Sunday
PART ONE
Report
on NJ CAR results
We
had approximately 130 groups from our Region participating in the CAR process.
Not every Area provided votes. There was a small problem in accounting for some
of the votes from one Area because of a communication problem. That difficulty
will yield unbalanced counts when we get toward the second half of the CAR.
Still, it was a pleasure working with everyone this cycle. I learned a lot from
you. I also appreciate everyone who filled in the discussion form. Thanks.
Yes No Abstain
1.
approve sponsorship book 85 20 19
2.
approve sponsorship pamphlet 76 28 17
3.
revise JFT 52 52 10
4.
approve basic text project 65 17 9
5.
decrease world board 63 25 17
6.
eliminate committees 38 36 28
7.
short moratorium 71 43 16
8.
longer moratorium 35 52 11
9.
book one version of BT 47 61 11
10.
tradition guide 14 73 13
11.
internet posting 37 53 11
12.
key tags & medallions 58 33 15
13.
rescind WB voting 39 41 19
14.
elect WB by 51% 44 39 17
15.
lower cost of events 38 46 14
16.
consensus decision-making 17 56 26
17&18
Resolution A (MN) 23 56 20
19
Resolution A (Lone Star) 31 45 22
Report
On Old Business Motions
·
The
board had already informed us that the sponsorship book would have a table on
context, now we will consider an amendment to add an index.
We will vote in favor of this since it meets the
desires of our lit review chair and was mentioned in comments on the CAR.
·
There
were several motions to make it clear that the basic text project was limited
to English speaking stories.
·
There
was a motion to add another cycle to the basic text project to allow for more
review and input.
·
There
was a motion to allow NAWS to change the colors etc of Key tags to meet the
tastes of different cultures.
HRP
and WORLD BOARD ELECTION PROCEDURES
HRP
believes in its own independence. They believe the Board is not committed to
the same process. They do not feel appreciated and supported.
BOARD
World
Pool is resume dependent. This has had the impact of narrowing the field
instead of opening the field as was intended.
We
do fear “old boy” operations. We do have doubts.
Current
WB elections reflect the same problem as Trustee elections. We used to elect
only a few. We still elect only a few. Our pattern is not to vote for the
number of openings we have.We do not trust enough. We demand people to be
present or known.
The
board believes we can do better. They believe in leadership cultivation. They
would like this to replace the self-nomination process we are reliant upon.
They—bd members --keep themselves alert to the individuals in the fellowship.
They think they can do better than this process.
Leadership
is not bossiness, controlling. It is about giving people access to the system
to develop skills of service. We only
vote for people we have confidence in.
How can we have confidence in people we don’t know—people whose
work/service we are unfamiliar with.
Planting
trees that none of us will sit under.
Bd
members need to have better prep and skills.
World
Service Resource base must be developed.
We
really want people to have experience at the level for which they are to be
considered to be elected. For Bd that means working at Bd level. The bd does
have this hands on experience with people but the process precludes their
effective contributions
The
Bd believes we need at least 12 no more than 18. Elect 4-8. We need for us to
vote for 6-7 to get the mininimum number. This is not our history of voting. We
hope we change.
Peter
NY
We
can take the leap of faith necessary to vote for people we don’t know. If HRP
were given adequate resources we are certain they would do the job we want for
them
Cultivate
leadership means cultivating infrastructure.
We
all want to have input. The W Bd wants input into the process, the participants
want input and especially we want an opportunity to talk with each other.
John
(MN)
Are
we all cognizant of the time commitment for WB of 40-60 days a year is a
commitment most cannot make. This reality is troubling.
John
(Mid America)
What
is the difference between tension and differences of opinion. (referring to the
HRP/WB division over what about election process needs to be fixed.
We
all have the same goals—we want to elect suitable people. He thinks we need to
talk about how to cast our votes. If we have confidence in HRP (and many do)
then we should vote for the maximum number we can in order to elect the number
we need,
Angela(Columbia)
Maybe
some people could talk to Latin American fellowship to help them comprehend the
profiles so they can understand who they are voting for (Resumes/profiles are
only in English)
Jane
says the idea of getting together to talk has been brought to the floor a 2nd
time. Spanish community can get Johnny to help them go thru profiles with HRP
people present. This is a new process. In the past the Board has refrained from
talking about candidates, so we are all a bit nervous.
REGION—name
unknown.
Is
the flaw in nomination process as bd sees it or election process as HRP sees
it. (assuming these characterization are correct)
HRP:
Someone
has to do clearing work We now use HRP. We could have Bd do it, or staff but
someone must do it. The problem is that electing 2.4 or 2.6 just doesn’t work
for us.
The
way thru election process is to look at other organizations—many rely on
committees like HRP to do the filtering—these work because the people nominated
are assumed to be the best available.
Will
we straw poll on the difference between HRP (blind CPR review, ie names and
regions of candidates are initially removed for 1st level review)
and Bd that favors specific recommendations of specific people.
HRP
will show us a PP that will answer the patterns of voting.
Responding
to how many people Bd voted on last cycle: Susan voted for 7, bob for 9, jane
for 6, craig for 7,
John
(FL)
This
is not a problem of not having qualified people nominated. We have confidence
in the nomination. The problem is statistics. When there are many more people
running than can be elected it is not statistically feasible to elect many .
Better to have a primary. Then run off between those that survive this primary.
Floridians
later spelled out ‘primary’ system in writing for us.
William
(NNY)
When
did it happen that HRP had to report to WB?
Jane-there
was no process for WSC when not in session. WB found itself in accountability
position. Didn’t see HRP as having that position, so assumed ‘supervisory’
function.
Seth
(NM)
We
need to have a good reason not to vote for people, not a better reason than
nomination to vote yes.
HRP
We
could tell you more about how we cull candidates. HRP objective this week is to
build trust.
Jeremy(NE)
The
judgment/assessment of people is very subtle/nuanced. We don’t have a process
that allows for this fragile, heartfelt evaluation.
Walt
(FREESTATE)
Cultivation
process should involve inquiry of regions and areas where candidate functions.
HRP
has been looking into how to do this. HRP would be more confident if RD/RDA
backs candidate.
(All
this discussion moved me to feel bad and a bit stupid for not asking for you to
lend support to my candidacy. To the degree you feel left out, I apologize. To
the degree that it is better as a policy judgment not to involve the region in
supporting or not supporting people for World Services positions, it is best
that I did leave you out until you can formulate general policy about the
issues and not have to make a special judgment about a single individual
candidate.)
Monica
(Norway)
Can
we have the resumes sent before the conference so we have more time to go thru
them.
HRP
says that is a good idea if we can work out the details. Privacy/security are
issues
Brian
(CalmidState)
Does
WB make nominations? NO But, in theory-according to Guide—any conference
participant can make a nomination.
(Board
has stayed out of process because there was a feeling that their involvement
might make the process seem tainted or skewed. Now, as you can tell from the
notes, they want in. This is a huge decision. I hope we do not have to make it
here. I hope it is a decision we get to bring back for workshopping.)
Paul
(Rocky MT)
Nomination
process is fine. It is election process that is flawed.
Jane
(WB) has confidence that knowing the need, we will take the action. (what she
means is knowing we really must elect people this year, we will find a way to
do it. I took this to mean we would use our votes more generously-vote for more
people- in a committed attempt to have enough people on the board. Not everyone
is confident. The FL ‘primary’ is a potential way of solving our problem.)
David(WB)
Thanks
HRP
The
transition from old to new system has bumps. David learned from George to look
for underlying principle.
Learned
to try not to do things out of fear.
Is
HRP designed out of fear to be an isolated entity in order to insulate process
from ‘old boy’ influence. We could do HRP workgroup where BD and workgroup
nominated together.
The
60% came from the past. We could do it differently. Bd could identify the
number of people needed to do the work and let conference elect them. No need
for 60%
Worth
(Mountaineer)
Who
reviews nomination challenge forms(page 24 of Guide) deadline is wed
(you
should know that we aren’t thinking as randomly as these notes seem to suggest.
Top speak requires queing up. So, we must trust our own intelligence to connect
the pieces of the discussion together as we move through the que.
Japan
Wants
to hear candidates “from the heart.”
Suggest
video as a possible way to progress past paper.
Amanda(ONTARIO)
2
questions in election process
·
experience
& ability:she trusts HRP to filter, but characteristic 2 is ranking
·
confidence:
she thinks she cant reach a decision about who to have confidence in without
face to face interaction. This 2nd one is about 60%. This is
ranking.
Our
system as is addresses the first, but not the second.
Shawn
(NNE)
They
only eliminate 3-5 when their Region voted last time. And, they have a policy
commitment note to vote for regional nominations.
(Maybe
you don’t know—
1.
there is a ‘self-nominating’ process. It is self-nominating in that people must
submit World Pool Resumes to be considered. The HRP reviews the resumes and
initiates the following process of evaluation.
·
They
initially create a pile of people ‘qualified on the numbers,’ ie people with
the clean time and maybe basic qualifications.
·
They
then contact the people on the long list and ask about continuing interest. [I
think they get more info]
·
They
somehow select from the long list a shorter list of people they will interview
and reference check [ I think the numbers for this year were 115 on the long
list with 95 going forward into interview process.
·
They
use info gathered from interview & reference check process to make the HRP
nominations.
2.
there is a regional nomination process in this case a region sends in a letter
or a vote of confidence nominating someone. The person nominated must be in the
world pool. I think that generally that means the nominee was already
eliminated by the HRP. But, I admit to not having paid much attention to this
latter process)
Manny
(Buckeye)
A
self nomination process needs investigation.
HRP
says be very careful about this self-nomination thing, the self action here is
the expression of interest. (see above)
Sue(WB)
says filling out a resume is self nomination.
(How
do you see it? If I am correct and everyone who is nominated by a region has to
already have a world pool resume, then Sue is wrong. We can hardly distinguish
between the people recommended by the HRP and those recommended by a region by
calling the first set ‘self-nominated’ since all had to filled in the resume to
nominate themselves.
I
think the difference Sue wants to highlight might avoid the world pool resume for some or may have Board members
acting like regions and nominating people. Maybe the bd would tell you they
wished to have you file a resume?)
tim(??)
We
need help from HRP and BD. We aren’t able to elect from paper. We elect people
that we know. We have no process to talk about our needs for this personal
knowledge. We turn to the ‘hallways’ when what we really need is help.
We
could ask RSC—could do it by a confirmation card or send an info sheet to the
Region.
HRP
or BD should consider workgroup performance.
Michael
(pacific cascade)
Delegates
want some kind of Q&A to help them consider confidence info about the
candidates. Michael thinks this idea troubling. This is not the same as the
spanish speaking community’s request to have help with the English language
profiles. Michael and just about everyone else favors this 2nd idea
and it was scheduled to be implemented.
Skip
(Argentina)
If
we need 6 we should ‘elect’ the 6 people who get the most votes? He would like
to have this considered.
Chicago
Isnt
the allowance for Regional nominations contradictory to the HRP nomination
France/Quebec
What
criteria used to qualify candidates?
Will
answer tomorrow.
Tom
(Bd)
People
who are really qualified are cut. Blind resume takes the heart out of process.
Shame that we lose qualified people.
How
do we get heart & soul into the process.
Bob
(FL)
Regional
Nominations circumvent the process.
Monday
World Board Forum
Demo
board meeting reviewing motion amendments to old business.
Motion
20: amend
motion 4 to be limited to English language only editions of BT.
BD
offered the idea that rather than do this by formal amendment, what if BD gave
assurance that Motion 4 was intended to change personal stories in English
language version.
Anthony
reminded the motion 20 maker that translation policy already allows for the
effect motion 20 seems to address.
Bd
reco not adopt
Motion
21: Move
amendment to motion 4 to have the process take 3 not 2 cycles
Board
says the addition of an extra cycle will not gain the 3 rounds of review the
motion has as its intent. Board still thinks there is no need for more time for
review and input.
Bd
reco not adopt
Motion
22: amend
motion 4 to read ‘some’ personal stories, not some or all. That is the intent
of the motion is to preserve some of the personal stories.
Bd would prefer full flexibility. They want workgroup to create guidelines that will operate as semi-objective standards for inclusion/exclusion. If we adopt motion 22 the guidelines might not be applicable in an even handed way.
What
bd recommends is that anyone who has a personal story that is especially
meaningful to them should input that desire to have the story stay. Bd will
give great emphasis to this desire.
Bd
reco not adopt
Motion
23: add
index to sponsorship book
Bd
did discuss adding an index. Asked for topical suggestions by special workers.
The bd decided that because of personal experience nature of the book (80-90%)
the indexing would be awkward/difficult to accomplish.
Index
would not translate well.
Bd
reco not to adopt
Motion
24: amend
13 so that it refers properly to the WSC Rules Of Order. (Frankly, its one of
those policy issues that cause my mind to blank out) Anyway, Bd says that if
motion 13 passed the WSC Rules of Order would have to be changed anyway.
(Again, I just blank out regarding these policy issues. You are on your own.
Jason, go for it!)
Bd
obviously reco not to adopt
Motion
25: amend 12 to allow bd to select color & format of non English language
chips, keytags & medallions to ensure that different cultural needs were
addressed responsibly. In China a white chip means death. So, we should permit
the bd to make necessary variations.
Also,
the motion maker never desired to make the system as rigid as bd interpreted
it.
Since
bd didn’t support original motion, it didn’t seem consistent to support saving
amendment.
Bd
reco not to adopt.
Skip
(Argentina) Thanks MN for resolution A proposal. Greets the attempt to generate
unity with happiness. He wants to know if the bd will now generate a plan that
does move us forward toward this goal in a timely manner.
Bd
says direct bd to develop a project plan for next cycle.
Skip
asks if we can get to proposal for project plan without formal motion.
Bd
says it is up to the body. Some want moratorium on resolution a discussion for
5 years, some want to push forward now.
Bd says lets see what this afternoon’s discussion brings.
Tim
(Lone Star)
Review
& Input process now in place is not what it used to be. Lone Star doesn’t
like it the way it is now. Tim thinks that 6 mths for 31,000 groups to eval any
changes to BT is irresponsible.
Bd
says basic review and input has not changed, what has changed is the type of
lit we are developing. Sponsorship book- based on experience—needed different
way. But Jane-speaking for bd- admits that the detailed outline for sponsorship
book didn’t elicit identification of the problems that actual book revealed.
See, for instance, same-sex sponsorship: Not many objected to seeing the topic
listed in outline. Lots objected to reading what was written under that heading.
This is a problem we will have to find a way to address.
He
thinks bd should vote in old business. Also, their participation in
recommendations on regional motions pissed him off. What he wants to know what
reco from fellowship is acceptable. (recall CAR workshop in Middlesex where an
addict made exactly the same point.)
Bd
says the reason it looks like they are always objecting is that they have lots
of info that a single region does not have. Also, generally dialogue would
serve better than motions since motions are not going to accomplish what the
motion makers hope. (It is an experience thing, how things change in operation)
David
(bd) says that we might all treat CAR motions as expressions of opinion—a form
off communicating with each other.
Ron
(bd) this issue makes him uncomfortable. We now have a collaborative
relationship that still has this communication difficulty built into it. How
can we get away from contentiousness at Conference if we keep pressing forward
with regional CAR motions. Regions are a part of NAWS and we all need to figure
out how the regions get to be full participants in the full work of NAWS. This
is a developmental problem. Bd gets to Zones and informal communication is
working ok, but there is a problem in developing a structure that allows more
formal input.
Anthony
(EX Director) says input works on things
pretty well. See treasurer workbooks, CD Rom products etc. So it isn’t that
everything that ever comes from fellowship automatically gets squashed. But,
truth is, we haven’t figured out how to make input/exchange/
communication/partnership between bd and rd(regions) work well when it isn’t
about things, but about process, values.
George
(CA) proposed a workgroup to work on elections/nominations.
Mindy
(Show Me) The problem is lack of conversation and not the lack of good ideas.
For instance,Region wanted opportunity at WSC to discuss HRP. They wanted an
opportunity to have HRP forum all of its own. It felt like everything was going
well. But CAT discussions left them unhappy because the leadership development
idea seemed to ignore the entire communications process. Also, they were very
disappointed when HRP were not given a full open forum. So they experience a
disconnect.
1.
Gentle
blue air,
Sweet
water sun,
California’s
warm enough
To
turn me on.
2.
I go home to California
Over
& over again
Without
staying long.
A
Noah bird,
Its
journeyed search for land,
Begun,
begun, begun.
OLD
BUSINESS DISCUSSION
We
began with ‘prebusiness discussion’-- a transitional exercise in an attempt to
move to a more discussion based conference.
First group Yes No Abstain
1.
approve sponsorship book 85 20 19
·
no
one wanted to say anything
·
strawpoll
indicates certain passage
23.
index the book
·
we
managed to say that NJ lit review chair will be very pleased if this motion
passes. This discussion went on for a long time. A meaningful aspect of this
discussion related to how people saw the book-how it might be used. Strawpoll
indicates almost certain failure.
2.
approve sponsorship pamphlet 76 28 17
·
strawpoll
indicates almost certain passage
3.
revise JFT 52 52 10
·
stickers
will be supplied.
·
This
is a hard call for us given the vote. We decided to vote yes at least for
strawpoll. (how did we decide? Well we were taught yesterday that if there is
not a majority of yes votes then the motion fails. Consistent with that
principle, we should vote no. But, sitting here in informal setting, fred
tossed a coin. We apologize if this method of resolving a difficult vote
offends anyone. And, in fairness, I admit to allowing my personal inclination
to vote in favor of the motion –I am a compulsive housekeeper, a bit anal. I
want the literature to be consistent. So I took advantage of freds whimsy. I am
responsible for this decision. He isn’t. we all know that I could have stood on
principle. And, from here on in, I will stand on principle because handling it
this way made me too uncomfortable.)
·
Stickers
will be available soon.
4.
approve basic text project 65 17 9
·
Q:Where
do we discuss extra time for review & input? A: we decide it ourselves—the
CAT says we can have 3 extra months ie extended from 6 to 9 mths.
·
Norway
is already collecting input in prep for adding diversity to personal story
section.
·
Strawpoll
indicates certain success.
20,
21, 22 (English language only/ keep
some personal stories/3cycle process not a 2cycle process
·
Re
motion 20: intent of this motion is to insulate non English language stories
from forced modification. But, Anthony says there is a translation policy
problem. Strawpoll= failed
·
Re
motion 21 make the process a 3 cycle rather than a 2 cycle. Review and input
for 18 mths so that people have enough opportunity to express concerns.
Strawpoll= failed I did not vote on this because I was uncertain whether our
vote should reflect lit review committees opinion or the wishes of regional
groups. I could easily say yes to extended time, but extended cycle is a harder
call.
·
Re motion 23: amend 4 to say some not some or all. Strawpoll= failed.
Motion
30: allow up to 9 mths instead of 6 mths for fellowship review & input on
BT project.
·
Bd
has no reco. Something will have to get shortened somewhere, but there is no
way of knowing now what that will be.
·
Strawpoll=failed
(we voted for it, but few others did.)
7.
short moratorium 71 43 16
·
Show
Me no longer wishes to present the motion. I believed myself required to vote
in favor of the motion if presented, but I didn’t feel empowered to insist on
its presentation.
8.
longer moratorium 35 52 11
·
Strawpoll=
failed
9.
book one version of BT 47 61 11
·
We
are dependent on lit sales to keep ourselves supported. The bd believes that we
have reached a point where it is unsound to have our services financed by sale
of lit. But, the fact is we still have so many unmet needs that we are nowhere
near the ideal of donation dependency. Strawpoll=failed
10.
tradition guide 14 73 13
·
Lone
Star believes that they worked very hard on this project and feel
belittled/demeaned by bd. They didn’t want it to go to the bottom of the pile
and not be considered. They wanted action.
·
Others
expressed the NJ belief that the submission subverted lit development project.
·
Still
others expressed the belief that were the Texas document be sent to a workgroup
for development including review & input process it would garner their
support.
·
Several
people expressed a regional wish for tradition working guides.
·
Bd
offered an option of submitting a project plan in new business.
·
Michelle
from Tennessee says IT WORKS HOW & WHY is a tradition working guide.
·
Strawpoll=
failed
5.
decrease world board 63 25 17
·
Minimum
12 & up to 18 is what bd recommends
·
This
is a 2/3 motion, ie, requires 2/3 vote to pass.
·
Strawpoll=passed
6.
eliminate committees 38 36 28
·
Corporate
by laws require exec but no other committee. It is our own internal guidelines
that require the standing committees.
·
Communication
seems, to some, to depend on committee structure as points of accountability.
We have widened the synapse between local and world services. We did this to
avoid the ‘turfing’ of decisions.
·
Strawpoll=
? ( I wasn’t paying enough attention)
13.
rescind WB voting 39 41 19
·
The
world bd speaks for the developing NA community= the regions that aren’t formed
yet.
·
This
is another 2/3 motion
·
What
is weird about this motion is that the fellowship outside the USA has a service
structure where trusted servants vote, while in USA these people don’t
vote. (There doesn’t seem to be an easy
way thru this controversy. And, frankly as david –bd—points out, voting is not
the direction of the future.
·
Strawvote=failed.
14.
elect WB by 51% 44 39 17
·
Strawpoll=failed
·
Remember
that following the instructions I was given yesterday, when positive vote is
less than negative vote and abstentions added together, the motion fails.
16.
consensus decision-making 17 56 26
·
Lone
Star has transformed itself into a fully functioning consensus decision-making
body. It is more flexible, less rigid. They don’t use it for elections or maybe
they aren’t suggesting using it, what they are suggesting is that it is a more
commonsensical
·
Lone
Star will look at project plan from last year and if that meets their desires
they will not present the motion.
·
Wb
doesn’t give this project plan high ranking because consensus decisions are
based on sound communications. We haven’t gotten there yet.
·
Strawpoll=failed.
17&18
Resolution A (MN) 23 56 20
·
The
idea behind 17 is reduction of reps at wsc.
72 total.
·
International
fellowship wants movement. This is the spirit of Resolution A we voted for 6
years ago. Even if not ready for it now, they believe it is time to discuss the
process seriously.
·
Greater
NY voted in favor of the motion. For them it is time to move forward. (as a
note of personal privilege, I was moved by the willingness of the NJ fellowship
to think favorably about a restructuring of World Services that did not always
leave the ‘haves’ in power. I am proud of you.)
·
We
shouldn’t elect political people to fill political roles.
·
France
thinks weakness of this motion is inequality of representation. Weakness of
resolution A is its complex inclusiveness-all those different goals
·
Some
participants from abroad do not want to lose the variety at the conference now.
·
Some
think that this condensation plan will prove too expensive, ie, participating
in this form of self-govt will require developing closer ties-intimacy-on a
wide geo scale that will cost money to facilitate.
·
Whatever
we do, we should avoid coming from fear. We have learned to work with the
equality of homegroups despite disparate numbers of participants.
·
Adding
another filter will not help communication.
·
Strawpoll=
failed
19
Resolution A (Lone Star) 31 45 22
Strawpoll=
failed
Fifth group-various
11.
internet posting 37 53 11
·
Copy
write is secure on internet/ fair use=25% of chapter/section w/o infringement.
‘public domain’ refers to material so generally available that the privileges
of ownership are lost.
·
Motion
maker wants to post readings. The motion maker was sent a letter by WSO saying
that if it didn’t remove language they would lose right to link to NA.org. That
letter resulted in this motion. They thought they should have been permitted.
They thought the only alternative was to bring the issue to the fellowship thru
CAR.
·
IPs
now available on website in 25 languages.
·
Maker
wants to put quote on home page that is covered by fair use allowance.
·
The
board is saying ‘please lets not manage our internet intellectual property thru
the CAR or on the floor of the conference.’ It is true that bd has been too
conservative but it is moving more reasonably now.
·
Strawpoll=failed
(Jose
Luis from Region Del Coqui-Puerto Rico-says that our participation rate is
impressive. Good job guys!)
12.
key tags & medallions 58 33 15
·
Intent
was not made to restrict NAWS authority.
·
Motion
25 (the one that allows NAWS to make adjustments for cultural differences) was
also not offered to restrict Bd or office.)
·
The
problem is with NA groups distributing non NA approved merchandise at an NA
meeting as part of the NA Recovery Meeting format.
·
Strawpoll=probable
failure
15.
lower cost of events 38 46 14
·
Home
group started this by saying that it ought to cost much less money to send reps
to NA service. Find cheaper hotels or negotiate for cheaper rates for hotel
space and negotiate cheaper air travel costs.
·
There
are no current plans to stop funding delegates.
·
Put
more money in the basket. Actually, when you are here and you see how our
ability to function as a world wide fellowship.
ROLLCALL= 93 Regions 47 majority/ 62 =2/3
OLD
BUSINESS VOTES
1. approve sponsorship
book 85 20 19
index failed
motion passed
2. approve sponsorship
pamphlet 76 28 17
motion passed
3. revise JFT 52 52 10
motion passed
4. approve basic text project 65 17 9
substitute
some for some or all failed
substitute
3yr cycle for 2yr cycle failed
substitute
9 mth review for 6 mth failed
motion passed
5. decrease world board 63 25 17
motion passed
6. eliminate committees 38 36 28
motion
passed
7. short moratorium 71 43 16
motion
withdrawn
8. longer moratorium 35 52 11
motion
failed
9. book one version of BT 47 61 11
motion
to commit to board failed
motion
failed
10. tradition guide 14 73 13
motion
to commit to board failed
motion
failed
11. internet posting 37 53 11
motion
failed
12. key tags & medallions 58 33 15
motion
failed
13. rescind WB voting 39 41 19
14. elect WB by 51% 44 39 17
motion
failed
15. lower cost of events 38 46 14
motion
fails for lack of second
16. consensus decision-making 17