Space Coast Intergroup, Overeaters Anonymous

Space Coast Intergroup
2008 WSBC Full Business Sessions Report

First Business Session -Thursday Morning:

You’ve got to walk before you can run, and that describes how WSBC Business Meetings kick off. These are OA business meetings and we open the meeting with the Serenity Prayer, in English and, a language other than English. Members are selected to read the 12 Steps, 12 Traditions and 12 Concepts. We move into introductions. The Board of Trustees (BOT), World Service Office (WSO) staff, Region Chairs and the Conference Support Committee (service volunteers) are all introduced, to great applause from the floor.

Before we can sit to do business, Sandy Allen gives the report of the Credentials Committee, letting us know how many voting members are present for the meeting. From this, we know how many votes are needed for majority and for 2/3s votes. For the morning session we had: Trustees: 15 plus Voting Delegates: 181 for a Total: 196.

Betsy, our professional parliamentarian (4th year), addressed the conference and explained some useful details about handling motions.

We moved on to the standard practice of adopting the Standing Rules. These are pretty specific rules about how we run our business meeting and are often different or in addition to the default rules in Roberts Rules of Order. If my memory serves, in the past, these were adopted quickly. This year, not so. A member rose to submit a motion to change paragraph 2e, which states:

2E) There will be no children under the age of twelve and no pets except animals assisting handicapped people in the business meetings, committee meetings or educational workshops.

I didn’t write down the changed language, but the change was, in effect:

2E) There will be no children under the age of twelve and no animals except service animals assisting people with disabilities in the business meetings, committee meetings or educational workshops.

This was a good an appropriate change I thought and it took a pretty long change to adopt. We had debate, suggested changes to language, questions. I probably got the final language wrong, but it’s close. We debated the phrases “disabled people” against “people with disabilities”. The case being made that people should always come before their disability. I don’t recall what we adopted so I wrote, above, what I hope we adopted.

We moved on to adopt the agenda, after which, we had what is called the “Parade of Motions”. All makers of motions and all makers of amendments to motions (if those amendments were in hand) were introduced. This included me as I had submitted a number of amendments (which passed later, by the way).

Next, each member of the OA BOT and our managing director took a few minutes to answer questions about their reports (which were included in our binders). Some questions. One of note was about our lifting of the monetary limit on bequests. There was a concern that a large gift could make WSO a seat of perilous power. Bob F, a General Services Trustee and current Treasurer assured the conference that if by some stroke of good fortune this happened for OA, the funds would quickly be dispersed to accomplish our primary purpose. I believe this and it makes a lot of sense because he was also asked, earlier, about WSO prudent reserves. Our accountants recommend, for IRS reasons, not to exceed 4-6 months reserves. A large donation would blow that out of the water so clearly we can’t hold onto that sort of money for too long. Still, we can find a good use for it .

I did learn from the reports, that Region 2 has established a phone number for native Spanish speakers.

Second Business Session -Thursday Afternoon:

The PM session opens with our parliamentarian briefing us on our rights and responsibilities as delegates.

Next, on to the motions. The first, Motion A-a is to adopt the revised pamphlet: Treatment and Beyond

Three members stood and spoke in support. None spoke against, this motion passed.

Next up, Motion A changed how and who decides when to stop printing OA Conference Approved literature. This is literature which is still valid and current and useful but, because we sell very few pieces, printing new copies makes not financial sense. The motion really did clarify the muddy procedure that had been in place.

I was concerned that these conference approved pieces of literature would disappear if we didn’t print them and as they are still approved, we should at least place them on the OA website for members if they want/need them. The amendment was debated. There were two pro and two con. I voted pro but I did not watch the hall to see how the vote went. The amendment passed and I learned later it passed by a large margin.

This motion, A, gave the power to discontinue printing to the Executive Committee of the BOT. This is, I think, 6 people. The second amendment aimed to restore to the full board (15 members), this power. The concern was that two few people would be making this decision. I agreed with the amendment. 2 members spoke pro and 2 con. In the end this amendment was defeated and the motion was passed, with just the one amendment.

Motion E, B, C and D each moved to create official policies in support of OAs Public Awareness Campaign. So, with one motion, we established a Media Policy confirming what we already do: Press releases, website, bill boards, etc. Another motion made clear that yes, it is ok to use Public Service Announcements (PSAs). Still another defined what we mean by Attraction, Promotion, Cooperation and Affiliation.

Motion K was next and it proposed to combine the Professional Outreach and Public Information committees at WSBC. The case was made that these two committees largely have the same goals and often duplicate efforts. This motion had 3 pro and 3 con.

After some announcements, the afternoon business session ended. In the evening we had a forum on language in OA.

Third Business Session -Friday Morning:

202 OAs present and reporting for business duty on this Friday morning.

At the start of each session, the volunteer Conference Support Staff (CSC) is introduced. These OAs run around the room, receiving and delivering messages. You see, you are not permitted to get up and talk to other members or pass notes through the conference. As communication during the conference can be important, the CSC volunteers watch for raised hands with notes, and swiftly delivery these to their intended recipients.

The first order of business was By Laws Proposal 3 which modified how the votes for nominee trustees are counted. Prior to adopting this change (which we did), nominee trustees needed to receive a majority based on the total number of voting delegates present at the time of the election. For example:

• 100 Voting delegates present.
• Majority required: 51 yes votes.
• 50 vote yes
• 40 vote no
• 10 not voting

The result of this election : The nominee is not elected.

After this change, the trustee nominee must receive a majority vote of the delegates present and voting at the time of the election.

• 100 Voting delegates present.
• 50 votes yes
• 40 votes no
• 10 not voting
• Total votes cast: 90
• Majority required: 46

The result of this election: The nominee is elected.

So, before this change, not voting was the same as casting a no vote. After, only votes cast are counted.

This motion was taken out of the normal order because the next item of business was voting for the nominee trustees. Even though each trustee position had only one candidate, a vote is still needed. It is possible that a nominee will not be elected by the body. In this case, all nominees where elected.

• Region one trustee: Ev C. from Edmonton Alberta, Canada
• Region three trustee: Wanda S. from Abilene Tx, USA
• Region four trustee: Teresa K. from Iowa City IA, USA
• Region seven trustee: Donna A. from Reading PA, USA
• Region nine trustee: Esti O. from Meraseret Zion, Israel
• General Service Trustee: Robert F. from Toronto Ontario, Canada
• General Service Trustee: Kayla W. from Scottsdale AZ, USA
• General Service Trustee: This position is open. Consider applying! I did!

While waiting for the votes to be counted, we had some time for Ask-it Basket Questions. Not sure how well I captured these answers. In some cases, I’ve used my own words and it’s possible I missed the point . I hope they will be posted to the OA website some time after the conference closes. Here’s what I have:

Q1, Answered by R6 Trustee Margaret Ann: Why do our bags say Overeaters Anonymous? Isn’t this a break of anonymity?

A1: For many, this is a 12th step opportunity. We took an informal poll of the conference attendees and most supported this. It was pointed out that members could turn the bag inside if they are uncomfortable.

Q2, Answered by Louise B: What were the results of the Lifeline survey from 2 years ago?

A2: Results were posted. Not sure what the results were or what was done with them.

Q3, Answered by Kayla GST (and now Chairman): Can OA suggest a standard after prayer saying?
Ray’s note: For example: “Keep coming back. It works is you work it.”

A3: We’ve all heard different endings. This is a matter for group autonomy.
Ray’s note:  I call this cheerleading.  I am not in favor, but if someone decides to lead a cheer at the end of a meeting, I consider it my right to lead a different cheer after the afore mentioned cheer…something like “Don’t eat no matter what.  No matter what, don’t eat.”

Q4, Answered by Kathleen (R9): What is the difference between an Intergroup and a National Language Service Board (NLSB)?

A4: A NLSB is a service body that can service multiple Intergroups, much like a Region does except that the NLSB services a common language rather than a common geographic area. Actually, this question is answered on www.oa.org. Read about Intergroups and the NLSB follows right after.

Q5, Answered by (?), What determines if literature is Board or Conference approved.

A5: Board approved literature is used inside the fellowship. Conference approved literature is used both inside and outside the fellowship (that’s a bit of a vague recollection for me).

Q6, Answered by Charles A: How do we respond to bariatric surgery?

A6: This is a growing issue and is on the Unity with Diversity agenda, but our guide should be the Big Book(page 84): Love and tolerance of others is our code.

Q7, Answered by Craig: How should the chairman of the BOT be addressed?

A7: Per Robert’s Rules of Order-Mister or Madame Chairman is typical but others have been used.

Finally, we moved on to business motions.

Motion F proposed we advocate, through WSO, the adoption of Compulsive Overeater Awareness Week (COAW). Immediately, the focus was on COAW, pronounced the same as COW. Amendments followed to change the name. An amendment was submitted to change this to Compulsive Eater Awareness Week, but the initials (CEA-W) didn’t fly as it sounded like another 12 step program for compulsive eaters. A second and third amendment was submitted. With the third amendment, the motion was taken from the floor and place in the reference sub-committee.

Motion G proposed creating OA Recovery coins numbered from 1 to 20 years. The first amendment wanted to change this to 30 years, the second amendment wanted 40 years. We never saw the third amendment as with the third, it was taken off the floor and sent to the reference sub-committee.

Motion I proposed to change the title of the Unity with Diversity policy to Special Concepts Meetings policy. This lost; largely because the actual policy isn’t all that focused on meetings, though meetings are a part of this policy. The debate was odd. Pro talked like the policy was clearly all about meetings. Con looked at the policy and didn’t see it that way. I voted Con.

Ray’s note:  This is where I found out that”90 Day” meetings are considered special focus.  I spoke about this from the center mike when I asked specifically if “90 Day” was considered so.  I always thought that they were just a different way of running a meeting.  I may try to introduce some form of OA legislation that removes the stigma of special focus from alternative methods of seeking recovery.  I believe that classifying “90 Day” and others like “HOW” as special focus might suggest that these meetings are in some way not normal.  Both of these types of meetings have gone to great lengths to fit into OA’s definition of a meeting, and don’t need the stigma of being “special”.

Fourth Business Session -Friday Afternoon:

Motion L once again, suggested a change to OA’s definition of abstinence. Here is our current definition:

According to the dictionary, the word “abstain” means to refrain from. Abstinence in Overeaters Anonymous is the action of refraining from compulsive eating. Spiritual, emotional and physical recovery is the result of living the Overeaters Anonymous Twelve-Step program.

The proposed change would have make it:

Abstinence in Overeaters Anonymous is the action of refraining from compulsive eating by following a plan of eating that reverses the damaging consequences of food obsession. The result of abstinence and living the Overeaters Anonymous Twelve-Step program is spiritual, emotional and physical recovery.

The key point of the Pro side was that OAs, particularly newcomers where confused by our definition of abstinence and that by changing the language, as suggested, abstinence will be easily explained. The Cons were quite clear that abstinence was about much more than a food plan. There were some rather passioned appeals to defeat this. It was defeated.

Motion H was proposed to prompt some OA self examination by having us, through the BOT, look back ten years to see if there is a trend of qualified people of color being passed over to fill leadership positions. This one got a little messy. A substitute motion was penned, but this was ruled out of order by Dodie (our chair). I think this was ruled out of order because this motion substantially changed the meaning of the original motion so it didn’t really qualify for consideration at that time. Introduced next, Amendment H1 tweaked the language a little bit. It tried to make the language clearer. It was defeated. Next, a motion was brought to postpone consideration indefinitely. That was defeated. Ultimately, the main motion, unamended, was brought to a vote and it lost. Last business of the day was

Motion J which really did deal with special focus meetings. Here is the original language with the inserted, new language, underlined:

The following policy statement was adopted: The Fellowship of Overeaters Anonymous recognizes the existence of special focus meetings, (i.e. gay and lesbian meetings, women’s meetings, men’s meetings, 100-pounders, maintainers, old timers, and people of various cultural backgrounds, etc.) which have been formed of persons who can more readily identify with fellow OAers with similar attributes. According to the Traditions, bylaws and policies of OA, the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop eating compulsively. We ask each person attending a meeting to respect and consider the group conscience by not attending the special focus meeting when a general meeting is nearby. All registered meetings shall welcome and give a voice to any person who has the desire to stop eating compulsively.

OK, so you can see the changes proposed. Right away, there was a motion to divide this motion. That means consider each of these changes separately. The motion to divide passed. We debated the first addition: and people of various cultural backgrounds, The Pros (and I stood and spoke pro), simply defended the change as really reflective of OA reality. The best pro case was made by a speaker who said she didn’t want to be an “etc.” The Cons felt we were making too long a list. Where would it end? I have to admit, I could relate to that. I can to believe that we’d be better off just deleting that text altogether. No “i.e.” at all. The vote on the first change passed. The debate on the second change was a bit more passionate. The Pros really wanting these special focus meetings to stay safe places for the interested parties. An example was given of a meeting where someone, not a member of the special focus group, was welcomed the first time because they said they really needed a meeting, but they kept coming back even though there was another OA Meeting nearby on the same day and starting within about an hour. The Cons argued that this was not the way OA should treat anyone attending a meeting. This part of the motion was defeated. Business for Friday was over.

Fifth Business Session -Saturday Morning:

Here we go! The last business session of this WSBC. After the normal CSC introductions and the day’s ready from Voice of Recovery, Dodie, the Madame Chairman of the conference addressed the conference asking that we try hard to limit our questions and amendments so we can get all the way through the mornings business. By all means, ask questions if you really need to but if it’s not really important, please, sit on your butt.

Motion 1 removes the Central Illinois Intergroup from Region 4 and places it in Region 5. This was a request made by the Central Illinois Intergroup because it is geographically more convenient to attend Region 5 events. This passed. No con speakers.

Motion 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 all concerned the creation of the Virtual Groups service structure. You’ll recall that virtual groups are groups which do not meet face to face, like on-line and telephone meetings. All these motions passed. Here is an outline of what each does:

1. Motion 4 – Just adds some detail to the definition of a Virtual Group.
2. Motion 5 – Allows virtual groups to affiliate with any Intergroup or they may form their own IG.
3. Motion 6 – Makes clear that virtual service boards are not part of the region structure while other types of service boards are part of this structure.
4. Motion 7 – Normalizes language in this bylaw. Drops “National/Language Service Board” and replaces it with “service boards”. Makes clear the service board can and do cross boundaries.
5. Motion 8 – The virtual groups and service boards need a trustee to represent their interests and deal with their issues. Rather than incur the expense of another trustee, one year at a time, one of the 10 region trustees will rotate through representing the virtual groups/service boards.
6. Motion 9 – Normalizes language in this bylaw, which sets the guidelines for Intergroup and service board representation at WSBC. Drops “National/Language Service Board” and replaces it with “service boards”. I was concerned about virtual groups potentially being over represented. None the less, this did pass and I did vote for it. Last year I argued against this. This year, I’m just trusting all will be ok.

Motion 2 – This motion makes a change to trustee qualifications by changing the abstinence requirement from “five years of continuous abstinence” to “five years of current abstinence”. This passed easily.

(The next three are mine.)

Motion 10 – Changes the paperwork requirement for service boards from requiring bylaws to requiring bylaws OR statement of purpose plus operating procedures. Which ever document they use, it must include a statement indicating its primary purpose is to aide those with the problem of compulsive eating through the 12 Step and 12 Traditions and 12 Concepts of OA service of Overeaters Anonymous. This motion passed.

Motion 11 – Same as 10 but for Intergroups.

Motion 12 – Same ass 10 but for Regions.

With all the bylaws changes dispatched, we return to the motions which had been referred to the reference sub-committee.

You may recall Motion F which proposed to create Compulsive Overeater Awareness Week (COAW) but that appreciation just didn’t fly. An amended version of the motion came back from committee suggesting the week be named “Overeaters Anonymous Awareness Week”. Pros suggested that a focus on the OA solution to the problem would make this a good week to get recognized. The Cons suggested that the focus on OA was not appropriate because it focused on the organization rather than the disease. Ultimately, this motion lost. I think it lost because it was not well formed to start and there was no ground swell to help it along. It may come back in another form in the future.

Motion G, amended came back and this time was passed. Motion G, amended will have us create recovery chips denominated for years 1-20 plus 25, 30, 35 and 40.

Emergency Motion I was a request for $20,000 to fund translation services. We didn’t actually see the language so I’m not 100% certain what exactly it proposed. The motion was not discussed because we ran out of time. Ultimately though, the BOT who can approve discretionary spending below a certain amount will be allocated to this activity. It is a good thing to do. 

With the last motion over, we had about 30 minutes of closing ceremonies including Diode’s good bye from the chair (she’s still on the board) and the wonderful Green Dot Ceremony which has first time delegates removing their green dots from their badges.

After lunch and a few hours off, our committees reconvened for a wrap up session to review goals and actions.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Ray F.
SCI 2008 WSBC Delegate

 

 

 

 

First 2008 World Service Business Conference Report to Space Coast Intergroup

REPORT

 

During the 2008 WSBC I attended the Bylaws Committee. Here is the report my committee filed at the end of Conference. Subsequent reports will deal with the forum and the business meetings.
Respectfully submitted Ray F.
Space Coast Intergroup Delegate to 2008 WSBC
May, 2008

Bylaws Committee Report

Initial session of the Bylaws Committee

Opened with the Serenity Prayer. Twenty-four delegates were present. A brief indoctrination of the purpose and activities of the Bylaws committee and its subcommittees were given by Trustee Cochairman, Craig R., and Delegate Cochairman, Ray F.

• Elect Delegate Cochairman, Secretary, Delegate Vice Chairman.
  Results:
  • Delegate Co-chairman: Ray F., Space Coast IG, FL, USA.
  • Delegate Vice Chairman: Catherine W., Unity IG, MN, USA.
  • Secretary: Marysia H., St. Louis Bi-State IG, MO, USA.

• Subcommittee work for 2008 – 2009.
  • Miscellaneous Short Term Goals
  • Long Term Goals: Simplification of Language in OA Bylaws Sub. B
  • Long Term Goals: Simplification of WSBC Policy Manual/Continuing Effects Motions

• Miscellaneous Short Term Goals
  Synopsis:
  • Review procedure to follow when Bylaws are submitted by an IG in a language other than English.
    • Task: Determine how to verify that a person qualifies to review a translation.
    • Task: Determine what needs to be in present for the Service Body Bylaws not to be in conflict with OA Bylaws Sub. B.
    • Status: Submit policy motion to Bylaws committee for vote by 5/15/08 and forward to BOT.
  • Review Standing Rules and OA Bylaws Sub. B related to Article IX, Section 6 regarding election of Trustees to establish if changes need to be made.
    • Task: Communicate with Parliamentarian and Trustee about necessity and implications of changes to this section. Report back to STG committee on fact finding before proceeding further.
    • Status: Complete. Parliamentarian suggests no changes to this section are necessary.
  • Review Standing Rules for any inconsistencies/changes that need to be made.
    • Task: Review 2007 committee work on this subject about Standing Rules wording already identified as for review/modification.
    • Status: Proposed wording changes to be circulated within this subcommittee and then Bylaws committee by mid September in preparation for being submitted to the BOT in November.

• Long Term Goals: Simplification of Language in OA Bylaws Sub. B
  Synopsis:
  • Review OA Bylaws Sub. B to establish if language simplification is possible.
    • Task: Determine changes that can be done for WSBC 2009.
    • Status: Submit Art. IX motion to Bylaws Committee by 7/11/08. Submit other complete priority motions to Bylaws Committee by 10/31/08. Forward all to BOT for inclusion in WSBC 2009 Questionnaire.

• Long Term Goals: Simplification of WSBC Policy Manual/Continuing Effects Motions
  Synopsis:
  • Review WSBC Policy Manual/Continuing Effects Motions to establish if simplification is possible.
    • Task: Create front section to head existing policy manual of up-to-date policy statements organized by subject, by applying all changes/deletions in Continuing Effects Motions.
    • Status: Submit new front section to Bylaws Committee by 10/31/08. Forward to BOT by 12/15/08.

Reference Subcommittee
The reference subcommittee has several green dot delegates on the committee. There were no motions referred to committee at the first meeting so the committee reviewed a number of the motions that might potentially come to the conference floor. The committees’ policy was reviewed in detail and questions by members were answered.

The parliamentarian attended the second meeting and helped review the purpose of the reference subcommittee and made several suggestions regarding debate of referred motions.

The reference subcommittee considered three motions during WSBC 2008. The motions considered were:

• Motion F was referred to the committee after receiving three amendments.
  • The committee voted to adopt with amendments using proposed amendment two with the wording: “OA Awareness Week” instead of “Compulsive Overeaters Awareness Week”.

• Motion G was referred to the committee after receiving three amendments.
  • The committee voted to adopt with amendments using proposed amendment three. The maker of amendment one volunteered to withdraw their amendment. Amendment three wording added: “”1 to 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40” instead of “1 to 20”.

• Motion I was referred to the committee after receiving three amendments.
  • The committee voted to defeat the motion with a unanimous vote.

The virtual motions were also discussed and questions were answered. The maker of the motions outlined the reasons why each of the six proposals was needed to amend the bylaws. The history of these motions and of the virtual meetings was also explained.

Emergency New Business
The reference subcommittee considered five emergency new business motions on Friday night. Three of the motions involved funding for language translations at WSO. The motion presented by the RCC was deemed emergency and referred to the conference floor.

Final Conference Bylaws Committee Meeting:

• Trustee Co-chairman for WSBC 2009 will continue to be Craig R.
• Subcommittees continued work on their work between conferences.
• Delegate Cochairman will explore modification of the Board Reference Manual regarding conduct and activities during WSBC.

Respectfully submitted by,
Ray F., Delegate Cochairman
Craig R., Trustee Cochairman
Marysia H., Secretary

Printable Version

 

Report to Region 8 July 2007 Assembly

May 2007

Southeast Overeaters Anonymous Region 8

Delegate to WSBC 2007

Report:

First, allow me to state that there have been a number of good accounts of WSBC 2007 posted to the internet in the form of weblogs and emails. I have chosen to make use of one posted by an acquaintance and fellow OA Webmaster, Steve M. from Massachusetts. You can find the complete account of his WSBC 2007 at:

http://www.metrowestoa.org/wsbc2007/

Though I have been granted the use of Steve’s words, I will not identify them. If you wish to compare my report with Steve’s blog please go to the above address.

My Participation:

Monday

Arrived in Albuquerque, checked in at hotel and shopped for food for the week.

Tuesday

Registered at Conference and attended two workshops.

The Twelve Steps: Are They the Real Tools?

Presentation by two delegates. I thought it was very uplifting. I found many people that feel that the Twelve Steps are the true tools of the program. There was a real message to sponsors to ensure newcomers begin doing the steps soon after they come to program, and complete them quickly.

Making Footprints: Guiding Sponsorees Through the Steps, A Lifelong Journey of Spiritual Growth.

Again presented by two delegates. Their presentation focused on the Steps as the vehicle of recovery, ending with a spiritual awakening.

Wednesday

Forum: Embracing Diversity in OA

This morning we had a forum titled “Embracing Diversity in OA”, lead by Margaret Ann B., Region 6 Trustee. We were organized into about 25 working groups. To start, Margaret led us through an exercise where members of various “groups” would stand up and everyone would applaud:

• “All compulsive overeaters, please stand up”. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP.
• “All Anorexics and bulimics, please stand up”. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP.
• “All people married to men, please stand up”. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP.
• “All people married to women, please stand up”. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP.
• “All parents, please stand up”. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP.

You get the idea. There were a lot more then these and it was good to stretch and clap. I guess the point is that there are a lot of different forms of diversity in our rooms.

There were three speakers. Speaking first a native French speaker shared on what it’s like to be a non-native English speaker in OA. He shared on the uselessness of English language OA literature, so his IG translates and sells French language OA literature world wide.

Our next exercise had us pair off and share a personal story of where we felt different. My share was of living in Sicily as a young married military man, living within a foreign economy. My cold-turkey weaning from TV. (This was the early ‘70s with no satellites, cell phones, internet, email, podcasts, etc.) Our initial decision was to live in the “American Village”, stick our heads in the sand, and hope for the end of the two year tour to come soon. Eventually we decided that being different was not a sentence to be served, so we decided to join the Sicilians. We moved away from the base until we found a town where no one spoke English, and settled there. To this day I remember what it felt like and what the place looked like. I also retain much of the language I learned, and can communicate, albeit in a basic sense, with other Italian speakers. I proved this yet again when I spoke briefly with the delegate from Italy.

Our next share had a member speak to being a part of a sexual preference minority. In her case, she didn’t feel she was treated differently and as long as the program focused on recovering from compulsive overeating, her preference wasn’t an issue.

The next exercise was “The Label Game”. We brainstormed and listed various sex based stereotypes such as “Men can fix things and women can’t” or “Women are emotional and men aren’t”. We then shared in our group on how we personally had been affected by stereotypes. Finally, we talked about how stereotypes affect recovery in the rooms. In short, anything which focuses on our differences works against our recovery. When we’re in the rooms, we’re focused on the disease we all share.

The final sharer spoke to program diversity, specifically how we work our program. She share about coming into program in the 90 day community, experimented and then came back to her roots and found long term recovery.

We ended with an exercise where we were given a scenario and we were asked for suggest how we might handle it. Our group’s story had us assume we were each leading a 90 day meeting. The problem came when we got to the part in the format where the meeting was opened up for sharing by anyone with 90 days of abstinence. We were clearly instructed that the format made no suggestion. This was to be taken as a rule. How were we to deal with this?

This exercise was particularly interesting to me, since I learned my methods of OA recovery in 90 day rooms. I also learned much about the Traditions when I defended the 90 day meetings in my first service above the group level in South Florida. Understanding the autonomy given to groups by the Fourth Tradition on determining their meeting format, and the protection that the Second Tradition gives them from interference by other service bodies was essential knowledge in the early days of 90 day meetings. We took great pains to ensure our format made no restrictions on people who attended our meetings. However, we DID make suggestions. People who attended our 90 day meetings generally followed our group conscience and respected our wishes.

I shared in the workshop that I would have read the format as written, since it was the product of their group’s conscience. I also shared that I would take the earliest opportunity I could during the meeting to speak about the Traditions, and what qualifies as an OA meeting according to WSBC. I would leave no room for doubt as to whether an OA group may restrict people from sharing at a meeting, and probably not make many friends that night.

Committee Meetings:

First committee meetings began at 11:00 am. My assignment was the Bylaws committee. I was elected Committee Delegate Co-chairman. We also elected a Secretary and a Delegate Vice Chairman to back-up the Delegate Co-chairman. Our Trustee Co-chairman, Bob F., General Service Trustee, laid out the work of our subcommittees, and asked that we choose a subcommittee affiliation. The foci of our subcommittees were: Miscellaneous changes to the Standing Rules; The issue of Intergroup, Region, and Service Board bylaws mandatory conformity with OA Bylaws Subpart B; and Reducing the WSBC Sample Bylaws to something usable by a small intergroup. Then we adjourned for lunch.

 

 

Back at work at 1:00 pm we broke up into our respective subcommittees. My choice was the conformity issue. We determined to bring a motion to WSBC 2008 that changes the intent of OA Bylaws Subpart B making the conformity requirements as flexible as only requiring a Statement of Purpose that includes “to aid those with the problem of eating compulsively to overcome that problem through the Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions, and Twelve Concepts of OA Service as stated in Overeaters Anonymous, Inc. Bylaws, Subpart B, by servicing and representing the OA groups of which the Service Body is composed.” We determined to change current OA bylaws language to reflect that intergroup, region, and service body bylaws “not be in conflict with” OA Bylaws Subpart B. We will have this motion ready for a committee vote by mid-October.

The other subcommittees determined their goals and deadlines for the year as well. Members of the Bylaws Committee serve until the seating of a new Bylaws Committee at WSBC 2008. I hope to be able to return to WSBC next year representing my intergroup.

Bylaws Reference Subcommittee:

In addition to the three bylaws subcommittees referenced above, there is a special subcommittee of the bylaws committee made up of one or two delegates assigned by their region for that subcommittee. The Reference Subcommittee functions only during conference. It exists to be an informal forum to explore motions scheduled to come to the floor of WSBC. The subcommittee usually meets from 7:00 am to 8:15 am Thursday, Friday and Saturday before the business sessions, over lunch between sessions on Thursday and Friday, and sometimes twice on Thursday and Friday evenings ending around 10:00 pm. That makes for a couple of 15 hour days of solid work.

Region 8 Meeting/Dinner

Region 8 delegates met for dinner and an informal meeting at the hotel restaurant where we all got a chance to talk a little about our intergroups and what activities we are involved in at conference. In addition to my being elected to delegate co-chair of Bylaws, Cheryl S., from Central Florida Intergroup was elected as delegate co-chair of Twelfth Step Within.

Workshop: Parliamentary Procedure

I figured I should attend, since I would be reporting to the Chairman of the Board Of Trustees from the floor of the convention as to the activities of the Bylaws Reference Subcommittee regarding each motion on the floor, and introducing the motions amended by the Reference Subcommittee to the assembly. In short, I would be at the podium of WSBC 2007 any time the body considered a motion previously proposed and evaluated by the delegates prior to conference. Another late night, and the real business hadn’t even started yet.

Thursday:
Ref. Subcommittee at dawn.
We eschewed the two motions regarding new pamphlets and went right into debate over Proposal Item A., the proposed Public Awareness Campaign. There was discussion about source of funds and a cap on funds, but no amendments from Reference at this time.

Business Session I:
Today was our first business meeting. We had 198 voting delegates and trustees from around the world. Each session begins with the Serenity Prayer, lead first in a language that isn’t English and then repeated in English. This morning started with the Serenity Prayer sung in Flemish.

We then got into the mechanics of the meeting with introductions, adoption of credentials (who can vote) and the standing rules. We adopted the agenda and then we had a briefing on the procedures for motions and floor debate. Finally we adopted the officer reports. All of this was supposed to take until lunch but we were done by 10am. I think this was due to darn good organization AND a very well prepared Chairman of the Board (Dodie H. from Albuquerque, NM).

After a break there was an opportunity to ask questions about the region and trustee reports. All of this was pretty mechanical. There was nothing much in the way of questions but I did learn some good stuff. Did you know:

• There is now a suggested OA Meeting format for a Step Study meeting (http://www.oa.org/pdf/StepStudy_Format.pdf).
• OA’s 50th birthday party will be in 2010 at the Los Angeles Airport Hilton (LAX Hilton).
• There are funds available from WSO to reach out to professionals. The details of the program are important and these are documented on www.oa.org.
• A Professional Outreach kit is available from WSO for use at professional exhibits (Central Florida Intergroup and Space Coast Intergroup has used this at professional conventions in Orlando).

We moved on to Trustee nominees. We had Region and General Service nominees. Each gave a brief pitch for the job and we all had their applications in our packets of information (and well ahead of WSBC via mail and the web). All open positions had only one applicant so there were no contests. After speaking there was a question and answer period and all the candidates did very nicely. We’ll actually vote on these nominations tomorrow.

During this period, one thing that caught my ear was the continued interest in reaching out to young people, in particular, discussion of how to make it safe for members under 18.

Reference Subcommittee at lunch:

We gave an initial look at Proposal Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which we determined should be debated individually, but voted on as a package. They deal with virtual-groups, virtual- intergroups and intergroups, service boards in general and a virtual-service board in particular. We kicked around some wording changes to allow virtual-groups to more fully take advantage of OA’s existing service structure. No amendments just yet.

Business Session II:
We essentially finished all general business in the morning so we moved on to the New Business motions. The first motion (Proposal A-A), to adopt a new piece of OA Literature did pass with a very large margin. I think I saw 5-8 people vote no. This new Literature, titled “BLACK OA MEMBERS SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE, STRENGTH AND HOPE” had 3 people speak PRO (in support of adopting the literature) and no one spoke against it. Just so you know, to limit debate, a maximum of 3 people may speak pro and a maximum of 3 people may speak con to any motion (amendments are 2 pro, 2 con). This literature should be available in the fall. A price has not been set yet.

Motion A-B, was to adopt an updated “A GUIDE FOR SPONSORS”. The main change to this was the addition of 30 questions to help newcomers work the first three steps. These are different from the H.O.W. questions or the Westminster questions and were created specifically for OA newcomers.

There was more discussion on this literature then the previous piece. There was concern that the questions were called “Questions for Newcomers” and not “Suggested Questions for Newcomers”. Frankly, I agreed that suggested was better BUT I also thought it was better to have it the way it was then wait another year to publish this. Progress you know. I voted against this motion because of a wording change from “God” to “Higher Power”, and that there was no reference to using the Big Book Alcoholics Anonymous in the advice to sponsors when taking a sponsee through the Steps. I may have been the only dissenter in the room, but we must remain true to our ideals.

At this point we came to Proposal A which would authorize the board to do a special fund raising campaign to make money available for a professionally produced Public Awareness Campaign. This proposal had 3 Pro speakers and 3 Con speakers. I believe the essence of the Pro argument was that we need the professional help to get our message out in a coordinated and concerted effort. The Board of Trustees would be responsible for making sure that the message is in keeping with our traditions.

The Con side made a strong argument that this 12th Step work is ours to do and not the job of a professional organization.

There were a lot of questions from the floor about this. Most of the questions would have been answered by actually reading the motion. Example: How will this be funded. Answer: It’s part of the motion itself: Expenses connected with this campaign will be supported by member contributions to a special public awareness campaign fund established by the Board of Trustees. There were questions about how the Traditions would be protected. Again, it was in black and white in the Implementation portion of the proposal.

Questions came to a screeching halt when an amendment to the Standing Rules was proposed to cut the question time down from 20 to 10 minutes. The way it works now is all proposals, after the Pros and Cons, can have questions asked, from the delegate, for up to 20 minutes. After 20 minutes the delegates voted to close the questions or continue for another 10 minutes and then vote again. The amendment to the Standing rules would have cut that down to 10 minutes before calling for closure. It was an attempt to speed things along but we wasted a lot of time voting down this amendment. My experience at conference is that some questions are critical to really understanding the issues. In the past I have changed my vote on a number of proposals based on what I heard in the Q&A.

Questions resumed until an amendment to the proposal hit the floor. The amendment would cap the expenditure annually at 20 Grand. This also lost. In short, it was made clear that a cap wasn’t needed. Funds come ONLY from the special donations and that will be the cap. If we get 20K in donations we spend that. 100K we spend that. Pretty simple. It doesn’t touch our normal funds from literature sales and 7th tradition.

After another 10 minutes of questions, the closure vote passed. We’ll either vote on this first thing tomorrow or deal with another amendment I head is stirring in the wings. After the Serenity Prayer was said, away we went to dinner. Yippee. But WAIT!

Reference Subcommittee before dinner!
We took up the urgent business at hand. An amendment has surfaced to Proposal A. as described above. We needed to examine the amendment to cap annual expenses at $20,000.00.

Reference Subcommittee after dinner.
More work on Proposal Item A. A second amendment has now surfaced dealing with the source of funds. One more amendment and the whole thing gets kicked back to committee (That’s US. We’ve already spent hours on this!)

Don’t eat no matter what. No matter what don’t eat.

Friday:

Reference Subcommittee at dawn…AGAIN
We needed to put some more work in on Proposal Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Business Session III:
We ended today’s business meeting at 3pm. I’m not sure if that’s because there was another function planned for the space or if they knew, well in advance, that it would turn into a challenging business meeting. Things started out pretty quietly.

I forget the exact order of business but I believe we started with the votes for the Region Trustees. All trustee positions had a single candidate and therefore ran unopposed. Votes for trustees are taken on a secret paper ballot. A majority vote is required for election. All candidates won though none got unanimous votes. When the results were read we were given the total number of ballots and the number of votes for each candidate, for example 201 total ballots and 193 votes for the candidate. There is no opportunity to vote NO for a candidate. Any mark other then an “X” in the space provided makes that ballot a spoiled ballot and no vote on it counts. Our new or re-elected trustees are:

Region Trustees –

• Angela J. – Region 2 Trustee (Trustee since 2005)
• Raymond Craig R, (goes by Craig) – Region 5 Trustee (1st term)
• Charles A. – Region 8 Trustee (Trustee since 2004)
• Di C. – Region 10 Trustee (1st term)

General Service Trustees -

• Idolia (goes by Dodie) H. – General Service Trustee (2nd term)
• Cheryle T. – General Service Trustee (1st term)
• Vicki W. – General Service Trustee (1st term)

I know some of the board and some of the new/re-elected trustees. I know we’ll be well served.

On to the new business motions for the day.

Proposal Item 1…You remember that one from the questionnaire, right? Well, it passed, I think unanimously. I think. We voted by raised hand and I didn’t see any No hands. This motion moved a couple of Intergroup service areas into Region 3 from their prior region because they are closer to region 3’s annual assembly and convention.

Proposal Item 7 and 8 also seemed to pass unanimously. This approved changes to the by-laws that will enshrine the de-facto reality that the incorporation of Overeaters Anonymous is being moved from California to New Mexico.

Lunch? NOT SO FAST! Well, actually we had lunch off because they were using our conference room for the Strategic Planning Session later.

NO Reference Subcommittee over lunch!
Whatever! It just would have been more work on Proposal Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 anyway.

There WAS a meeting of the OA Webmasters during lunch that I was able to attend. Another of my passions (Yep…I’m a geek.) I met a lot of new friends and put faces to names I had been looping with over the past couple of years.

Business Session IV
Depending on your definition of fun, this is where it began. A brief review is needed. Some years ago, OA established a policy defining the sort of on-line and telephone meeting that could register as an official OA meeting. These meetings must be interactive and meet in “real time”. This has worked well I hear from members who participate in these meetings. What these OA groups cannot do is join existing or form their own Intergroups or Regions. Since these groups give money to World Service through the 7th tradition you could think of this as Taxation without Representation. We all know what happened the last time we ran across this!

Proposal Items 2-6 moved to amend the various section of our OA bylaws to both incorporate these “Virtual Groups” (today this is on-line and telephone meetings) and to change some language defining changing “National/Language Service Boards” to just “Service Boards.” The heart of the debate though is around these virtual groups.

The chairman of the meeting had the discretion and made the decision to vote on items 2-6 in a single vote: adopt them all or reject them all. So the process looks like this (simplified!):

Proposal Item X:

• Introduce the main motion
• Debate the motion (3 pro, 3 con)
• If there is an amendment, stop the debate on the motion
  • Debate the amendment (2 pro, 2 con)
  • Answer questions for 20 minutes
  • Vote on the amendment
• If the Amendment passes, continue debating the amended main motion. If it fails, continue debate on the original main motion.
• Answer questions for 20 minutes.
• Vote on the motion.

It’s tedious but it’s a process (Robert’s Rules of Order) and it works!

So far we’ve been through just the first two of these. The first, Proposal Item 2 defines “virtual media groups”. Through the amendment process, these became Virtual Groups and what little definition there was disappeared. In essence, anything that is not a face to face meeting becomes a virtual group. Today that means telephone meetings and on-line meetings. The intent of the maker is to have a definition for virtual groups that is broad enough so that any new means of meeting will automatically be included.

In the debate and discussion, it was pretty clear that the Pros felt we needed an open and flexible definition. The Cons were uncomfortable with an un-clear proposal. In fact, the Cons support bringing virtual groups into the service structure but they feel these proposals we are looking at today are not the right proposals to do so. What nobody knew, and I had no way to tell them, was that the Reference Subcommittee was considering just this, and we had assured ourselves that existing OA structure could handle the inclusion of virtual groups and intergroups.

The next proposal item we discussed, Item 3, modifies the bylaws so that virtual groups can form their own Intergroups, but in the process of amending the original motion, virtual groups were given a choice: Form new Intergroups or join existing Intergroups in any physical location. In short, this amended proposal gives virtual groups greater freedom to associate than face to face meetings. A meeting in Florida must associate with an Intergroup in Region 8 (But did you know that it doesn’t have to associate with a local IG? If a meeting doesn’t like the way it’s being represented, it can vote with its feet and find another intergroup it likes better!)

That was all the business we could get to on Friday. The discussion on virtual groups took a long time and it will resume on Saturday morning. There is a lot of business remaining and my bet is we don’t get to all of it before we close the business session tomorrow.

Strategic Planning Session:
After the business meeting we had a strategic planning session where we broke into 5 break-out groups to brainstorm ideas in 5 areas:

• Abstinent members
• Strong meetings
• Committed service bodies
• Public/professional awareness
• Financial health

I was part of the Abstinence group. We brainstormed different ways to promote abstinence. I publicly promised to speak of abstinence and the solution each time I share at a meeting. There were many other ideas including an idea to try to amend meeting formats to include a blurb on what abstinence is and for sponsors to qualify. We also want to try to quantify abstinence, and abstinent sponsors. That will materialize as we go along. Last but most exciting, is the abstinence virus. Airborne! Catch it! As a group, about twenty of us agreed to support each other’s abstinence and spread it!

Reference Subcommittee after dinner.

More work on Proposal Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. But we packed that in when we heard that the third amendment came in…To REFER TO COMMITTEE! The only question now remains as to which committee. We in Bylaws don’t feel it’s appropriate for us to craft whatever comes next. We’ll see….

We turned our attention to Proposal Item 9, the one about gender-neutral references to God in the Steps. We kicked around changing the wording to “Higher Power” but couldn’t seem to make it work. Then again, nothing much about our brains seemed to work right just then. We decided to let it pass or fail without our input.

DONE! No more Reference Subcommittee meetings! We get tomorrow morning off and I actually got to eat a leisurely breakfast and drift in to the conference at 8:30 am.

Saturday:
Business Session V:
This will be the last business related meeting of the week.

Summary: The delegates approved funding of a national Public Information Campaign. The campaign will start-up with reserve funds( no more then 20k) which will be replaced by special contributions requested from the fellowship. Look for news on this coming to a meeting near you. We’ll spend as much as gets contributed on this campaign. It’s likely to start on the web. This got a pretty good majority. I voted against it because I felt there was no oversight beyond that given by the Board of Trustees. I made the last argument of the conference from the CON mike indicating that we argue periods and semicolons into the ground when it comes to the literature we publish for our own consumption. But we leave it up to an advertising agency to craft what we give to the world without a second look by the conference of delegates. Just before the close of this business meeting, a suggestion was made to do the first collection for the special fund from the members at WSBC. The report later was that over $1000 was collected (average probably about $5.something per person).

Back to the future and after much wrangling, we decided to send Proposals 2-6, to create a service structure (IGs, Regions, etc) for telephone and on-line meeting, back to the drawing board for a re-write. I think that was the right choice. These proposals were confusing as heck and the motions we were going to be asked to vote on were substantially different then the motions brought forward originally. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees (Dodie Hawkins) will form a subcommittee (probably of the board’s technology committee) to work on new proposal recommendations, I hope for next year. These groups need to be part of our service structure. We did, after all, fight a war in 1776 about taxation without representation.

Remarkably, we made it to Proposal Item 9, to replace Him with God in Steps 3, 6 and 11. Right off a motion was introduced to extend debate to 6 pro and 6 con. This didn’t win. Shortly after, an amendment was introduced to change Step 3 to read: Made a decision to turn our will and life over to the care of “the God of our understanding”. I sort of liked it, but was against it because I felt that big a change was outside the boundaries of what we had proposed to the fellowship. After a fair amount of debate, the Chair actually made a decision to rule that amendment was out of order for the same reason I just mentioned. She ruled that it represented a change outside the scope of a change permitted by the amendment process on a bylaws motion because it changes the Steps, and the Steps must be changed with extreme attention to due notice.

With that we moved on to the question period, until…a motion to reconsider the Chair’s ruling was introduced. We then debated that motion. If the motion to reconsider passed, the delegates would have effectively overruled the Chair’s decision. The motion to reconsider failed and we continued with the question period on the motion. A motion came forward for a paper ballot but because of the late hour the Chair asked the floor if there was no objection, we would vote on that paper ballot motion without debate and questions. Before the vote a member asked the Chair to instruct the delegates to show no display of emotion when the result was announced. That was a good reminder that this is about principals. Wining and losing isn’t part of it. Finding a group conscience is the point. We finally had a vote by show of hands. Proposal Item 9 didn’t pass (needing 2/3 vote) but it got more then I expected. I saw about 1/3 of the delegates rise in support.

We adjourned for 2007 and I had a plane to catch. I didn’t stay for the festivities or the final committee meeting, welcoming the incoming Trustee Co-Chairman to the bylaws committee. I had a chance to meet with him on the phone, though and I have a better idea of what I and the committee will be doing throughout the year as a result.

On a personal note, I arrived at conference this year full of the fear that our fellowship is doomed to failure. I will not explain why right now, but I wouldn’t mind a call or two about it. Anyway, I was able to speak to some friends of mine I get to see so seldom now. The combination of talking it all out and the furious pace I had to work during conference seemed to put it all down the list of things that concerned me. This lasted until I was able to evaluate the people I had the honor to work with, and the true commitment to abstinence so evident in many of our trusted servants. With people like that we will not fail as a fellowship. But I still see us as a house divided. Thankfully I get to work at closing the rift at all levels of OA service.

Thank you for electing me to represent you this year.

In service,

Ray F.

Delegate to WSBC 2007