Trevor S. called session to order at 7:00 PM PST.
Trevor S. – Welcome to the 2017 Conference. I would like to start off with Edwina from Ireland reading ‘Who Is A Cocaine Addict?’
Edwina S. – Read ‘Who Is A Cocaine Addict?’
Trevor S. – Thank you. Melissa from Colorado is going to read the 12 Traditions. Melissa W. – Read the 12 Traditions.
Trevor S. – Thank you. Ricky from England will read the 12 Concepts.
Ricky W. – Read the 12 Concepts.
Trevor S. – Jay, Susan and Cindy are going to make some announcements. Please put phones on silent. If you have any questions about the hotel, you need to see Jay, Susan or Cindy. Do not approach the hotel staff.
Jay F. – The three of us will help you with anything you need. They do a great job. We have been working on this for a long time to serve you.
Susan L. – If you need anything, see us. Don’t go to the hotel, even if it is an issue with the front desk. We have a great relationship with the hotel and can help you.
Cindy C. – I am here to serve you. Thank you.
Jay F. – I will make announcements at each session. (Provided info on how to get on the internet.) Please keep the devices to a minimum, as we do have to pay for services if we go over a certain amount. The CAWSO Store is open when Conference is not in session. We have a few Conference T-shirts to sell. Referrals are only on-line now. If you need assistance, please see me. The cut-off time is noon tomorrow. Any referral received after that, it may not be addressed until next Conference. Where you sit after roll call will be where you sit for the rest of the Conference. (Provided hours for coffee availability.) See Susan for any hotel issues. Map of food locations is in your registration packet. Your badge will get you 10% off at hotel restaurants. Speaker at 9 AM tomorrow.
Trevor S. – Thank you, Jay. Roll call will be next. Please do not have side conversations during Roll Call. Do not approach the dais during roll call unless you want public shaming. We are starting on my right.
Jason L. – Why did people who identified as part of an Area that has not been voted in yet claim votes?
Trevor S. – I kept an eye on that. Please be patient while we tally the votes. . . . . Total votes present is 165, which is the largest count we have ever had. Quorum is 109. I’ve been asked to do something just a bit different. But first, there will be a seating chart coming around. Welcome to the 34th Conference, 12 Steps 1 Solution. Please make sure your phones are turned off. Just a bit different tonight. The former Chairperson, Tony D., is the opposite of me. You couldn’t get him to cry for anything, I do shed tears frequently. Tonight, the WSBT Chair asked us to do something special to honor the memory of Richard L. as he had a huge impact on this fellowship. A moment of silence, please. Thank you. I do believe he is here with us and watching. I am honored to be up here. I have been to 15 conferences in a row. Happy to serve. How many people are here for their first ever conference? You help fire me up to be here. We need you. Thank you!! We are going to go through a lot of stuff. Will be a bit redundant because we did go over some of this in Orientation. Voting will be done by the clicker system. Make sure when you push the power button, they light up. If your clicker is not working, please see Jay. Primary way we will use the clickers is the For or Against vote. For is the A Button. Against is the C Button. Quorum call can be done by pushing any button, but not B. We will also use them for specific issue voting and will assign a button designation at that time. Those of you who were here last year, in last year’s minutes, we had couple errors in tracking whether motions passed or failed. This year, the results of voting will always be the For votes first, then the Against votes. Memorabilia sales can only happen when we are not in session. Only used approved tape to secure cords to the carpet. See Susan and Cindy for approved tape. Any items on the dais are for our use only. Please do not ‘borrow’ them. All questions during session always go to Russell. Do not approach the Secretaries when they are typing. Breaks will go according to the agenda. Please come back from break promptly. We are schedules to be here until 12:59P Sunday afternoon. I am not going to push for session to go extra late on Saturday. Be on this conference floor when we are in session. This is where HP is at and this is the group conscious.
Ernest M. – Parliamentary inquiry. My vote was removed from me. I come from a small area and they paid for me to be here. Please explain to the floor why I am not being allowed to vote.
Trevor S. – Part of my job is to facilitate orderly business. I need to uphold the group conscious of what was done before me. I cannot change Standing Rules. The opportunity for Ernest to vote has not been met with the proper credentials by his Area Chairperson. This was not received. Standing Rule 6 does let me do reasonable exceptions, but I have received nothing stating Ernest M. is a credentialed delegate and entitled to vote.
Wade S. – Motion – In accordance with Standing Rule 6, please allow Ernest M. to vote at this Conference.
Seconded.
Trevor S. – Re-read motion.
Wade S. – I am the Regional Trustee over the Area this member is in. He is known to me as a delegate for that Area and has been active in the Region. I ask for representation by Ernest for that Area.
Carla S. – I speak in favor. I know Ernest as an active delegate for his Area. I also had difficulty getting the necessary info from my Area.
Rose Jones – In favor, Ernest was at the PNRC as a N. California Delegate.
Peter O. – In favor, Ernest has been active as a delegate at several conferences. This sounds like an oversite that can be easily corrected.
Jay F. – Parliamentary inquiry, does this need a 2/3rd vote? Trevor S. – Yes.
Kevin M. – I have known Ernest for years. I hope the oversite can be resolved and he is allowed to vote.
Susan V. – Against, I think we are confusing a personality with a position. There are many of us who know him, but we need the proper credentials from his Area.
Jon H. – Friendly amendment, to give him 2 votes.
Trevor S. – No, as the other Area delegate already claimed 2 votes.
Stu E. – I agree that being a good member of C.A. is not sufficient to have a vote. That is not how it works. I would not be against giving him a vote tonight, but credentials would be needed for tomorrow.
Gary M. – Against, I have been to 6 conferences, I have had to go through the process to have all the credentials done ahead of time for me to be here. I could show up next year, everyone knows who I am, but we do have Standing Rules that we need to follow for the welfare of our fellowship.
Jason H. – In favor, the Regional Trustee did confirm he is a delegate for that Area.
Dane T. – If we are going to enforce the Standing Rule, then Wisconsin votes need to go as we have never had our Area Chair do this.
Anne M.– Question, how many delegates were actually registered before the 120 days? Trevor S. – Less than 20.
Deborah G. – I’ll call the Area Chair and get the info now.
Megan B. – Question, what steps were taken to get that email process accomplished? Trevor S. – Our Parliamentarian will answer that.
Russell S.– I’ve known Ernest for a long time. He explained that he had been proxied a vote, I explained that an email needed to be sent to us stating he had been proxied the vote. There didn’t seem to be the desire to get the necessary info. There is no registration info for Ernest. We discussed this with previous Conference Chairs to try to resolve this issue.
Trevor S. – Thank You, Russell. People who have already debated go to the end of the line to allow others to debate first, please.
Michael C. – In favor, we are talking about tonight’s session, correct? I don’t see an issue with him having a vote tonight.
Tom P. – This is a great discussion for us as we are a growing organization. We are getting better at applying the Standing Rules to the operational process we have in place. Work does need to be done ahead of time to get credentials in. We don’t have the process perfected yet to ensure all credentials come in properly as another Area has stated they don’t have the proper credentials. We need to be aware of how we appear to the Areas in our actions here.
Jill E. – Russell, did you state the Ernest was not registered, then, stated he had a proxy? Russell S. – He was not pre-registered and he stated to me he had been proxied a vote.
Anne M.– Parliamentary Inquiry. Previously I asked a question, not debate. Can I debate now or do I have to go to the back of the list?
Trevor S. – I will recognize you to debate and have added you to the list.
Ernest M. – Pertaining to what Russell stated, I had not been able to get in touch with Deborah and I asked what needed to be done to proxy a vote. I did not state that I was proxied a vote. The process you gave me was what I was trying to follow.
Anne M. – In favor of the motion, about 145 people in this room have been granted the ability to vote even without being registered in time.
*****
Dawn M. – Call the question. Seconded.
Trevor
Vote 1
*****
Trevor please
S. – We are voting to close debate. 2/3rds majority needed. – 155 for, 10 against, motion passed, debate is closed.
S. — We will now vote on the original motion — In accordance with Standing Rule 6, allow Ernest M. to vote at this Conference.
– 115 for, 50 against, motion passed.
Vote 2
*****
Trevor
Kevin M. – Parliamentary Inquiry – Did the quorum change?
Trevor S. – Great question. Vote total is now 166, quorum is now 110. When you are at the mic, please state your full name, designation and number of votes every time as it is a requirement of California law. Please limit side comments during this process as much as possible. Speak into the mic directly as we need to hear you for the recording and transcripts. Social media has been an issue for a number of years. Do not post any Conference business on social media at all. Nothing gets passed out on conference floor that has not been approved by myself or is previously approved by conference. When you have your hand up, we try to recognize you. This is a large room, please be patient. Russell is going to cover Robert’s Rules of Order.
Russell S. – For those of you who are not familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order, I will give an overview. (Read first 3 paragraphs from pg. 77)
Our manual will always trump Robert Rules of Order. So, when you are being recognized from the floor myself or Russell will call you. You will be recognized as follows:
1. The Motion to Reconsider
2. Objection to Consideration
3. Appeal from Decision,
4. To Rise to a Point of Order, and
5. Parliamentary Inquiry.
Trevor S. – Point of information is not something you can interrupt someone speaking at the mic for. You can make a motion to amend. Russell’s job this week is to help you and support the chair. Anything that we are doing that will affect a SR it will require 2/3 vote. SR can be found on pg. 46 and 47 of WS Manual. They are very well laid out. If anyone does not have a copy of the WS Manual, Russell has extra copies. All referrals must be in by noon tomorrow. So, at 12:00 p.m. referrals will be closed for this Conference. However, any referral or motion that violates the 12 Concepts will be shutdown. A motion to reconsidered can be brought back to the floor. One of my pet peeves is people standing in line talking and then they say the same thing that others have already stated. However, there are a lot of new people here, if you have a question, please ask Russell when we are in session or either one of us when we are out of session. Please ask your question through the microphone. Please do not touch the thermostat. Please do not save anything to the office computers. Are there any questions or concerns? We will take a 10-minute break.
Trevor S. – We are back in Session. Let’s open with the Serenity Prayer. Next item on the agenda is the new Area petitions.
*****
Kerry W. – Motion to approve the name change from the Texas Area Service to Texas Area Service Gulf Coast.
Seconded.
Vote 3 — 147 for, 1 against, motion passed.
*****
*****
Kerry W. – Motion to approve the new Area petition for the C.A. of Southern Colorado Area. Seconded.
Rose J. – Question about Tradition 4, will this affect Colorado Area as a whole?
Debbie S. – Speak in favor of the motion. I believe that Southern Colorado has become their own Area. I have attended events there. They have 21 meetings. C.A. is growing and expanding.
???? – Speak in favor of the motion. I attended the P.I. Summit. I saw the commitment. I visited 4 months later and saw the growth. I think they are doing great work.
Paul S. – Speak against the motion to approve as an area, we do not want to alienate members from this Colorado district. (Reads detailed info.) It will affect the WS Conference and C.A. as a whole. It will affect the number of delegates that attend the WS Conference. It will cause more expense. Final issues, other Areas that have a larger number of meetings that are greater in geographical size, they all operate under one Area. Does this create unity in the state of Colorado? Does this district have the finances to sustain itself as an Area? Is this about principles before personality?
Michael R. – I am for the motion. I had the opportunity to attend the P.I. Summit. I was very impressed with the way they handled the Summit. They had a lot of newcomers.
Steven C. – Speak for the motion. I am 50 days sober. 50 days ago, I ended up in the hospital and I met C.A. members visit while I was in the hospital. I have a better job because of C.A. I want to thank the member of the Southern District of C.A.
Freddie P. – Speak in favor. We had a member who visited Southern Colorado. There was only 1 person at the meeting. The meeting grew. We started a Monday night meeting. We brought together 45 people on a Sunday afternoon. We reached a decision. We have over 20 meetings. This is not about separation, I am in Denver, and a member of C.A. We have members who are enthusiastic. I hope to see this ratified tonight.
Trevor S. – Are there any members who want to speak against the motion?
David S. – I have been a DSR in Phoenix and now I am a delegate. We have over 100 mtgs. We are considering to down size. We still having problems with members filling positions.
Thomas F. – Speak for the motion. Last year we petitioned to be an Area. Our primary purpose is to carry the message.
Elizabeth S. – Speak in favor of the motion. I Attended a meeting with a friend in Colorado Springs. I have watched that area grow. One of the main things, I want to consider is that I have friend who is part of the San Diego who became an Area. I am a little bit concerned is that we do not have the Trustee in the Region speaking on this motion or any other Trustee. The fact is that this area has taken all the steps to become an Area. They are excited about carrying the message of C.A.
Dane T. – Speak against the motion. Three years ago, this area was desolate.
Jay F. – Speak against the motion. They took a line and drew it right down the middle. In some ways, we are making a problem that is not appropriate. Bigger Areas are Ohio and Arizona. There are fellowships bigger than Colorado that still have one Area. We would drive for a while to attend our Area meetings, and it was okay. There are some unity issues going on at this time. A little state like Colorado that has 6 votes and to become 2 Areas makes no sense.
Ryan A. – Speak against the motion. The Southern District drew up their own map. The Colorado Area was not aware of this. We are not the Northern Colorado Area. That would have had to happen at the Conference and it didn’t.
Loni S. – Speak against the motion. Because the state of I am from is Illinois. We have meetings that are 4 hours away that attend our Area meetings.
Dawn M. – Speak against the motion. The petition said 10 meetings and 4 H&I meetings. That is not enough to be an area. They will have 3 delegates.
*****
Michael C. – Call the question.
Anne M. – Parliamentary inquiry.
Trevor S. – Question has been call. It requires 2/3 votes.
Vote 4 – 116 For, 31 against. Motion passed, debate is closed.
*****
Stu E. – Are we talking about a 70-mile distance between the proposed new area and the existing area?
Anne M. – Two questions. First question – Don’t you think that the Regional Trustee should stay out of the controversy? Second question – How does the current Area structure not meet the needs? Challenge the Chair about how the debate has been structured so far.
Kevin M. – Parliamentary inquiry. Is there an objection or the unanimous consent?
Anne M. – Yes. I take acceptance to the Chair taking a vote on the Call the Question. I asked about parliamentary inquiry and I was not allowed to have my questions.
Kevin M. – This clarifies the parliamentary inquiry. My point of order is the proper time to make the Challenge to the Chair is when he said that questions would be held to the end.
Russell S. – There is an opportunity for the Chair to speak to this.
Trevor S. – Please, please bear with me. The way I took it was that I would take the questions after the debate. I have an opinion after being here for 14 years, people get tired, do not want to deal with it anymore, etc, and in our haste, we forget that what we are doing here is spiritual. I miss when I was a delegate hearing 4-hour debates. This is not what I picture happening. I hope you do overrule my decision. Thank you.
Elizabeth S. – Parliamentary Inquiry. I believe that when the Chair is challenged, he is not allowed to ever share his opinion.
Russell S. – I apologize for not stepping in to stop the Chair from sharing his opinion. I am sure that Trevor will address that when he is back at the mic.
Peter O. – What I am use to doing with people in this room is when there is an area petition, we celebrate.
Elizabeth S. – I believe in a challenge of the Chair if you are asking 2 different people to speak. My feeling is that we should continue to challenge the Chair.
Jason L. – I had a question. I am a little bit unclear, are we debating the Challenge to the Chair? Russell S. – Yes.
Michael C. – I speak against this challenge. As the maker of the motion to close debate. We had a lot of discussion on the motion, that is why I thought we should get on with the vote. The Chair did say that he would take questions afterwards.
Duane M. – It seems to me that Robert Rules is set up to help us get through our business. Not hinder us by the minutia. The easiest way to do this is to drop the Call the Question and go back to debate.
Jason L. – I respect the delegate who called the question. We did not answer questions about the Area petition during debate.
Stu E. – I listened to a lot of debate. We ended the debate and a lot of questions did not get asked. I do not know Robert Rules of Order like you guys know. I believe that we owe it to the fellowship to answer questions.
Jay F. – Speak against the Chair’s decision. The only thing we should be debating is about the Chair’s decision. I am not hearing a whole lot about this. I would like us to move on.
Suzanne V. – I am a little lost on where we are. Russell S. – I asked for clarification.
David C. – I am becoming increasing uncomfortable about this. In order for us to make this decision carefully, the Chair should be allowing us to listen to debate.
Suzanne V. – I speak against the ruling of challenging the Chair. We will become more provocative the next time.
Tom P. – I speak against the challenge to the Chair. The real challenge was when the Chair ruled that questions would come at the end not afterwards. Anything else after this should not have happened.
Gary M. – I agree with others. The challenge to the Chair should have been when he did not take questions at the end. I think we should move forward.
*****
Kevin M. – I call the question.
Seconded.
Nathan H. – Parliamentary inquiry. I am not sure where we are at.
Russell S. – We have been debating to overturn the Chair’s decision of “if there are any questions they will be asked at the end.” We are now voting to call the question.
Vote 5 – 138 for, 16 against, motion passed, debate is closed.
*****
Russell S. — Motion to vote on supporting the Chair’s ruling.
Vote 6 – 34 for, 120 against, motion failed. The Ruling has been overturned. Trevor is back to chairing the meeting.
*****
Kevin M. – What are we doing?
Trevor S. – Because the question has been called and I did not take questions this has being overturned.
Trevor S. – I will now allow the questions to be answered.
Anne M. – Parliamentary Inquiry, I did ask about question after you made your ruling.
Trevor S. – I was operating on a process that I thought was in our literature, but I cannot find it now. I am sorry about my mistake. It is my first night. I am sorry. To fix this, we can go back to what we need to do or get hung up on process. Can we now remove the call to question and go back to debate? Show of hand vote, unanimous, passed. We are back to debate.
Michael C. – Parliamentary Inquiry, does my motion to end debate stand?
Trevor S. – No, we are back in debate by unanimous consent. Questions will be allowed to be asked.
Stu E. – Is it a 70 mile travel time between Denver and Colorado Springs?
Trevor S. – That question was answered earlier.
Anne M. – How does the current Area structure not meet the needs of the proposed Area? Trevor S. – Who from the proposed Area can answer that?
Melissa W. – I got sober in Denver. I live in Colorado Springs. They have served themselves. Northern part of the Area hasn’t served the needs of the Colorado Springs area. We have reached out farther to some of the geographic southern parts of the state on our own.
Richard S. – I have lived in Colorado Springs since 1999. The Colorado Area has always supported Colorado Springs. When people brought up the need for support in Colorado Springs, the Area rallied around. Through this change, maybe not everyone was informed that help was asked for and needed. This is about an up and coming area. I was there when it was booming in Colorado Springs and when it started to go dark. Enthusiasm in C.A. is what has helped bring the growth back to Colorado Springs. It is better to serve together then to separate.
Trevor S. – We are scheduled to end at 10:45P. Asking for unanimous consent to extend time until this issue is resolved. Passed.
Ernest M. – I don’t think mileage or boarders is the issues. Is Northern Colorado willing to assist Southern Colorado to grow? The fight to keep something that wants to grow is not helpful.
Peter O. – When we are doing Area recognition, it is usually a celebration. Is this new area a subject of dispute in Colorado? We need more info.
Jason L. – I don’t think the question has been answered. I feel we are not going to get any real conclusion on this. I speak in favor to allow the creation of the new Area. Maybe since the petition was submitted they have grown to the number of meetings needed. I suspect Southern Colorado has a lot of enthusiasm and they want to run with it. If that enthusiasm continues, they will be able to fill all their service positions.
Bart VdP – Did the proposed area speak with the existing Area? Sounds like all steps were taken to make a new Area.
Melissa W – We brought the petition to the Area meeting earlier this year. We took copies of the proposed map. The Area did vote to approve it at that meeting, then info went out to meetings after that approval. Then it went back to the Colorado Area and they decided to not have an opinion on the issue.
David C. – Is there a precedent for a group that wants to be an area and this body has denied that?
Jay F. – Yes, it has happened.
Jessie G. – How would staying unified as an Area interfere with your ability to do your primary purpose?
Melissa W. —
Jessie G. – Parliamentary Inquiry – Can I get an answer to my questions?
Melissa W. – If it is being suggested that we are not unified by creating a new area, that is far from the truth.
Heidi J. – In favor, it sounds like there are definitely some issues between the two areas. Why are we trying to force them to stay together? Either they will flourish and grow or go for a bit, fail and become a single Area again? I have never heard of us not wanting to grow this fellowship. There is nothing in the manual that states an area has to be a certain distance or size. Some Areas only have a small number of meetings and are still represented here.
John O. – We are not talking about the distance between Denver and Colorado Springs. It is not just Colorado Springs, there are other cities involved and there are many meetings. One of these cities is a 5-hour drive to the existing Area meeting. It is a vast geographic area. There are many places that would like us to bring in meetings in these southern areas. The proposed area is self-supporting. We are creating events that benefit the treatment centers and sober living facilities in the southern area. The existing districts failed our needs. It was a unanimous vote to approve this petition. This is something that is good for the fellowship as a whole. The people in southern Colorado have worked very hard to get to this point.
Stella B. – Against the motion, Colorado Area voted to have no opinion on this issue. I acknowledge the enthusiasm in southern Colorado and I want it to grow. I think it can be done through districts. Colorado Area would support the proposed area. The existing Area has made attempts to have the proposed area represented in the Area. An Area inventory was taken to determine how to better serve the proposed area. We have discussed the districting structure so it would be successful. They did come to Area meeting with a lot of enthusiasm, but they were acting as an independent area before they came to the existing Area with the motion
Tom P. – For the motion, members of groups did a group conscious and then brought that group conscious to this body. The issue I keep hearing is about the amount of representation. That is a process issue to be dealt with in process. Denying this petition will not address that issue.
Kevin M. – I looked at the map, why is the line created on the map not following county lines or other existing features? Why was the line draw like it was?
Melissa W. – For the most part, it does go by county lines as best as could be done.
Michael C. – Against, I live in a very large geographic area. We have one Area. Some meetings need to travel 4 hours to get to Area. We make it work. I do not believe this floor is the place to solve issues that do not concern the world L.l fellowship. This is an Area issue that needs to be dealt with on that L.l. We are all the same in this fellowship and we are a family.
Dane T. – Parliamentary Inquiry – Could the people from Colorado introduce themselves as being from Colorado and not Northern Colorado or Southern Colorado?
Trevor S. – Technically, they are all from the Colorado Area as that is the only recognized Area at this time.
Melissa L. – We have lots of people who are carrying the message and filling positions. The distance to get to Area meetings may cause issues for people to serve the fellowship. Yes, it is apparent there are issues between the two, but let them grow.
Stu E. – I feel we do have a lot of unanswered questions within the Area. It is concerning that the Area has no opinion on this issue. Why was there nothing hashed out in Area before this? No one has addressed how this could possibly hurt Colorado as a whole. We have a responsibility to the Area that exists right now to not cause harm.
Stuart J. – For the motion, it seems to be a group conscious done and the procedures done. My experience is that geographic issues are only part of the issue. This is about growth and creating. HP speaks through this Conference.
Bart VdP – For the motion, we have a lot of meetings and there was some division, but we have one Area and we still grow.
Jill E. – Part of me doesn’t care either way. This is kind of like a bad breakup. If the reason why was so clear, the debate wouldn’t have gone on for this long. If they want to be two Areas, let them. I don’t want to be involved in relationship issue within the Area.
Jessie G.– How does remaining as one Area make it so you cannot serve C.A.?
Melissa W. – We have never been one Area. The southern meetings have been our own area since day one. We did go to Area for a bit, but some of these meeting GSRs have never been to the meeting in Denver. This is a group of people that wants to be their own area. They want to grow the fellowship.
Jessie G. – Parliamentary Inquiry – How does one politely state that the question wasn’t answered?
Trevor S. – Raise your hand and ask to be recognized again.
Jessie G.– Does remaining as one Area, will it prevent you from serving C.A. in the capacity you state you are doing now?
John O. – No.
Ricky W. – Referring to WSM (reads requirements to submit new area petition). They have fulfilled the requirements. It is not our duty to decide if they are growing out of resentment or love. For us to stop growth in this fellowship is crazy.
*****
Simonne M. – Call the question.
Seconded
Trevor S. – Vote to call the question.
Vote 7 – 131 for, 7 against, motion passed, debate is now closed.
*****
Motion to approve C.A. of Southern Colorado Area.
Vote 8 – 106 for, 48 against, passed. Southern Colorado Area is now an official Area. *****
Trevor S. – We have gone beyond our allotted time
Paul S. – I have a 5th Concept Statement.
Anne M. – Do we have to do a new vote count?
Trevor S. – We extended the session to deal with the issue and we are now done. We will do a new roll call tomorrow which will include the new Area’s votes, then go into 5th Concept Statements.
Session ended at 11:45 PM PST.