Kevin Murphy: It is 9:30 and we are back in session. We have no projector, one PC and the taper working. I will be using pen and paper so bear with me. We have completed most of the committee business. There is one pending motion from the LCF committee. I’m going to have to read that, it’s a series of motions regarding We Can Recover.
Motion: To revise paragraph 2 of “We Can Recover” as follows
The problem, as we see it, consists of an obsession of the mind and an allergy of the body. The obsession is a continued and irresistible thought of cocaine and the next high. The allergy creates an absolute inability to stop using once we begin.
So that the revised paragraph would read:
Approved Page 115
The problem, as we see it, consists of an obsession of the mind and an allergy of the body. The obsession is a continued and irresistible thought of the next high. The allergy creates an absolute inability to stop using once we begin.
Second.
Kevin Murphy: Would you like to speak to your motion?
Michael Gabriel: Yes. We would like to say thank you to the floor. We have re-crafted these motions to make the best use of our time. It is the premier reading. Removing the word cocaine bring it in-line with our literature and its inclusiveness.
Nick Alexander: parliamentary inquiry – After reviewing the LCF guidelines, talks about.
Kevin Murphy: That’s not a question.
Nick Alexander: The chair made a ruling that we could not amend from the floor.
I would like a ruling if we can amend from the floor.
Kevin Murphy: I mean to add a plural or change a tense. Not do what the committee has done.
Benjamin Lachey: I speak against the motion. I have spoken to a lot of this, but I came into the program of CA, not and all other mind altering substances anonymous.
Deborah Wilbert: I understand your intent to be inclusive. Again we are cocaine anonymous and I believe our first step and other parts of the program speaks volumes to the newcomer that we are inclusive. But I would like to see a cocaine addict see cocaine, not just the next high.
Michael Higgins: I speak against the motion. This piece of literature has not been changed in 10 years. It suited me just fine and I stayed. Thank you.
Approved Page 116
Eric Thorn: I speak against this motion. I appreciate the attempt to update the literature. I am in CA because I’m a cocaine addict. I am not willing sacrifice myself so that others feel included.
Rose Jones: In the spirit of the group conscious this is CA and I’ve heard it over and over again. In order to strike, I am against it.
Kevin Murphy: You are to limit yourself to one paragraph.
Rose Jones: Okay. Back home there are a lot of addicts that come there but are not CA. So striking cocaine out of CA is not spiritual to me or the fellowship. Marc Harvey: Call the question. Or in the alternative, to hear 2 more for. Kevin Murphy: I will rule that out of order.
Michael Averill: I’d like to assure you it’s not taking cocaine out of our readings. We are trying to make it more consistent. In 2009, How it Works become something of the past and this is our literature for the future. And we are trying to secure a stable document that will stay with us a long time.
Cynthia Cronkhite: I speak in favor of this motion. When I got here cocaine was my drug of no choice. I understood the obsession; I had trouble with the allergy part. We have a lot of literature that says, if you want to stop you are welcome here. If we don’t take this drug-specific message out, what kind of message are we sending.
Dathan Martin: I speak against the motion. I know it was a lot of hard work. How far are we veering from CA. I’m not going to another meeting. Next year what we going to do, remove cocaine from everything and then take the C off our logo? Every time we are moving away. We just put the peroxide How it Works before we have to say this and this. You can’t say cocaine at a cocaine anonymous meeting. We have to go back every time.
Ian Young: I speak against the motion because I talk to people who work in the drug field. The outside world, the profession people think CA is primarily is for cocaine anonymous. When a newcomer comes in the room, it’s important for them to have that identification. I heard you referencing cocaine, it empowered
Approved Page 117
me to consider stop using cocaine. Please keep cocaine in our literature because we are CA.
Kevin Murphy: I asked someone to step aside, please let the people speak for the motion.
I will limit debate 2 more against and 4 more in favor.
Kellie Frederici: I speak in favor of this motion. I heard a lot of I, I, I, but this is we, we, we. But today I’m different because of CA. We have an all-inclusive fellowship and I believe our literature should reflect that. I think we have to think very carefully what we are doing with this piece. I have been looking at it for years on this committee. I believe it’s the best interest for the growth of our fellowship which is so vital today. We always say the newcomer is the most important person in the room. I want this fellowship to be inclusive in every possible way. I think we need to compromise or surrender and think about the newcomer actually hearing this.
Duane Miller: I speak in favor of this motion. I’m an addict. I appreciate the effort, time, thought, the heated debate you had to go through to come up with this. Some new people, if they have the ability to put aside something I might want, that’s our principle duty. This thing is more than about cocaine. The deal is about recovery. We talk about we want the fellowship to grow, how do we do that if we don’t include? Sometimes the literature has to be updated to include others in the fellowship. I think any change we make that’s close, needs to think about it. Needs to have substantial unanimity. I hope it passes.
Bill Hood: I speaking against the motion, and I am not sitting aside. I appreciate the work the committee has done. I went to a CA meeting from an H&I meeting. I went because I heard there was coffee. I found something that was all-inclusive. From day one to this day I could listen to Who is a Cocaine Addict and listen to and read we can recover and I can relate to every word. I was looking for an escape. I believe this effort to remove cocaine leads us down the road AAOMSA.
Approved Page 118
Peter Olsen: speak in favor of motion. We need to grow and make efforts to be more inclusive. When I hear a reading such as the proposed new reading, I realize that I am in the fellowship that I need to be in. I am an addict. I like the way this new reading is going and I don’t understand why people don’t understand why we are trying to broaden our fellowship more inclusive.
Nick Alexander: speak in favor of motion. I don’t want to waste the floor time saying what has already been said. From what I gather, I keep hearing “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and I don’t buy it. We are deciding what kind of literature we want to have for the future. The removal of the “cocaine” from this literature. We don’t have to say everytime to be CA.
Teresa Reed: speaking against the motion. For a long time, I was one of the few addicts in my Area. When the newcomers come into the rooms stopped when they hear the name of our meetings. That’s how we are defined. Why are we afraid of the word “cocaine” if that is who we are.
Kevin Murphy: I deeply dislike limited debate. But we are under some time constraints. If we are going to spend an hour and half on each of these 4 parts, we are never going to get through it.
Motion: To revise paragraph 2 of “We Can Recover” as follows
The problem, as we see it, consists of an obsession of the mind and an allergy of the body. The obsession is a continued and irresistible thought of cocaine and the next high. The allergy creates an absolute inability to stop using once we begin.
So that the revised paragraph would read:
Approved Page 119
The problem, as we see it, consists of an obsession of the mind and an allergy of the body. The obsession is a continued and irresistible thought of the next high. The allergy creates an absolute inability to stop using once we begin.
Second.
Kevin Murphy: prepare yourselves to vote. In the opinion of the Chair, the motion fails.
Motion: To revise paragraph 3 of “We Can Recover” as follows:
We wish to assure you that there is a solution and that recovery is possible. It begins with abstinence and continues with practicing the Twelve Steps of recoveryC.A.’s 12-Step program, one day at a time. Our program, the Twelve Steps of Cocaine Anonymous, is tThe means by which we move from the problem of drug addiction to the solution of recovery is the Twelve Steps of Cocaine Anonymous
So that the revised paragraph would read
We wish to assure you that there is a solution and that recovery is possible. It begins with abstinence and continues with practicing C.A.’s 12-Step program, one day at a time. The means by which we move from the problem of drug addiction to the solution of recovery is the Twelve Steps of Cocaine Anonymous:
Second.
Kevin Murphy: speak to your motion?
Earnest Martin: not at this time.
Marc Harvey: Motion to limit debate – 5 for, 5 against. Second.
Kevin Murphy: that is in order. No debate. Prepare yourselves to vote. Motion passes with clear 2/3 majority.
Approved Page 120
Cynthia Lauletta: speak against the motion. I believe it was actually more profound and perfect the way it was originally written.
Alan Shields: speak in favor of the motion and a great step for CA to stand on own two feet.
Mike Seden: speak in favor of the motion. Better lead into the 12 Steps themselves.
Wesley Blount: speak in favor of motion. This gives a logical flow.
Kellie Federici: speak in favor of motion. Great care and attention was taken to truly make this a CA piece. We now have CA’s 12 steps and it flows more nicely into the 12 Steps. It reads so much easier and seems to make sense that the 12 Steps are our program of recovery.
Valerie Cote: speak in favor of motion and I really think it is perfect. If we change, we ask them for referrals and then make it work. We can’t forget our primary purpose if we want our fellowship to grow and welcome newcomers. Kevin Murphy: we have exhausted the available slots in favor of the motion. Anyone want to speak against the motion?
Ben Lachey: speak against the motion. I don’t know how everyone else does it in their meetings but we read the Big Book of Alcoholic Anonymous. We just stopped another program’s readings. My ribs are still sore from fighting for this reading to become my home group’s reading. Every other group in Indiana Area is reading this reading. I beg you because I’m not speaking against it myself but for my Area. Please do not tear this reading up. Please do not make me go back to them and tell them.
Jennifer Searl: when I read the SR14, I was in favor of all the revisions. I am no longer in favor. This doesn’t flow.
Kevin Murphy: anyone want to speak against the motion. Seeing none. Prepare yourselves to vote. We need to count. Motion passes 69 to 65.
Approved Page 121
Alan Seigel: 5th Concept statement – when something is this close. I really like the change, but I’m dead set against the changing of the words. Any change would be a mistake. Such a close vote, I don’t think we should make the change. Eric Thorn: 5th Concept Statement – our Area has struggled with the changes of How It Works. I love the intent to perfect our readings. In my opinion, we seem to be a mature group and seem to be able to handle differences of opinion. It’s not that way in my Area. I believe we should not make these changes. Ian Young: Motion to reconsider the previously motion. Second.
Kevin Murphy: Would you like to speak to your motion?
Ian Young: speak in favor of reconsidering because the vote was particularly close and this is such an emotive piece. I don’t believe we carry the true conscience yet.
Simone Tarlton: Parliamentary Inquiry – can we debate a motion to reconsider?
Kevin Murphy: Yes
Sally Shamberger: 5th concept statement.
Kevin Murphy: out of order.
Sally Shamberger: I speak for reconsidering the motion. I read all the motions before I got here and my Area went through a whole emotional whirlwind. I like We Can Recover and the way we work with sponsees.
Kevin Murphy: you are talking about the reading and I think you need to pass. Simone Tarlton: speak against the motion to reconsider because in my group, I have been on the losing side of many a group conscience and acceptance is a way of life for me. No other way have we been able to give this body exactly what they have asked for and step into own growth to be our own fellowship. Nick Alexander: in favor of the motion to reconsider. After listening to 5th concept, I’ve changed my mind.
Scott Keaveny: if this motion to reconsider passes, can I then make a motion to reconsider that motion?
Kevin Murphy: no
Approved Page 122
Bryan Seid: speaking for the motion.
Earnest Martin: speak against the motion. Just because the vote was close.
That’s not good enough. I have to learn the group conscience.
Susan Bredau: in favor of motion because I have reconsidered and I would like to exercise my right of participation
Kevin Murphy: that is all the debate we will have at this time. Prepare yourselves to vote. Motion passes.
Jeannette Johnson: We wish to withdraw the remaining 3 motions.
Kevin Murphy: that is in order because there has no debate. Thank you for your hard work.
We will have a 5th Concept statement from Paul Mears regarding his experience on TEC.
Paul Mears: Quite an honor to be elected to serve on the TEC. I was told about some guidelines. One of the guidelines was that no member could discuss with anyone what happens within the session or with anyone within the session. We didn’t see the guidelines. Two trustees that were part of the process did discuss a topic concerning a candidate, brought it to the committee and admitted they had discussed the candidate outside the session. They should have been removed at that time. It was not done and I believe that at least one vote was changed because of their outside discussion. Someone else also heard WSOB members discussing the results of two of the positions hours before they were published. I hope that the referrals taken over the year regarding this vital process and action needs to be taken in the future.
Cynthia Cronkhite: MOTION: to suspend the rules in order to take an item of business out of order. Second.
Kevin Murphy: requires 2/3 vote. Motion passes with substantial unanimity.
Approved Page 123
Cynthia Cronkhite: MOTION to proceed with election of Conference Officers.
Second.
Kevin Murphy: we wanted to get to this item of business before people start leaving. The Chair, Vice Chair and one of the Co-Secretary positions will be available. We will begin with the reading of the qualifications for the chair. I’d like to open for nominations.
Elizabeth Wise: I would like to nominate Tony Drake.
Sally Sahmberger: I’d like to nominate Lawrence Matlock.
Rose Jones: I’d like to nominate Trevor Schieble.
Deborah Wilbert: Kevin Murphy.
Marc Harvey: Nicholas Alexander.
Kevin Murphy: Any further nominations? Seeing no further nominations I’d like to see if the nominees accept.
Tony Drake: yes.
Lawrence Matlock: No.
Trevor Schieble: Yes.
Kevin Murphy: I will not. I believe in the principal of rotation.
Nick Alexander: Yes.
Kevin Murphy: We have 3 nominees, Tony Drake, Trevor Scheible and Nick Alexander. We have voting procedure. What we are going to do is ask the 3 individuals to state their qualifications.
Nick Alexander: asked that his name be removed from consideration. Kevin Murphy: before we vote, does anyone want to make a statement for debate?
Mike Seden: I think that in accordance with the spirit of rotation, working in the Vice Chair, Tony would be a great asset and a great Chair for this conference. Kevin Murphy: I need my counters. No, I actually don’t. Tony Drake will be our next World Service Conference Chair.
Approved Page 124
We now have a vacancy as Vice Chair/Parliamentarian. I will read the requirements. Nominations are open. Elizabeth Wise: Nick Alexander
Marc Harvey: John Bodkin
Michael Averill: Trevor Scheible
David Booth: Bryan Seid
Gregory Ashley: Jay Finesilver
Jay Finesilver: Nicholas Lynn
Deborah Wilbert: Earl Henderson
Sonya Stevens: Susan Bredau
Susan Bredau: Rose Jones
Earnest Martin: Carl Warlick
Going ask each to accept:
Nick Alexander: Yes
John Bodkin: No
Carl Warlick: No
Trevor Scheible: Yes
Bryan Seid: No
Jay Finesilver: No
Nicholas Lynn: No
Earl Henderson: No
Susan Bredau: No
Rose Jones: No
We have 2 willing nominees. Trevor Scheible and Nick Alexander. The new Vice Chair/Parliamentary is Trevor Scheible.
We have one more position to fill. Anne Bouley Meyer is rotating out. Read qualifications. Some of these we are kind of picky about. Nominations are open:
Earnest Martin:Ruby Lemone
Valerie Cote: Deborah Wilbert
Approved Page 125
Simone Tarlton: Wesley Blount
Jay Finesilver: Cynthia Cronkhite
Ben Lachey: Janice Whitted
We would like to hear from each nominee whether or not they accept.
Ruby Lemone: yes
Deborah Wilbert: yes
Wesley Blount: yes
Cynthia Cronkhite: no
Janice Whitted: no
Each nominee will speak to their qualifications. Prepare yourselves to vote. Our new Conference Co-Secretary is Deborah Wilbert.
Marc Harvey: Parliamentary Inquiry MOTION to suspend the rules Second. Motion passes. MOTION to extend the time in order to extend the time to finish the business of the Conference. Second. Motion passes. Nick Alexander: S&B needs to meet quickly at the pool.
BREAK
Kevin Murphy: Come and take your seats. We will start with an announcement.
Siobhan Ayer: Referrals have to be in by the end of this session for post-conference so do it now. Please recycle nametags as well as the “Ask Me” badges. Please fill out the evaluation forms that are in the back.
Kevin Murphy: Chair or secretary of a conference committee, copy the after conference report off the stick and return the sticks to the conference secretaries. Announcement for Unity. It’s 11:52 p.m. Saturday and we are resuming.
Glen Tucker: We would like to see the Unity forms taken to the areas, make copies, and fill them out and send them back.
Kevin Murphy: We now are scheduled for new business, but first I will read one of the standing rules, Number 13.
We are now in new business. Does anybody wish to be recognized?
Approved Page 126
Susan Bredau: I need to make a 5th concept statement. Based on my experience as a TEC delegate at the last conference. We were not able to elect a trustee at the last TEC. We were given instructions as to the level of integrity to maintain. Before I left, several people approached me and told me what I had said at the TEC. I went to the Trustee and informed her what had occurred. When I received my mailing of the trustee minutes there was no mention of anything that went on at the TEC. I asked if there were any steps that would be taken to see if the trustees would maintain the same level of integrity as the delegates. It was not brought up and now there is another 5th concept detailing more infractions of the TEC by the trustees and I was told I was too upset. This board or trustees has served us disastrously. They don’t maintain the integrity they expect of others. The trustees are not balancing themselves and we must. Benjamin Lachey: Motion: That the reading “We can Recover” not be changed for at least 3 years. Second.
Kevin Murphy: I’m not going to make any ruling on that.
Cynthia Cronkhite – Point of order. I believe there is an SR 13 issue and it wasn’t referred to LCF.
Kevin Murphy: I’m not sure it has a major effect on the committee.
Cynthia Cronkhite: I believe it’s an unprecedented effect.
Kevin Murphy: This piece has come up for vote several times, the committee has touched upon it. Debate is in order. Would you like to speak to your motion? Benjamin Lachey: Yes, my passion is not whether this needs to be changed or not, my passion for this is balancing. We had to go back and fight for this reading. I think so soon after we as a body fight or support the rulings of the trustees on How it Works, I think it’s too much to change it when they are just getting used to having it.
Wesley Blount: Motion to refer to LCF committee. Second
Kevin Murphy: That was in order. Debate to the reasons to refer to committee.
I’m going to rule this motion out of order.
Approved Page 127
Jason Laurence: I am concerned. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to prevent a democratic body from making a change. I don’t want to start quoting The Rights of Man. I would like to point out the decision of the LCF to withdraw because they could see the body didn’t want it changed. This went out in June and we received no response to it. I don’t think it’s democratic to tell a future conference what it can or cannot do.
Mike Seden: I am against the motion to hold it for three years. Since March when we got the letter from the trustees, in my area I have explained to all I could, yes you can read How it Works in its entirety without doing anything. I asked them to get a group conscience to do that. The LCF committee came up with excellent readable draft that you could take back to your areas, how easy or hard to read, what groups think about it.
Michael Averill: I’m against the motion. We have a responsibility to look at it again. The vote was close. These are changes that were requested from our fellowship. I do believe we have a responsibility to give the committee an opportunity to look at this and bring it back.
Nick Alexander: I speak in favor of the motion. When I got the SR14 mailing I was happy. There are things I agree with. Keep in mind concept 3 I can come here, hear something new and change my mind. We aren’t going anywhere.
Let’s give everyone an opportunity for the next three years. We are going to keep throwing curve balls. Let’s give it time. Jennifer Searl: I call the question. Second.
Kevin Murphy: Motion carries by 2/3 majority.
Motion: That the reading “We can Recover” not be changed for at least 3 years.
Kevin Murphy: All in favor?
Earnest Martin: Quorum call.
Kevin Murphy: Counters are here. Please hold up your hands with the number of votes you carry.
Approved Page 128
Quorum is 98, we have 124 votes.
The motion passes 67 to 52.
Cynthia Cronkhite: 5th Concept Statement. This motion takes away the Committee’s right of participation. I doubt that we would have passed a motion that would have passed a motion that the Convention Committee’s guidelines. Please don’t tie the committee’s hands out of fear.
Scott Keaveny: I’m real scared and we setting dangerous precedent by letting this body hold any committee hostage. Why am I here? My right to participate has been violated and you have not allowed me to the job that I was asked to do. Alan Shields: 5th Concept. I’ve listened to debate all afternoon. The 12X12 taught me that everytime I get angry, anxious, etc. what part does Alan play in that being upset. First it was selfishness, second it was fear. I had to get out the way. Everybody needs to ask what part they played in this debate.
Kevin Murphy: I’m not going to accept endless 5th concepts.
Bill Hood: Motion to reconsider. Second.
Kevin Murphy: simple majority vote.
Bill Hood: Swayed by passionate argument, I feel the need to reconsider. Ben Lachey: For motion to reconsider. Being person who is passionate about what happens on this floor, S&B, right to participate and not wanting to do anything to harm the process. My position has changed.
Peter DeRaeffele: speak against the motion. I don’t think there is any fear in that vote. They voted in common sense and desire to establish continuity in our readings.
Susan Bredau: speak against the motion to reconsider. I believe this fellowship needs time to heal. Doesn’t mean the process stops. The LCF committee will still be busy with intense projects. In interim, we can allow the fellowship to settle and grow and have a really informed group conscience and pull in information. Nick Alexander: Parliamentary Inquiry – can I have the numbers spoken for and against. Call to question. Second.
Approved Page 129
Kevin Murphy: Motion passes. Prepare to vote to reconsider. Motion passed to reconsider.
Kevin Murphy: would maker of original motion care to withdraw his motion?
Ben Lachey: Yes
Kevin Murphy: any more new business?
Duane Miller: Motion that we collect a 7th Tradition in support of our World Service Office. Second.
Kevin Murphy: would you like to speak to your motion.
Duane Miller: This came from a referral that got lost and it will be coming back. If we are going to ask the rest of the fellowship to dig deep, then we can lead by example.
Kevin Murphy: Motion passes with substantial unanimity. While we are doing that we have a couple of announcements. The 2011 conference will be August 30 through September 4 here at the Four Points Sheraton.
Jason Laurence: I submitted a referral to S&B regarding a resume for each of the members of the Trustee Election slate. Apart from the European, I was unable to vote on something that I have no information on. I spoke to Nick and it appeared there was a slight misunderstanding because there is resume that goes to the TEC. Motion to provide a brief resume of the Trustee slate nominees so that WSC floor can make an informed decision. Second.
Tony Drake: any other debate on the motion? Seeing none. Motion carries with noted opposition. Before me move on, is there any new business.
Nick Alexander: with that motion being passed, who will be providing the form.
Tony Drake: Trustees
Bryan Seid: What is supposed to be a brief resume?
Tony Drake: I guess we are going to find that out at the conference next year.
Susan Bredau: An apology for my 5th Concept Statement. I did not mean to insinuate that all Trustees are untrustworthy. Do I believe that some people acted outside their authority? Yes. Do I believe that the TEC is broken? Yes. Did they act in malice? No.
Approved Page 130
Kevin Murphy: any further business to be presented?
Who on the floor is in their first year? Please stand.
I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed being a delegate. You are going to wonder why you are grateful for being an addict. Thank you for taking the time out of your lives to come down here and be of service.
Will the delegates who will be rotating out please stand. Thank you for holding the doors open. Thank you for being the people who help these first year delegates what we do here. I’m sure we will see some of you again…and again. Non-Delegates, Officer who are rotating out please stand. I’m sure we will all be back too. What else am I going to do on Labor Day?
Tony Drake: We want to thank Kevin for all the years of service.
Kevin Murphy: Going to try to not be the crying Ex-Chair. The trustees that are rolling out – Lawrence, Nicholas, Trevor, Willie. It is the tradition that the rotating Chair of the Board of Trustees adjourns the meeting.
Brian Tenenbaum: We collected $350 in the 7th Tradition.
Siobhan Amey-Ayers: The Conference Committee and the WSO welcomes help packing up the office.
Trevor Scheible, Lawrence Matlock, Nicholas Lynn: Motion to adjourn. Second.
Kevin Murphy: I declare the 2010 WS Conference adjourned.
Approved Page 131