believe was 71 to 58. I am not reading substantial unanimity. To promote unity around this and also in response to the information put forward from the floor, I would like to put forward an amendment to the motion.
MOTION to amend previously passed motion. Second.
MOTION: To have ask that the Conference Committee compose a guideline defining Pre, At Conference, and Post Conference referrals and how they are dealt with under CA WSC Standing Rules 13 and 14. The guidelines to be included in our WSM following the approval at Conference.
Approved Page 27 of 29
Second.
Tony D.: speak to the motion?
Jason L.: This was not directed to anyone and the lack of understanding around the subject seems to have plagued a large number of us here. It is not any particular committee, but rather a number of committees over a long period of time.
Tony D.: Any other debate on Motion to amend previously motion. Prepare to vote. Motion passes with substantial unanimity. Seeing no more New Business, we will proceed to election for Co-Secretary. Qualifications read. We will take nominations.
Brian T.: Kim S. – accepted.
Cynthia S.: Jay F. – accepted.
Dan J.: Ruby L. – accepted via email.
Tony D.: seeing no more nominations, we will close nominations. We will hear from the nominees. We will vote and narrow down to two candidates and then vote again. I am going to ask the candidates leave the room. Everyone vote for one candidate only and then we will narrow it down to 2 candidates and vote again.
Terry M.: Point of Information – all that was asked to do was whether she would be willing. She should be allowed to have someone state her qualifications.
Roy R.: Could we email her?
Tony D.: I believe Robin has something from her regarding her qualifications but I won’t allow someone to speak for her qualifications.
Bill H.: Would the Chair consider that since she was nominated from last year’s Conference?
Robin L.: Read email response and qualifications from Ruby L..
Tony D.: Need 2 non-voting members. We will vote and narrow down to two candidates and then vote again. I am going to ask the candidates leave the room. Everyone vote for one candidate only and then we will narrow it down to 2
Approved Page 28 of 29
candidates and vote again. Our top 2 vote getters were Kim S. and Ruby L.. So we will now vote again. The new Conference Co-Secretary is Kim S. Thank you to all the candidates for their willingness to serve. Couple of announcements. A member asked me to close with Serenity Prayer last night and I was tired and forgot. My apologies.
Robin L.: Please return your green name badge holders. We recycle. The Dailies are being printed. Fill out your evaluation.
Paul M.: Please see me about the Unity Committee signup sheets. Please consider if you are saving your Area some money, would they consider donating that savings to World.
Ian Y.: In May, when we will be meeting again, we sold out of the black tshirts, have a few white ones and have some raffle tickets. We haven’t had much response to Outreach appeal, please give me your information. That would be really cool.
Dan J.: Please take the CA Lifeline with enthusiasm and vigor.
Duane M.: The Inland Empire along with Long Beach has been volunteering here and if you are within driving range of the WSO, please step up and help out. Michael H.: We need bids for the 2015 World Service Convention. Go back to your Areas and talk about getting a bid together from your Areas.
Tony D.: If you are a first year delegate or Alternate, and this is your first Conference. Please stand! YEA!!! I personally thank you. Last year, delegate or Chair, please stand. YEA!!! Office Board Members and Trustees rolling out, please stand. Last Sentence of the long form of the 12 Traditions read and asked Kim and Tom to close this year’s Conference.
Kim S. & Tom P.: Mr. Chair, motion to adjourn the Conference.
Second.
Motion passes unanimously.
Approved Page 29 of 29