Meet the Maker for Delegates | Recordings and Transcripts

Press the play button below to listen to an audio recording in English or read the translatable transcript below.

Opening

Cyndy: My name is Cyndy and I’m the bylaws trustee co-chair, and I’m here to open today’s Meet the Maker session. I’d like to share some important information with you so you can fully participate when we move into the breakout sessions. Today’s sessions are being recorded. The audio will be posted on oa.org for the delegates who are unable to attend today. When you ask a question, please identify yourself by your first name and your service body. You may use an alias if you wish to remain anonymous. Our moderators and timers today are Juliette, BJ, and Gary and we’re going to be here to help move us through this process. Juliette and BJ are in Room 1 and Gary and I will be in Room 2. In each session the maker of the motion will present their motion followed by time for questions. This is not time for debate or to amend the motions. Please don’t spend time trying to wordsmith something that will get wordsmithed again at Conference. Today’s purpose is to understand what the maker hopes to achieve with their motion. Suggestions for wording changes will be addressed next week. Your role today is to listen, ask clarifying questions and take what you learn as a part of the overall informed group conscience. Being open to Higher Power’s direction is such an important part of this process. If we walk in here today with an opinion, we want to listen to what other people are sharing. Now we’re ready for you to move into the breakout rooms. Sandy is going to post the choices, and you can see them. Select the room quickly and then we will get started.

Closing

Cyndy: Did you enjoy your sessions and did you hopefully resolve any problems that you might have had or get an answer for your things you were concerned with? We had close to a third of our delegates come today. So you will hear even more ideas and responses on the floor. When we get to Conference, if you’re wanting to talk to the maker of the motion, just go up and talk to them. They need to hear what people are thinking.

Press the play button below to listen to an audio recording in English or read the translatable transcript below.

Bylaw Amendment Proposal 1

The recording begins part way through the discussion of Bylaw Amendment Proposal 1.  The speaker is Amodini K., National Service Board OA of Greece.

Amodini K: … for example, if we refer to the service body of Region Nine, it’s very simple. We will make it explicit that it’s about the service body of Region Nine. If it is about the service body of Rainbow—Specific Focus Rainbow—we will make it clear. So it doesn’t—I don’t believe it confuses anyone if it, if we adjust—if we add to which specific service body we refer each time we make an announcement or we present something, whatever on a website or for an event or for any other opportunity that we need to discuss something or … I don’t know if it makes sense to you, or if I understood correctly what you asked.

Speaker: So, if I see or hear the term “service bodies,” without a qualifier, then that would refer to all of our service bodies in regions, and so forth.

Amondini K: Yes, because all of them are service bodies—it’s very clear. Intergroups, national service boards, language service boards, and specific focus service boards and regions—they are all service bodies. And a board is just a small group of people representing the service body. But in other languages than English, this is confusing because we formed the impression that it’s a different service body, which is called the service board, but this is not true. In English, it is the same thing: it is just a small portion of the service body representing, represented in the name “service board.”

Speaker: Okay. I hear you. Make s sense. Thank you.

Amondini K.: So it’s a foreign … foreigner’s issue. It’s not an English -peaking issue. Thank you.

BJ: Alejandra, did you have a question?

Alejandra: She clarified it, but still … I still have one thing. So when we will refer to “service bodies” that will refer to large intergroups and above, and when we refer to “service boards,” that would be the—for the intergroup—the secretary, the chair, the treasurer—that we would specify “board” as being these few people that organize service, and then “bodies” would be the whole thing. That’s basically what it will do. It will improve our definition of all of these?

Amondini K.: I believe that this is exactly the difference between “service body” and “service board” in English as far as I understand it, I understand it correctly. So, when we talk about the service board is just a small group of people representing the service body. If we are talking about the service body itself, it’s the whole organization, or it may be an intergroup, it may be a region, it may be a national service board or a language service board, or a specific focus service board. Is that what you meant, Alejandra?

Alejandra: Yes. Amodini. Thank you. I think I don’t need to give my thoughts but thank you. Thank you so much.

BJ: Any more questions for Amodini? Thank you, Amodini.

Amondini K.: Thank you so much.

BJ: We will move on to the next motion. Juliette, please reset the time. We will move on to … I believe Marsha. You are next. Marsha, will you present Bylaw Amendment 2, found on page 103? Thank you.

Bylaw Amendment Proposal 2

Marsha: Hi, I’m Marsha with the Hawaiian Intergroup and the Unity with Diversity Committee that is putting forward this motion. We move to amend the Bylaw Articles I and II to include the option for groups to change the wording that relates to God and the pronouns that relate to God: He Himself, His, so that if the gendered language, in languages where we have a gender, is something that would be more inclusive for a group, they can choose to change those things—just those words—and use a disclaimer that says they are making a change to the actual wording that is sanctioned by world service to use only in their meetings. It wouldn’t be in print; it wouldn’t be a policy change. It would just simply give permission to groups, like we do, to allow groups to change and/or leave out format in the suggested format, it gives groups the same ability to adjust the format to work with their particular group by group conscience. That’s the intent, and thank you for letting me present this motion.

BJ: Thank you, Marsha. Any questions for Marsha?

[Discussion of a technical problem.]

BJ: Alita, please go ahead.

Alita: Thank you. My question is have you taken into account the fact that AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] has something to say about whether we change the Traditions, whether it’s reading? I actually have, and I don’t want to argue the motion, but I have an email from Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Office informing that they would prefer that words not even be changed when we’re reading out loud. So, I’m not sure how that would work as far as putting forth a motion to change what we’re doing. It sounds like a workaround to me, but—again, I don’t want to argue the motion—I just have a question: if you’ve taken that into account?

Marsha: I did not actually. I wasn’t involved in creating the motion, but my understanding from those that have gone before me is that they have—that there have been discussions. And I do know personally from AA meetings that I have attended that they do this. I do not know at what level it is sanctioned, but I do know that it is something that happens in meetings. And one of the things that I know is that in OA, I go to several meetings that do that without even a disclaimer on some sort of change, particularly to make it non-gendered. And I am hoping that we can get that more clarified as we move through the process before the vote—that what the AA official opinion is. I just know that a lot of people, particularly where I live in Hawaii, that it’s universal pretty much that we get rid of the gendered language as much as possible in most of our meetings.

BJ: Next question, Is it Al? Do you want to say your name? Someone said it different.

Alejandra: Thank you. My name’s Alejandra or Ali some people call me because I abbreviate it, compulsive overeater, Virtual Region. Perhaps because English is not my native language, but does this motion mean that we can say “she” for that higher power, “her” kind of thing? Is that what this motion is saying? That we could use the gender as we’d like?

Marsha: Actually, that is the intent. If you wish to do a female, you can. What most of the groups I’ve been involved with that do this illegally is that we use God again rather than because we have members who don’t relate to female God, was not relating to a male God. So, what it does is it puts the ability with sanction, rather than us all being outlaws, to correct for our group the gender of our deity and the name of our deity. Or if we don’t have a deity, we can call it what we need to. That what this does is gives the group the ability to be in integrity with their group conscience.

BJ: Thank you. Go ahead, Amodini.

Amodini K: Thank you. Hi Marsha. Just to clarify the whole thing, I would like to ask this question. Although it came from Unity with Diversity, where I am a co-chair. Marsha, could you please clarify that the whole thing, the whole concept is based on the autonomy Principle of the groups and intergroups and we are not going to change any Traditions or any other official presentation of what the Steps or Traditions are saying? Could you please clarify that? Is it possible? Thank you.

Marsha: Thank you, Amodini. Yes, absolutely. That this is based on the autonomy of groups Principle that we do present, and I believe it was Tradition Four. And that, yes, what we’re doing is we’re not changing anything at the world service level. We’re not changing anything at the regions or other service bodies. We’re just saying that groups choose to make minor corrections or changes to the Traditions and/or Steps to simply be in integrity with what they call their God, and that it changes nothing else. It just simply says, “You groups that are doing this and groups that want to, this is now okay at the world service level.” It’s not about making any other change. It’s just allowing group’s autonomy around these two sacred documents where we have the same autonomy around all of the rest of the suggested format and using any of our literature—that we have that same autonomy in this particular part of these two documents. It is a workaround. Someone said that it’s a workaround to say that those of us who are truly uncomfortable with a male God can indeed become in integrity within our meetings—no, no other level, just within our meetings. As long as there’s group conscience at the meeting level, we can make reading out loud—not on the documents, but just in reading out loud.

BJ: Any more questions for Marsha? I believe on page 105 in your Delegate Binder, it has a response from AA and what else needs to happen before this takes place as policy. Thank you, Marsha. Juliette, please reset the time, and Sharlotte, would you please present New Business Motion Policy A.

New Business Proposal A

Sharlotte: Thank you very much, BJ. I will not on the basis, that I’m not the delegate from this intergroup. The delegate is in the room, so could I encourage you to call them please? Their name is Cynthia L.

BJ: Okay, Cynthia L.,  please present your motion. Thanks.

Cynthia A: My name is Cynthia A., and I’m representing the OA Sunlight Intergroup, and we’re … “A conference committee member can petition the board of trustees to consider by two-thirds vote of the Board of Trustees to remove a non-functioning chair as a specific conference committee. The vice-chair will assume the position of chairmanship.” That’s World Service Business Conference Policy 1980d. Our proposed wording would eliminate the word “chairmanship” and change it to just “chair.” The rationale behind that is OA serves a diverse Fellowship, and the use of gender-neutral language aligns the OA commitment to inclusivity, and removing gender titles such as chairman would ensure that the OA literature and communications reflect the experiences of all members fostering a more welcome and supportive atmosphere.

BJ: Thank you, Cynthia. Anybody have questions for Cynthia? If not, we’ll move on to Motion C, found on page 52. Last call for questions for Cynthia. Okay, Juliette, if you could reset the time and is Michał here to present? Okay. Would you present Motion C found on page 52, please?

New Business Proposal C

Michał: Thank you BJ. My name is Michał, and I’m compulsive overeater and Region Nine delegate. I would like to present Motion C. We move to combine World Service Business Conference policies 1979c and 1986b by striking and inserting as follows … and current wording is in World Service Business  Conference Policy 1979c: “The treasurer’s report to be prepared and send out to delegate prior to the Business Conference to allow each person time to study, assimilate, and prepare any questions they might have for the Board of Trustees,” and World Service Business Conference Policy 1986b: “The annual World Service Business Conference delegate binders include a copy of the current fiscal year budget as adopted by the Board of Trustees.” The proposed wording World Service Business Conference Policy 1979c: “The annual World Service Business Conference. The delegate binder will include a copy of the current fiscal year budget, overview, and treasurer’s report, allowing sufficient time to review, assimilate, and prepare any questions for the Conference.” And the rationale is: “At present, members must review two separate financial documents that often repeat or overlap. Merging the budget and treasurer’s report into one unified financial report reduces confusion, saves time, and presents a clear picture of our financial position. The simple change improves transparency, consistency, and efficiency for everyone involved.” Thank you.

BJ: Thank you, Michał. Are there any questions on this motion for Michał? Please raise your electronic hand. Cecilia, please go ahead.

Cecilia: I’m sorry. This is picky, but the old version referred to the fiscal year’s budget and the new version refers to the fiscal year’s budget overview. I wondered if that was different, if those were different things. Thank you.

Michał: I’m not sure if I’m the right person to answer these questions because I don’t know. I can return to you or Sharlotte can support me.

BJ: Please go ahead, Sharlotte.

Sharlotte: Hello. My name’s Sharlotte, and I was acting as parliamentarian at the time this motion was adopted. It was sent to the World Service Office, and on the recommendation of the treasurer and the motions review committee, the addition of “budget overview” was added, so, this was specifically requested by the treasurer and Motions Review Committee.

BJ: Thank you, Michał. Thank you for presenting that. And we’ll move on to the next motion. Juliette, if you could set the timer, please. Reset the timer. Now Cindy, will you address Motion D please, found on page 64 in your binder?

Cindy C.: Thank you, BJ. Hi everyone. I am Cindy C., compulsive eater and trustee co-chair of the Conference-approved Literature Committee, and I am presenting this motion on behalf of the committee. This is a motion to change a World Service Business Conference policy, and specifically we are looking at changing the Tool “telephone” to “outreach.” Just a little bit of background for you … So again, this motion was submitted by the full Conference-approved Literature Committee. We have a subcommittee currently working on updating the pamphlet Tools of Recovery. And consideration of the update was referred to the Conference-approved Literature Committee by the Literature Review Committee. And after much discussion, this subcommittee felt that the Tool name “telephone” implies only one form of communication. Yet the true value of the Tool in our recovery can be realized in many forms. In addition, to telephone calls, one-to-one connections are made through mail, text messages, email, and social media applications. All are common practices today. The subcommittee feels that the Tools of Recovery should reflect actual practice by the Fellowship. Outreach encompasses the methods members use to make one-to-one personal connections for fellowship and support outside of meeting times, and outreach is a less limiting and more comprehensive word. And the last thing that I will add is that the committee did look at a few possible terms to replace “telephone.” And they did keep translation in mind, and it was felt after doing some research that “outreach” translated well. So that was what they settled on. So, thank you , and Barb V, who is the subcommittee chair and I are happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

BJ: Are there any questions for Cindy’s motion? Please raise your hand. Okay, thank you, Cindy. There’s still time available, so if anybody has further questions on any of the motions we discussed, now is the time. Juliette, if you can please reset the time. Go ahead, Ali, with questions for your motion.

Follow-up discussion

Alejandra: I’ve always been very confused about both reports, the financial and the treasurers and it’s so confusing. How would they combine? It feels a lot like, these are two sources. How would that combine into one, just one report? How would that work? Or is it possible for the trustees at all?

BJ: This is Motion C, so it is for Michał.

Michał: Yes. This question is for me. Yes. Thank you for your question. And I believe we haven’t asked the treasurer about this, and this is my answer. I don’t know if Sharlotte can help me. Sharlotte, if you are here, please help me if you know something more, but I’m not sure if we have this information.

Sharlotte: Hi, Sharlotte G. compulsive overeater, OA Rainbow Specific Focus Service Board and a member of Region Nine. So this motion has been reviewed by the treasurer, I can say that, and how a member of the Board of Trustees writes their report has nothing to do with us. You could have four different treasurers who would write their report in four different ways. So, there’s no easy answer to this question.

BJ: Any other questions on any motions that we have discussed in this session? Now is the time to ask. Go ahead, Sharlotte, please.

Sharlotte: Sharlotte G., as I said compulsive overeater, delegate for OA Rainbow, my question relates to Motion 2. Marsha L., in relation to being able to announce the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions within a meeting, my question is, one of the most confusing ways or confusing things about a meeting is when there is no script, and if the group conscience approved Twelve Steps—if something’s being changed—is not able to be written down. That basically means that absolutely anyone can read them in any way that they like because they will have to remember what the group conscience is. I understand why the Steps or Traditions shouldn’t be modified at the world level, but why is the mandate to not have them published in any format, when having them in a meeting format would aid the meeting in running smoothly? Hopefully that question makes sense.

Marsha: Oh, it does, it makes total sense. I hadn’t thought about this at all. We do write—as “illegals” here—we do write down on our meeting format that you may change, make these changes, when you read it out loud and on our format, only. And it doesn’t go anywhere; it’s within our meeting. It doesn’t rely on memory, it relies on the group conscience. And group conscience can be revisited at any time any member wants to call a meeting of a group conscience for that meeting. That at least is the way the groups I’m involved and have been involved with operate—that isn’t the issue. That the issue is just simply that we leave them at the world service like they are because they are indeed sacred, and everyone has different opinions. These kinds of—variations of this motion have been presented over a decade at world service in different forms and have been voted down because of those issues. And so it seems to the current Unity with Diversity Committee and subcommittee that we could try allowing groups their autonomy and see if that will satisfy enough of all of the regulations that are in place and all of the things we want to respect and yet allow group autonomy on this issue. That’s just where this is coming from. There may be—I know we’re not supposed to discuss the particulars—but there may need to be some amendment to this before it’s actually voted on by the body to clarify. But I think that it’s definitely not—and at least in my opinion and it is just one person not OA as a whole for sure—that it doesn’t have to rely on memory, which I think would be unwieldy.

BJ: Thank you, Marsha. Thank you Sharlotte. Alexandra, we have three minutes left, two and a half minutes left in this session. Please go ahead.

Alexandra: Thank you, BJ. I’m Alexandra. I’m compulsive overeater and Region Nine delegate. And my question is to Marsha again. I feel prompted to ask this question, although I’m largely—I see the point of the motion, but I was thinking about how we are quoting the autonomy of groups, but the autonomy of groups only exists within the context so long as it doesn’t affect OA as a whole. So, each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or OA as a whole. And I wondered if consideration had been given, if thought had been given, to the potential impact, positive or negative, but potentially the negative impact of having groups defining and describing Higher Power and the genders and the pronouns differently, whether it could fracture unity in some way. I wondered if that had been part of the debate. And whether you are prepared for that question

Marsha: Absolutely it was part of the debate, and that is why the disclaimer is there. And the motion does say, that you can only do these changes in your reading of the Steps and Traditions if you acknowledge in that same meeting at the same time that this is not world service wording as a whole and that these changes have been made—and the specific wording of that is there. And if this were to pass through all the hoops and there’s a number then the format would specifically say that if you choose as a group to make that group conscience decision that you also explain in detail each time you do that, that is what you’re doing. It has definitely been given a great deal of consideration even after I came into this that this is definitely one of the issues that’s needs to be addressed. Thank you.

BJ: Thank you. Our time is up. We want to honor the 10 minutes between sessions. Thank you so much for coming today. You can stay in this room or feel free to go to the other room that will start on the hour. And thank you for coming. We’ll see you either in this room or the next room for the next hour. Thank you.

Press the play button below to listen to an audio recording in English or read the translatable transcript below.

Gary: Thank you, everybody, and thank you for being here and for your inquisitive minds. My name is Gary, and I’m your moderator for this session. We will be screen sharing motions in this session. We will be discussing the New Business Policy Motions, F, G, and H and I and Bylaw Amendment 6. We will be screen sharing the motions and a timer will help us stay on track. We have five motions to discuss, and each of them will have up to 10 minutes for discussion. If we have additional questions after 10 minutes, we can return to that motion at the end of the meeting. That is, we will stop after 10 minutes and if other questions take less time, when we have minutes left, we’ll come back to those motions if you have more questions. I want to remind you of what Cyndy said at the opening that this is a time for questions to clarify the motions for yourself, not a time for debate, not a time for amendments. Cyndy, would you please set the timer for 10 minutes and will you please present New Business Policy Motion F.

New Business Proposal F

Cyndy: Motion F. We want to require all groups and service bodies who register at the World Service Office to provide at least one email address and name when submitting a registration request. The required email address is for use within the OA organization and will not be published. That is the current policy; however, there are many members who represent their group who are happy to share this information, and they have thought of many ways to do that creatively through the meeting entry screens. I am asking that we change this policy so that if that member wants to share their email, they can opt in and give their permission. And so all we’re doing is changing it from saying, “this will not be published” to “I will give my permission for you to publish my email or I can refrain from giving you that permission, whichever is my choice. ” That’s it.

Gary: Are there any questions for Cyndy? Trish M.

Trish M.: Hi, I’m Trish from the Philadelphia Area Intergroup. Just wanted to clarify that with this change, the default is it will not be published. It’s not that you have to say; I don’t want it to be published. It will be defaulting to not published unless you give the okay. Thank you.

Cyndy: The way the new input screen is designed, if you do not click a box that says, “I want it published.” it is not even an available option when you go down to say what your preference is as far as being contacted. So, it pretty much restricts that from mistakenly being published.

Trish M.: Thank you.

Gary: And Cynthia.

Cynthia D.: Hi everyone. Cynthia D. from the Better Together Virtual Intergroup. In terms of publishing, where would this information be published?

Cyndy: You know how you go out and you find a meeting and there are results displayed and you then open that and look at the information about the meeting. It will be published there, so it will be public-facing information.

Cynthia D.: I just have a follow up question, if that’s okay.

Cyndy: That’s fine.

Cynthia D: I believe currently there are meetings listed with, perhaps the chairperson’s email published. Would additional emails be published under that list, or is this something completely different?

Cyndy: It’s not on the website screens that you’re thinking of. I’m talking about specifically in the meeting results, and currently there are emails that are published on there, but it’s because people have creatively found ways to put them in the notes field or the text fields, which are publicly facing. Even though we say we don’t publish them, people found a workaround. So we’re trying to make this an official method that people can choose or not choose, and to have emails published.

Cynthia D: Understood. Thank you for the clarification.

Gary: Are there any other questions about New Business Proposal F? In that case, Cyndy, would you stop the timer? And thank you. Would you please reset the time, Cyndy? And then Present New Business Policy Motion G.

New Business Proposal G

Cyndy: This motion reads: “Ensure personal anonymity is maintained. The online version of the Final World Service Business Conference Report will only include first names and last initials in the minutes and reports. The contact section of the report, which includes names and phone numbers and email addresses of delegates will be emailed to the delegates before or at the start of Conference and following Conference. Delegates who have opted out of distribution of their contact information will not be included in the contact list ‘For Use Within OA Only’ will appear at the top of the list.” Every year delegate information is shared among the delegates through and after the Conference process. But last year after we had a virtual Conference, it was brought up that it made it hard for people to contact each other if they didn’t know one another’s personal information. If you were talking about a motion and you said, “Oh, I’d be interested in talking to somebody else about that.” If they didn’t grab you right then and get that information, they had nothing. If you’re face-to-face, you just see them in the hallway. But this is an attempt to allow everyone to know how to reach out to one another prior to Conference. In addition, during Conference, and then everyone will get a final mailing list so that you can contact one another throughout the year.

Gary: Thank you. Cyndy. Are there any questions about New Business Proposal, G? This is basically a We Care list for Conference. Yes, Randi.

Randi F.: Hi, Randi F., Southern Arizona Intergroup. Where would a delegate be able to specify whether they wanted their contact information distributed or not?

Cyndy: It will be established in your registration form, if I’m not mistaken. It was not there this year, however, because we’re meeting face-to-face and this process has not yet been put into place. But it would appear on your registration form next year. If the motion carries.

Randi: Thank you.

Gary: Yes. Claire H.

Claire H.: If this motion carries, I presume this motion will be not just virtual World Service Business Conference, but also face-to-face, and how does the information get sent to us.

Cyndy: It would be sent in an email from the World Service Office, just like the other ones you have received to tell you how to get to this session or how to get to, what you’re going to do at Conference. And yes, Claire, you’re correct that it would work for both in the future because this does not specify one or the other.

Gary: Are there any other questions for Cyndy? Oh yes, Maria.

Maria: Hi, I am Maria, compulsive overeater. Who will decide whether it is before or at the start of the Conference? Does it matter?

Cyndy: I never thought of that, Maria, so I can’t answer that question. I would assume that it would be a decision made by the staff.

Claire: Follow up question to the previous one. If it was beforehand, we have a circumstance at the moment where one of our registered delegates has had to withdraw and, we have an alternate attending. If the information was given too far in advance that previous delegate could be on the list and not our alternate. I do not know if I phrased that properly. That was my concern.

Cyndy: I absolutely understand your question and that’s what happens now. As a member of the board, I get a list of all the delegates that are attending in advance and just two days ago, I had a change to people on my committee, the Bylaws Committee, because someone withdrew and a substitute is coming instead. It probably would just be the best information we have today, and if a change happens, you’ll be notified.

Gary: Are there any other questions for Cyndy? Thank you so much everybody, and thank you, Cyndy. Cyndy, would you please stop the timer? If you haven’t noticed, Cyndy is a hardworking trustee. She’s on bylaws and website. A lot of these are evolving categories.

Bylaw Amendment 6

Cyndy: I am not going to read this proposal to you. I am going to tell you that the crux of the proposal is to eliminate the annual Conference Bylaw Committee and keep the annual Reference Subcommittee. They would move into the position of the main committee so that the Reference Committee exists during the Conference, and then a small subsection of that committee exists throughout the year to do occasional review of the bylaws to see if there’s anything they feel that needs to be updated because the major responsibility for the bylaws and the policies belongs to the Fellowship. We do not need to update them every year just so we can make some word changes. And we have a lot of resource information already available. And a lot of times when you have a committee, their responsibility is to come up with some project, and I personally feel that we have enough resources that as they are renewed every couple of years, which everything in OA gets re-looked at and renewed, that there is no further need for a Bylaws Committee as such. We definitely need to continue the Reference so that they’re available to help us, but not the Bylaws Committee. That way, the members who are on this committee can offer their service to other committees.

Gary: Yes, Cathy.

Cathy: Thank you. I’m Cathy from Unity with Diversity Desert Intergroup. I’m from Palm Springs. It’s great to be here, and Cyndy, thank you so much. This is the motion that is the reason I wanted to be in Breakout Room 2. I don’t know where to start. I don’t want to take too much time. This will be my fourth time coming to World Service, serving on the Bylaws Committee and the Reference Committee, and I know you from having done that about 10 years ago. I need more information as to why this feels important to you as the trustee. What I’m coming from is when I first came to World Service, I had been in program a very long time, but I was very, very insecure and serving on the Bylaws Committee was my reason for coming. I wanted to know … I wanted to know the guidelines. I wanted to know what it was in our rooms that keep me safe, and it took me years to. I studied the bylaws because I was on the committee, and I came to Reference and listened. For the first two years. I never said one word because I was so insecure. So, my one concern has to do with people who are new like me— I wasn’t new in program, but that level of service was. It felt so important so that is why I’m just asking for a little bit more background. Thank you.

Cyndy: Okay. And I understand there’s a lot of Green Dots, new people when they first come to Conference. However, you are sent by your intergroups, and your intergroups all have bylaws. And so your intergroup should have been helping you prepare and train for what you then do at world service. If you have been involved in your intergroup, you would have seen Robert’s Rules in action, or you would have at least been somewhat aware of the bylaws that you already have. And I believe people send members forward to serve on the Bylaws Committee because they have bylaws experience. I don’t think that coming to the world service level is where that information should come from. I do know that we have, at every region we have bylaws also, and they have spent time and talked to their members about how those bylaws are working as well. So in my estimation, it is not the purpose of the Bylaws Committee at the World Service level. That is my answer. Thank you.

Gary: Thank you. Lisa.

Lisa: Yes, you mentioned that a subcommittee of the Reference Committee would be formed to meet through for the rest of the year. How would that be done and how is that function taken care of now?

Cyndy: That function does not happen now other than the Bylaws Committee as a whole does their work. I love the fact that we were ambitious enough to say we would be there to help people write motions. But over all the years I have served on the Bylaws Committee, other than as Bylaws chair, no one has ever asked the Bylaws Committee to help them. So that sounds like a lovely thing, but it doesn’t happen. And as far as the small subcommittee, that decision will be made once this motion passes by the members of the Reference Committee. We will write that bylaw, that policy, when this is—if this is approved. Otherwise, there’s no reason to develop that in advance.

Lisa: Got it. Thanks

Gary: Tricia.

Tricia: Hi, Tricia, Philadelphia Area Intergroup. My question I think is twofold. The Bylaws Committee as it is now, does that only serve at the World Service Business Conference? They don’t do anything offline throughout the year? That’s number one. And number two, do they have any other obligations or work that they need to do? Do they have other tasks besides doing what they would do for Reference Committee? In other words, if the Bylaws Committee went away, are there other tasks that need to be redistributed?

Cyndy: There are no other tasks that need to be redistributed because they meet just like every other Conference committee, and then their job is to come up with a project or two projects or whatever for subcommittee work. However, we have a very large resource library of materials that has been developed over the years by the various Bylaws Committees. So I just feel like a lot of times they’re just grasping at how do we reword something that already exists? And again, those items are re looked at on a scheduled basis. So they would come maybe to the reference group to do that little bit of work. But to rewrite something just continually—it just seems like you’re just spinning your wheels. In my opinion, I think people would get more satisfaction from serving in some other way. And the Bylaws Committee, by the way, is who I’m representing here. The Bylaws Committee agreed with this motion, so it’s not like I as the Bylaws chair made the motion. I am here to support the motion. Thank you.

Gary: I’m going to suggest that there’s 40 seconds left for this, for questioning this motion. I’m certain we will have moments; we will have time left at the end. I’m going to ask Alejandra and Laila to hold your questions. I’m sure we’ll have time to come back to this motion and some others, if you don’t mind waiting a bit while we’ll go through the remaining motions. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Cyndy. If you would reset the time and bring up motion H, and Melanie, if you would please present your motion.

New Business Proposal H

Melanie: Hi, my name is Melanie and I am from OA Footsteps Intergroup, and we have a motion from the Conference Literature Committee the we are proposing an amendment to policy 1993a. And it currently says: “It was adopted that we, the 1993 Business Conference of Overeaters Anonymous suggest that OA meetings and events be closed with one of the following: the Serenity Prayer; the Seventh Step Prayer; the Third Step Prayer; or the OA Promise, I Put My Hand In Yours. We are motioning that we strike 1993 and be closed with “one,” replacing it with “use any,” and it would read, “It was adopted that we, the Business Conference of Overeaters Anonymous suggests that OA meetings and events use any of the following: the Serenity Prayer; the Seventh Step Prayer; the Third Step Prayer; or the OA Promise, I Put My Hand In Yours. We feel that this is just to bring the policy into alignment of what the current practice is in meetings. We felt that where we can say those prayers at any time, it’s just not at the close. So, we’re just tidying up as to what we do. We feel that this promotes clarity amongst its members when they’re looking at a policy … that they’re not confused, “Well, can I say it through the whole meeting?” Et cetera. So that is what the motion is, just plain and simple clean it up.

Gary: Thank you, Melanie. Are there any questions for Melanie about New Business Proposal H? Yes, Randi.

Randi F.: Randi F., Southern Arizona. I actually have two questions. Number one, why was the Responsibility Pledge not included in this proposal? So that’s my first question.

Melanie: This was just to clean up as to those listed as in being presented. That wasn’t even a part of the decision. We had one that we were going to add something, which is the next proposal, but the Conference Literature Committee felt it should be separate. So that is why there’s nothing else added here except for cleaning it up as in when they’re able to be said. That’s all.

Randi F: Okay. Yeah. The other question actually has to do with New Business Motion I and why two separate motions were done and what happens if one passes and the other one fails.

Melanie: We had it as one motion, the next one and this one, but they decided they wanted it separate, so not to cause confusion. They felt the addition of what is going in the next motion, it would give an opportunity to discuss that by keeping them separate, that’s all.

Randi F.: All right, thank you.

Gary: Thank you, Lisa T

Lisa T.: Yes. Is this suggestion—does it appear in any other OA literature except for the policy manual?

Melanie: We were actually surprised it was there, but it was because we were going to be adding something to it that it was brought to our attention. So that is why when we saw it, we we can clean it up, plus we can have the other motion of adding something.

Lisa T.: So no, it’s not anywhere else?

Melanie: No.

Laila: Yeah, Laila from East Bay Intergroup, California. I hear that it is, the idea is to clean it up. Somehow this is unclear to me, and I’m wondering if that is—it would be clear in a context that I don’t know? Because this is a little bit out of context.

Melanie: I believe that we can say the Serenity Prayer at the beginning. We can say it during the middle of a meeting or an event at any time, and any of those prayers could be said at any time. We felt that where it says “close,” that we could just strike that and say they could be said at any time. Use any of the following. So that’s basically what we had felt would probably solve that as in not just “close.” It can be used at any time during the meeting.

Gary: Does that answer your question?

Laila: Not really because the other one sort of suggests that you do close with one of those. Whereas that you use one … then it isn’t clear if other ones, say the Responsibility Pledge or something else, would also be fine and is it sor of suggesting, “be sure” … We would say, “be sure to use one of these”?

Melanie: Just a suggestion that you can use any of them at any time. You know what I mean? Just to use any of them.

Claire: I think the clue here is in suggestion. It is not you have to close or use any of these prayers. It’s suggested that you might want to use any of these prayers at any time. Thank you.

Gary: Thank you. Trish.

Trish: Hi, Trish, Philadelphia Area Intergroup. I was just going to suggest … I don’t know in which order these will be presented, H and I, but my assumption would be that if H passes as it is, then it will impact how we discuss I or vice versa. So if one passes and we say “can be closed with any of the following,” then I would imagine that would apply then to Proposal I but with our additional changes, with the additional changes.

Gary: The order will be in the order in which they’re presented in your binder.

Melanie: If this passes. If it doesn’t pass, then the next one would just have the addition of it as it’s written, unless it’s amended on the floor, which I don’t have any idea as to what’s going to happen on the floor.

Gary: Do you have a quick question?

Speaker: Gary, the motion H is on the consent agenda.

Gary: Yes. Thank you everybody. We can come back. If there are more questions about this motion, we can come back to it in a little bit. I believe we’ll have more time. Maybe not. Thank you. Cyndy, would you please reset the timer and bring up Motion I, please. And Claire, would you please present Motion I?

New Busines Proposal I

Claire: Thank you. Thank you. Gary. Claire, compulsive overeater, bulimic, restrictor. OA Footsteps, Conference Approved Literature Committee. This is a move to amend the World Service Business Policy 1993a by inserting as following. The current wording is: “It was adopted that we, the 1993 business Conference of Overeaters Anonymous suggest that OA meetings and events be closed with one of the following: the Serenity Prayer; the Seventh Step Prayer, The Third Step Prayer; or the OA Promise, I put my hand in yours.” We are proposing that we include the Serenity Statement, and it can be found currently in the rationale: “I seek the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference” (and the Third Step Prayer and the OA Promise, I put my hand in yours). This is an addition. It’s not changing any of what’s currently in there. It’s making an addition to it. The intent of this is to bring the policy into alignment with current practice by adding a secular option for meetings and events. There are atheist, agnostic, secular, and freethinker meetings that currently already use this as an alternative to the Serenity Prayer because it fits more in line with their belief system in their meetings. The implementation and wherever it appears online, the wording needs to be changed, and the cost is staff time. This supports OA’s primary purpose because OA is a spiritual program, not a religious fellowship. This will help us succeed in our primary purpose. It will support inclusivity and reach more newcomers. The secular community is vastly underrepresented in our community. And some of this may be due to some of our wording. This will be one small, tiny, little movement in towards becoming in line with our Unity with Diversity Policy—just to have that option there, that meetings can use this and that it’s actually documented. Currently it is, in practice, but it is not documented. So, to put this into the policies, would mean that we recognize this is a thing; this is in use, and it is needed for the people in our community—

Gary: Let me remind you that this is question and answer time, and this isn’t the time for debate. Thank you. Are there any questions for Claire or any questions regarding New Business Motion I? Lisa.

Lisa: Can you give us any history of the serenity statement? I had only recently heard of it.

Claire: No, other than the fact that it is used currently in many atheist, agnostic, secular, and freethinker meetings. It’s used in practice. However, it is not documented officially. This is the purpose of this motion—is to officially document it so that it will be written down and is then recognized by the OA community.

Lisa: What I meant by history is, how long has this been being used by the meetings you were saying are using it?

Gary: It was first proposed by the Atheist/Agnostic/Secular Service Board three years ago. It was used regularly at Unity With Diversity Conference Committee, and frankly, I use it in all my committee meetings, all my Conference committee meetings, even though it’s not yet suggested by OA. It was Chia who brought it. I hope that answers your question, Lisa. Any other questions about, New Business Proposal I? There being no more questions. Thank you so much, Claire.

Gary: Are there any remaining questions in the little bit of time we have left? Technically, we are supposed to break now, so if you need to take a break, you’re welcome to. But we started a little bit late because we had some tech difficulties. If you have a question or two about some preceding, some early motions, Alejandra.

Follow-up discussion

Alejandra: Yes. Thank you very much, Gary. Cyndy, I’m super confused with your motion and I would like, I’m just not putting it together in my head. I read the pieces, but I don’t know how it was, how it will be now because there’s still a subcommittee doing. I’m so confused. Can you please put it in simple words somehow?

Cyndy: I can try. Currently the Bylaws/Reference Committee is a standing committee, which means that it happens every year no matter what. And I have been involved in that for many years. I think I’ve always served on Reference anytime I had the opportunity once I started coming to world service. The idea is the Reference Committee section of it is there to assist the entire body work on motions. But the Bylaws Committee part is there to develop materials of training and things like that. Plus, one of their jobs was to review the bylaws occasionally to see if there’s any updates that are necessary. And I just over the years have noticed—there have been good things happen—but a lot of the materials and stuff have been developed to the point now where I question the need for more training materials and I see that the necessity of Reference is ongoing. So it would be to say we have a committee that operates for the five days at Conference or four days, and then a few of them are available for some additional tasks, but they don’t need 20, 30 people on that small subcommittee. That’s the idea.

Alejandra: And so the members … they’ll be all in Reference, and some of them will stay in the Bylaws and then all the others will have the choice to choose another committee somehow?

Cyndy: The Reference Committee is assigned by your region chairs. Your members of the reference committee are assigned by the region chairs. So it [Bylaws] wouldn’t be a choice when you go to sign up for the committee you want to serve on. It [Bylaws] wouldn’t be there at all. It would be made up only of those appointed by their region chairs, and then from that group, the sub small subgroup would be selected.

Gary: Okay. Thank you so much, Cyndy. Are there any other questions from previous motions. Thank you all and thank you Cyndy. Thank you, Melanie. Thank you to Claire, and thank all of you for your service and your interest in showing up and asking relevant questions. I hope this helps you in your voting next week. Of course, you’ll hear lots of debate and that’ll make it easier too. Thank you.

Press the play button below to listen to an audio recording in English or read the translatable transcript below.

Juliette: Okay everybody, we are at the top of the hour. My name is Juliette, and I’m your moderator for this session. In this session, we’ll be discussing the New Business Policy Motions, B, M, J, K, and Bylaw Amendment 7. We will be screen sharing the motions and a timer will help us stay on track. We have five motions to discuss, and each of them will have up to 10 minutes for discussion. If we have additional questions after 10 minutes, we can return to the motion at the end of the meeting if there is still time. Just please do not raise your virtual hand until the motion has been presented. BJ, if you could set the timer for 10 minutes and we’ll begin. I believe it is Kalia. I hope I’m saying the name right to present New Business Policy Motion B, page 60. Do I have someone to present? Anybody in Kalia’s stead to present? Seeing none. I will just read what we have in front of us and then if we have questions, maybe we can answer them or you can at least take the questions back from here and go to the correct person in terms of finding the answer.

New Business Proposal B

Juliette: It is to amend WSBC policy 2010A by inserting as follows. In the approved literature section, it does not in the old policy, does not include, “and The Plain Language Big Book,” which is what would be inserted: “all future additions thereof with original edition copyright 2010 or earlier, and The Plain Language Big Book,” which is not there in the current policy. Can I see the rationale, BJ? Is it possible to scroll down a bit? I can’t read it from here. Maybe not. I did a screenshot from for it. Okay. Alright. So that is what is presented before the body at for World Service. Are there any questions about the motion? I see Allie.

Allie: Thank you very much. What is The Plain Language Big Book? Sorry.

Juliette: The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous has been revised for a—I don’t want to use the word simpler, but clearer language so that those who are non-English speaking might be able to access the information a little more readily. It is being used currently in Alcoholics Anonymous, and it’s adding that particular book to our approved literature. Trish?

Trish: Hi. Yeah, Trish, Philadelphia Area intergroup. My understanding also is that The Plain Language Book neutralizes some language makes it “pronoun-approved” and changes things like chapters To the Wives to To the Partners, so it makes it more relatable in a less traditional way. I guess my question is that this is a very similar proposal to Proposal M and maybe when we get to M whoever’s presenting that. But this particular one, I felt was a lot clearer because it’s only asking for the insertion of that one book to make it approved for OA literature, whereas Proposal M is a little more complex. So, I just wanted to point that out. I was curious as to why these were separated.

Juliette: I don’t have the answer to that. But we’ll hold that as when we get to M maybe there’ll be someone who can clarify. Randi?

Randi: Randi, compulsive overeater. Since the AA world service has now approved this as AA-conference approved, I was wondering why it was felt that we needed to make this motion at all and wouldn’t it have been included under the current guidelines.

Juliette: I believe the sticking point in this particular place is this copyright 2010. That may be where it’s getting hooked up. Susan?

Susan: You may have already answered this, or maybe we need to wait till we get to M, but it seems to me that M encompasses this because it includes this and anything copywritten in 2026, so that would include anything since 2010 that we may not. So is this the kind of thing the reference committee would put together or do you not have an answer to that?

Juliette: I believe it can be moved to Reference. Yes.

Susan: Does it have to be requested to be moved to reference, or will that, is that just something that the Bylaws Committee can choose to do or the Reference Committee can choose to do?

Juliette: I don’t know.

Susan: Okay. That’s fair.

Juliette: Cee?

Cee: Thank you. At the risk of sounding pedantic—and I really don’t mean to—what I heard you say was that this is a revision of the Big Book, and I just wanted to be clear for those who are not familiar, that this is not a revision, this is a new publication, a separate … the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous still exists, but this is a new publication. Thanks.

Juliette: Thank you for that. Susie?

Susie: Yes. I would just add, after ordering and looking at a copy of it for a while, which I thought I should do in preparation for world service one of the goals was to make the language more accessible by updating it instead of the dated language of the 1930s. And the goal overall is it describes itself as a tool for understanding the Big Book.

Juliette: Thank you all. Are there additional questions? We have a few minutes left on this proposal. Seeing none then. Thank you all for sharing your experience, strength, and hope, and we will go on to the next motion. BJ, please reset the time and present New Business Policy Motion M. Gail?

New Business Proposal M

Gail: Yes. Hi. I am Gail S. I am a compulsive overeater. I am presenting for the Milwaukee Area Intergroup, Region Five, and our motion is: “We move to amend World Service Business Conference Policy Statement on Approved Literature 2010a by striking the comma after the word ‘thereof,’ striking the year 2010 and replacing it with 2026” or a more vague and current timeline and adding the words “this includes The Plain Language Big Book.” I’ve never done this before. Do you want me to read the rationale? What else do you want me to read here?

Juliette: Yes. That would be nice if you could.

Gail: Okay. I will read the rationale: “The Plain Language Big Book is a new piece of AA approved literature, April 2024, that simplifies the AA Big Book without changing the meaning of the original text. Its purpose is to be a companion to and enhance the understanding of the Big Book. This makes it easier to understand. Antiquated and gender specific terms have been removed from the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book original text, and replaced with simple and modern language, making it more accessible to diverse populations. We feel the inclusion of The Plan Language Big Book would help to support our message of recovery in these current times. This literature was approved after 2010, which is the date of our current policy on literature. Our current policy is more than 15 years old and needs to be updated. The original punctuation, the comma to remove, makes the statement incorrect.” And I will do my best to answer questions. I was on a committee of three that drafted this motion.

Juliette: Thank you. Okay, Susan?

Susan: If this is adopted with original edition copyrighted 2026 or earlier, doesn’t that automatically include The Plain Language, Big Book?

Gail: That’s a good question. I’m not sure. But we did a lot of research on how to draft this motion, and the feeling was we needed to make sure that this specific book was listed.

Juliette: Okay. Thank you. Trish?

Trish: Yes. Hi. I think this is a similar question. If we update the copyright to 2026, did anybody do any research into other AA publications that might be swept in with that change in publication date? And would we need to, as an organization, review those publications to be sure we want them included in our list?

Gail: This is a great question. I don’t have the answer. I’m sorry.

Juliette: Olivier.

Olivier: Yes, apologies. Okay. Hello. Thank you very much. If I read the intent of this motion, it’s basically to allow OA meeting if they choose to use The Plain Language Big Book as OA-approved literature, which means that the intent of this motion is to allow one specific book. Is there a reason for not mentioning just this specific book? Because this motion is introducing much more than one specific book.

Gail: We felt that the copyright dates needed to be changed in order to include this book. But the motion at its core is to add The Plain Language Big Book.

Olivier: Thank you.

Juliette: Claire?

Claire: Yeah, I do understand that there is another motion, which is specifically for The Plain Language Big Book. And this is more focused on the copyright dates. As the oa.org website stands at the moment, the list of AA conference-approved literature that we are allowed to use is not actually complete. Would this mean that it would be updated to include everything that is both AA- and OA-approved for anybody to reference? Because lots of people I know and myself included did not realize that some of the current AA literature prior to the original date was allowed to be used because it wasn’t listed on our site. Would this be updated?

Gail: It’s a very good question. Our focus was only on The Plain Language Big Book. So, I don’t have an answer. I’m sorry.

Juliette: Excellent questions to take to your service bodies and to World Service Business Conference. We have four minutes left on this motion. Are there any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, BJ would you reset the time and populate New Business Policy Motion J, and I believe Cee is presenting?

New Business Proposal J

Cee: Yes. Cee Z., compulsive overeater, and 100-pounder. The substance of the motion is few words. The rationale is quite a few words, and there’s a reason for that. So, the motion is: “We move that the World Service Business Conference direct the Board of Trustees to create a specific focus category titled Ethnically Jewish.” There are many words in the rationale, and there’s a reason for that. It speaks to many anticipated questions and indeed questions which have been asked several times so far as we’ve rolled this out. The rationale is: “OA has successfully created specific focus categories for other ethnic communities; such as Asian Pacific Islander; DESI; and Black, indigenous, and people of color. There remains no category specifically acknowledging members who identify as ethnically Jewish. This identity is not about religious belief or practice. It is a shared cultural, historical, and ethnic experience. Many individuals identify as ethnically Jewish without participating in Jewish religious observance. They may be secular, cultural, interfaith, or even non-believing Jews who nonetheless share a background, family history, and relationship with food shaped by Jewish ethnicity. These experiences often include intergenerational trauma, communal food customs, cultural norms surrounding body image, and family expectations. All of which can deeply influence patterns of compulsive eating and recovery. This motion is not about promoting any faith tradition within OA, nor does it ask OA to make religious accommodations, rather in existing specific focus categories that reflect cultural and demographic experience without reference to belief systems. This category affirms the lived reality of ethnically Jewish members who may otherwise feel invisible or misunderstood within broader meanings. Adding ethnically Jewish as a specific focus category allows for greater visibility, empowerment, and outreach. It offers newcomers a clearer path to connection and helps current members find recovery spaces where they feel culturally safe and understood. It also empowers groups to self-identify in a way that aligns with their members’ experiences while remaining fully compliant with OA’s Traditions, including the requirement that groups have no outside affiliations. Inclusion of this category promotes OA’s values of unity and diversity. It signals to Jewish identifying members who may have felt excluded or isolated that they are seen, welcomed, and supported in their recovery journey. It strengthens our Fellowship by ensuring that all compulsive eaters, regardless of their cultural background, can find a space where the message of recovery resonates with their lived experience. This is a simple, low cost and high impact way to Extend the hand and heart of OA to those who still suffer.” I’ll simply say one more time, this is about adding a specific focus category that is “Ethnically Jewish.”

Juliette: Thank you, Cee, do we have any questions? Go ahead, Ricki.

Ricki: Thank you. Ricki, delegate from the Israeli National Service Board, compulsive overeater, food addict. I would like to know if there are any criterion for the admission of, or—I don’t know if that’s quite the right word—of a specific focus group. Is there something, a list of things that they need or any group can decide that they would like to have a specific focus group? Thank you.

Cee: I’m not qualified to answer that question, Ricki. It might be more appropriate for the trustees. Thank you.

Juliette: There are. I can’t recite them off the top of my head, but there are. Maybe I can look that up now while we’re asking questions. Laila?

Laila: Hi. I’m Laila from East Bay Intergroup in near San Francisco, California. Primarily, I’d like to know more about the history. So did the Jewish people in my meeting that I represent in the intergroup, they were saying, “What in the world is Jewish identity? Culture? Ethnicity?” and they really were having a very hard time with it, so I want to be able to at least understand and convey what you or how did this get going in the first place?

Cee: Help me understand what it is you want help communicating? It is the question, “What is Jewish identity?”

Laila: No, I want to know what the history of this is. Who decided they wanted to add this? Because it was primarily Jewish people who were very concerned about even talking about this—it’s a divisive thing. To know what the history was behind it coming forward would help.

Cee: The persons who brought this are persons who identify as ethnically Jewish, who feel—as is said in the many words in the rationale—feel that having a safe place to be who you are and be open with who you are would be very helpful. One of the things that the rationale tries to get at is that it is a very broad category, this notion of Jewishness, and in conversations with the makers of the motion, that’s one of the things that has come up is that even among persons who identify as ethnically Jewish, there are a lot of things they don’t agree on and yet they identify as ethnically Jewish. So, to create a safe space where persons who are ethnically Jewish can practice this program without engaging in the things that divide us politically, ideologically, nationally, those kinds of things. This is OA, a Twelve Step recovery program. Can we simply come together as people with shared cultural, historical, and ethnic experience, which won’t all be the same but still there is that foundation? Can we create such a place? For instance, with regard to the other ethnic categories, they’re not all the same. They don’t all believe the same or function the same, but they have that shared identity of, say, being Asian Pacific Islander or Black, indigenous, people of color. Did that help at all, Laila?

Laila: I think that is, is what I understand from the rationale, but the process of how this got going, was it primarily Jewish people asking for it?

Cee: Yes.

Laila: I think that the people that I talked to were really afraid of this actually harming Jewish people in the program.

Juliette: Thank you, Laila. We’re running out of time. Trish, we have a minute. We can come back to it at the end, Trish?

Trish: Do you want me to state my question now, or are we coming back to it? Okay. So, two things. If people are feeling unsafe in the rooms, I think that’s a bigger issue that needs to be addressed by world service, number one. And I appreciate the need for this; I absolutely do. But I guess I, I too would be curious about the criteria because I am not Jewish, but I come from an Italian heritage where food is a huge thing. So would I be able to put forward motion for Italian Americans or Italian ethnicity? Does this open up the gates for all kinds of other things? And I’m not leaning one way or the other. I think it’s an important point to discuss, but I just wanted to put those two thoughts there. Thanks.

Juliette: Thank you. We are out of time for this motion. We’re going to move on to the next, and hopefully I have some time. So those of you with hands raised hold your questions if you wouldn’t mind. Thanks. Cee, I’d like to move on to Motion K. And BJ, if you could restart the timer. And again, I believe Cee is presenting.

New Business Proposal K

Cee: Yes, still Cee. So it was adopted in World Service Business Conference Policy 1984b, that the World Service Convention be held at a time and place to be determined by the Board of Trustees. And what we are proposing is that every two years, Overeaters Anonymous will hold a virtual retreat, which all members are encouraged to attend. Additionally, World Service Convention will be scheduled at a time and place to be determined by the Board of Trustees. The rationale is fivefold: expanding global fellowship, proven success of virtual events, overcoming barriers to participation, strengthening recovery and service, and enhancing OA’s reach and impact. I don’t want to take up the whole 10 minutes reading every word of the rationale. I want to leave more time, this time, for questions, but essentially, we are saying that it’s a big virtual world out there now, and the Virtual Region is not the only region that is engaging in this. We are reaching out to people in all kinds of ways. There are many people who will never be able to get to an in-person Convention. They just won’t for a variety of reasons, health, expense, access, all kinds of reasons. And so, what if we created a way for all of Overeaters Anonymous to have an opportunity to come together, and with regularity, every two years in a virtual way? That’s essentially what we’re trying to get to: Expanding our reach and our impact and caring for our members within as we invite those without.

Juliette: Thank you, Cee. Do we have any questions? Ricki?

Ricki: Thank you, Ricki, from the Israel National Service Board compulsive overeater, food addict. I’d like to know why you said, “These expenses will be offset by voluntary contributions,” I’m just reading it, “and possible registration fees.” Why would we not charge a registration fee for something that will be quite expensive? I can imagine especially when you consider translation and efforts and everything else.

Cee: This will be implemented by world service, and they certainly will be free to do that.

Juliette: Allie?

Allie: Yeah, I love the idea, but is it possible for the world service to do this, with all the work they have? Do we have any clue as to how possible this could be? Because I love it, but I was wondering.

Cee: And I can’t answer that question. But I heard our trusted liaison say at our Green Dot meeting this morning that they respond to what the body, what the group conscience, asks for. And so we are spending an awful lot of money to redo the website because that’s what the body voted to do. And world service will do what we ask them to do or direct them to do. So, I can’t speak for them, but I will say that what we’d like to do is to have this considered and see if they can create one more miracle.

Juliette: Thank you. Cee. Cecilia?

Cecilia: Yes. Hi. I was just thinking—and it occurs to me when we look at virtual events, we have World Service Business Conference, which is administrative, and we have an in-person convention, but right now, OA does not have any virtual global recovery meeting. Is that the case? I can’t think of anything.

Cee: And again, I’m not qualified to answer that question. I don’t believe so, but there might be something I don’t know.

Cecilia: Okay. Thank you.

Juliette: Thank you, Emilia.

Emilia: Yes. Thank you very much for your proposal. And I was wondering how would you schedule this virtual convention? I was, you know why? Because I was reading on the rationale that this will improve inclusivity, but there are a part of fellowship while, that is, while, for example, living in other time zones. So there will be a time zone difference. So part of the meetings will be late in the evening, very late in the night, early in the morning. How will you engage inclusivity with this virtual convention?

Cee: That’s an implementation question and under implementation, it says, “the committee will review technologies previously presented to the board by the Virtual Region trustee and evaluate any new viable options.” Again, we asked the body to consider this as a possibility, and then, we acknowledge it. We’re asking the trustees to do something that would not be easy. It wouldn’t and it would be new, but we put it out there.

Juliette: Just to qualifier that we are bordering on debating the issue. So, could we just keep it to questions? Thank you. Laila? And we have three minutes.

Laila: To a clarification about—Do you mean every other year? In other words, we have one year of in-person, then we have another year of the next year virtual, and then back in-person? And do you mean the conference or a retreat at the bottom? It was calling it a retreat—oh, it is a retreat! So, is this … is it a retreat or is it alternating how we do the World Service Convention?

Cee: No, it’s a retreat every two years. I don’t know that it would be an addition to the World Service Convention.

Laila: You didn’t think of that, whether it’s alternating or not?

Cee: I don’t know if there will be World Service Convention is what I’m saying.

Juliette: If I can help, I think it’s a virtual retreat every other year: always virtual in addition to the Convention.

Laila: In addition to—that’s what I wanted to know. Yes. Thank you. Thank you,

Juliette: Sharlotte. And we have a minute or so for Sharlotte.

Sharlotte: I would like to defer my question to somebody else, please.

Juliette: Okay, thank you. Alita?

Alita: Yes. My question is, why would the Virtual Services Region not be able to perform this function? If Baton Rouge Intergroup wants a retreat, we plan it. If Region Eight wants an assembly or a convention, we plan it. So I don’t understand why it would be—the onus would be put on world service.

Cee: Or are you asking why would the Virtual Region not create this by itself?

Alita: Correct.

Cee: We feel it would be stronger and more impactful if it involved all of OA. Which probably would be more effective if it came from world service. Certainly all of the regions who know how to do this would participate in making it happen.

Juliette: Thank you. Ellie, if you could quickly, one more question.

Ellie: Hi. Thank you. I just wondered about the last sentence of the motion about the World Service Convention being scheduled rather than held. I just didn’t understand why the word changed there. Thank you.

Cee: I don’t have an answer for that, Ellie.

Juliette: Thank you all. We’re at time on this motion, so if, BJ, you could reset the timer. Cee you’re on again, I think, for Bylaw Amendment 7. Go ahead, Cee,

Bylaw Amendment Proposal 7

Cee: Alright, this one we think is pretty straightforward and easy. So, let’s see. Right now, under C: “Section V of Article XI does not apply to this committee” and what we are proposing is—there is language in the original which is not showing up there—all of C is not showing up in current wording. Because what we are proposing is changing “a region chair may designate an alternate”—currently it says “such as the region vice chair to serve on the committee in their absence.” And what we are suggesting is to remove those words “such as the region vice chair”, because they’re not needed. That was simply put in there as an example, and what has happened is that gets people’s notice. People are reading that as “the alternate needs to be the region vice chair.” That was not the intent of the original wording. It was simply an extraneous example put in there. And this comes from the Virtual Region because this came up in our region because the vice chair was not available to attend in the chair’s absence. And the person who was ultimately sent, which was me, was not the vice chair. And so there was conversation held about that because people said, but it says that it’s the region vice chair. It was misread. And so we’re simply saying, how about we take that example out of there so as not to confuse anyone else in the future. That “the region chair may designate an alternate to serve on the committee in their absence.”

Juliette: Thank you. Questions? Rich.

Rich: Yeah. So that means that they can designate anybody, including somebody that’s not on the committee—doesn’t even say “in the Fellowship.” It’s not clear who they can designate, is that correct? So doesn’t even have to—it doesn’t say that, correct?

Cee: As it is written it does not specify any further. You’re right. It simply says, “may designate an alternate.”

Rich: Which could be anybody in the world, could be, correct? By the wording, the present wording.

Cee: That could be one interpretation.

Rich: Okay.

Juliette: Thank you, Trish?

Trish: Yeah. Hi. Similar comment but my concern about taking that out is a similar thing. Has there been any discussion about—to put in wording or qualifications, to designate an alternative compliant with existing, world service guidelines? Something like that to keep it … because when it’s just the when it says such as the region vice chair, you assume that person has recovery and is able to go. So I’m just wondering—it might be something to be debated on the floor—but was any consideration given to that?

Cee: As I said, we actually thought it was pretty straightforward. But the great thing about a deliberative body is that these things will come to the floor and they can be debated and amended.

Sharlotte: Cee, so this is Section III of Article XI of the bylaws. There are previous sections of the bylaws and also policies that dictate who can serve on a committee i.e., that they have to be a member of Overeaters Anonymous. In your opinion, based on the other sections of Article XI and the policy manual, is there any change required to this motion?

Cee: I do not believe so.

Juliette: Thank you, Claire.

Claire: I just wanted to be sure that I’m reading this motion correctly. As it stood before, “such as the region vice chair,” so not the region vice chair. And that’s merely to change to “alternate.” So I don’t actually see that there’s any change at all because it doesn’t state that the regional vice chair will attend in, in lieu of the chair not being there. It’s just a suggestion, it might be the regional vice chair but could be somebody else. So, I don’t see there’s actually a huge difference other than cleaning the wording. Am I correct?

Cee: Correct. As you said, it was a suggestion. It was not a dictate, and yet there are those who read it and heard it that way.

Juliette: Are there any other questions regarding this motion? Okay, great. So, we still have about eight minutes. Before we return to the main room, does anyone want to go back to an earlier motion? Please raise your hand. Claire.

Follow-up discussion

Claire: New Business Motion J, please. Based on our results from our intergroup’s little poll that we did on it. Okay.

Juliette: Back to Motion J and then just to make sure this timer is reset.

Claire: Okay. Not saying that this is my opinion at all, but we did have some questions and comments on this when we asked our intergroup about this. The concerns were, and the question I guess is how does this support the Unity with Diversity Policy? And does it not unintentionally cause more splintering and differences rather than bringing us together as a community where we have this same thing in common of compulsive overeating, yet another specific focus category may serve to splinter rather than bring the fellowship together. I think that’s a summary of our comments.

Cee: Madam Chair, that sounds like a debate question to me.

Claire: No, the question is how—could you explain how this supports the Unity with Diversity?

Cee: Well, the belief of the maker of the motion is simply that there is precedent; there are several ethnically diverse categories already. This would be another in line with those that have already been approved and there is a belief, a feeling, that this one would be very helpful to our members. We’ve done it before. Why wouldn’t we do it again? Now, that is a larger question for Overeaters Anonymous. But in terms of the makers of this motion, there is precedence, it’s been done.

Claire: Thank you.

Juliette: Thank you, Cee. Are there additional questions for this or another motion? Cynthia?

Cynthia D: Hi everyone. Cynthia D from the Virtual Better Together Virtual Intergroup. On that same motion, I had a question and just to clarify this—I guess the idea behind this is if someone wanted to seek out a specific group with this specific characteristic or any of the other ones that exist, then they could voluntarily do that, correct? This is not something that’s required or mandatory. Because I heard the comments before about safety, etc. I’m wondering if people are understanding that should you choose to seek out an ethnic group that you identify with and find meetings that are comprised of those members, you have this option now. Under no circumstances is it required or mandatory, etc. I just wanted clarification on that.

Cee: I’m going to paragraph two of the rationale. This motion is not about promoting any faith tradition within OA, nor does it ask OA to make religious accommodations. Rather, it mirrors existing specific focus categories that reflect cultural and demographic experience without reference to belief systems. So even with regard to just the ethnicity part of it, no one is saying anybody has to attend these meetings, but if someone is searching for the safety that the makers of the motion believe will be inherent in the creation of this particular ethnic focus that they will be able to find it.

Cynthia D.: Thank you. That’s what I thought in a way. And you know what? My comment is really better for debate but thank you for clarifying that this is optional. Thank you.

Juliette: Thank you, Cynthia. Mark.

Mark: Have the people that brought this motion forward do—have they had some experience, or they feel that they were overtly left out of the Fellowship? In bringing this motion about?

Cee: They believe that in creating this specific focus, they would be creating a place of safety, whereby persons who identify as ethnically Jewish would be able to work their program.

Juliette: Sorry, Trish.

Trish: Question about the Motion J or maybe just for all of them with the special [sic] focus groups. Are they open to anybody who wishes to recover or are people who are non-Jewish or non-Asian Pacific barred from those meetings? So can anybody go whether they identify or not? That’s my question.

Cee: No one is barred.

Juliette: Sharlotte.

Sharlotte: As region chair of the Virtual Region, is it the Virtual Region’s opinion that any two members who wish to meet together under a specific focus should be able to do so regardless of what that is?

Cee: Repeat the question, please.

Sharlotte: I’m asking you to take a stance on behalf of the Virtual Region who will present this motion. Is it the Virtual Region’s opinion that any two members who wish to meet as a specific focus should be able to do so?

Cee: The Virtual Region has not deliberated that question, so I cannot answer that.

Sharlotte: I think we did, but never mind. Thank you very much.

Juliette: Thank you. We have time for one more. Rich.

Rich: Okay, and I’m not going to get into debate because … I’m an observant Jew and I’m against it, but now I have more concern that people are—in the Fellowship, if we are open to special interest, why should we limit it? That’s my concern is … are we creating prejudice as saying, “Okay, certain groups can have a special interest but some others can’t”?

Juliette: Can you ask a question? Again, that’s getting into debate.

Rich: Okay. If any group wants to have a special interest but be inclusive, why would we limit it? I mean, the only requirement is a desire to stop eating compulsively. But I guess, the question is, I don’t even know why this has to go to the floor … but I guess to be listed at world service would be the only reason. But if we have African-American and other groups that are specific—I just don’t understand the debate if anybody wants to do it—if left-handed people wanted to do it, what’s the difference?

Juliette: Okay, I do need to cut us off. I understand that it is a very juicy and rich and debatable motion. The answers that I needed to look up, unfortunately managing the room, I was not able to get that done. But I will try to find a way to get that information to you all. We are at time to return to the main room. I’d like to thank everybody for coming and to return to the main room for our closing. And thank you to all the presenters and all the questions. You guys are awesome.

Press the play button below to listen to an audio recording in English or read the translatable transcript below.

Gary: Thank you. In case you miss the very opening. We are being recorded. If you want to be anonymous, you’re free to use a fictitious name or no name at all. My name is Gary and I’m your moderator for this session. In this session we will be discussing the New Business Policy Motion E and Bylaw Amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will be screen sharing the motions and a timer will help us stay on track. We have four motions to discuss, and each of them will have up to 12 minutes for discussion. If we have additional questions after 12 minutes, we can return to those motions at the end of the meeting if there is time. I do want to remind you that, if you didn’t hear it in the beginning, this is a time for questions and answers for clarifying the motions. This is not a time for debate. So now Cyndy, if you would please set the timer for 12 minutes and if you could bring up, New Business Policy Motion E. Lisa T. if you would please present the motion.

New Business Proposal E

Lisa T.: Yes. So this motion is to change a part of—a single word in the OA preamble from where it currently says, “Overeaters Anonymous is a Fellowship of individuals who through shared experience, strength and hope are recovering from compulsive overeating” to it just saying, “recovering from compulsive eating.” You’ll notice it’s just four letters crossed out. That is, essentially, to correct the Preamble because the Fellowship is all the members, and not all the members are compulsive overeaters. They are, however, all compulsive eaters.

Gary: Thank you, Lisa. Are there any questions for Lisa or on Proposal E?

Michelle: This is Michelle. Did the service body consider, “over- and undereating” or anything like that?

Lisa T.: Like I said, our idea was let’s stick to the Traditions. And the Tradition says  “the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop eating compulsively.” Obviously, the members of the Anorexic Bulimic Service Board believed that anorexia qualifies as compulsive eating. Otherwise, OA wouldn’t have created the specific focus. No need to give more detail. The thing in Tradition Three that allows us all to be here that’s what should be referenced. When talking about the Fellowship.

Gary: Thank you. Does that answer your question? Michelle. Are there any other questions for Lisa T? Wonderful. So, we’ll have extra time at the end, if we need it. Thank you. Cyndy, would you please reset the timer for 12 minutes? And then when you can, will you please bring up Amendment 3? Okay, Lisa, would you please present Bylaw Amendment Proposal 3.

Bylaw Amendment Proposal 3

Lisa T: We are proposing to change the language of Tradition Five from, “Each group has but one primary purpose — to carry its message to the compulsive overeater who still suffers” to “Each group has but one primary purpose — to carry its message to the compulsive eater who still suffers.” We believe that all the Steps and Traditions should apply equally to all the members of the fellowship so that there isn’t a two-tiered system of membership where the Steps don’t apply equally to everybody. I’m ready for questions.

Gary: Are there any questions for Lisa on Amendment Proposal 3? Pretty clear? Thank you so much. Cyndy, if you would reset the timer for 12 minutes. And when you can please bring up Bylaw Amendment 4.

Bylaw Amendment Proposal 4

Lisa T: Okay, so in, in this Bylaw Amendment Proposal, we want to change Step Twelve from what it currently says. “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to compulsive overeaters and to practice these principles on all our affairs” to “Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to compulsive eaters and to practice these principles in all our affairs.” So besides that what we said earlier of having the Steps apply to all the people who are members, that’s what we’re proposing.

Gary: Are there any questions for Lisa on Bylaw Amendment Proposal 4.? Thank you everyone. Cyndy, would you please reset the clock for 12 minutes? I think there will be questions coming up.

Lisa T.: Yeah, probably.

Gary: And would you please Cyndy bring up, New Business Motion Proposal 5. Thank you. Lisa, would you present your motion?

Bylaw Amendment Proposal 5

Lisa T: Yes, that is our motion. The original amendment in our bylaws said that a step could be changed by getting 75—getting three-quarters of the registered groups that respond within six months to approve it. And then in 1995, this rule that they, that they had to have at least 55 percent of the registered groups respond in order to make sure that there was widespread participation in that important decision. What we are proposing is that because of the levels of difficulty—and I’ll talk about that when people ask—of actually doing the rule that they said, we suggest instead that we have the same at least 55 percent participation, but that be of all of the service bodies, which is 311 as opposed to all the groups, which would currently be about 6,500 groups in 75 countries.

Gary: Thank you, Lisa. Are there any questions for Lisa regarding Bylaw Amendment Proposal 5?

Emilia: Gary, it’s me.

Gary: Yes, Emilia.

Emilia: Hi everyone. Yes, I have just a question on service bodies. They removed groups and inserted service bodies. My question is are regions considered service bodies?

Lisa T.: Yes.

Emilia: Okay, so they can actually respond to this? Okay. And also groups acting as service bodies?

Lisa T.: I’m not sure I know what you mean by groups acting as service bodies.

Emilia: Groups working towards becoming service bodies. For example, just an example, maybe there are small countries with only one group, and there are, and it’s difficult for them to create intergroups or national service boards. For example, we have Cyprus, Lithuania, and they are only one group. And they are considered service bodies while working towards becoming service bodies. So while we—they’re creating, they’re waiting, they are doing—any effort to become a service body. So create a new group, fund a new book, a new group, and become intergroup a service body.

Lisa T.: So I think that would probably be a decision left up to the trustees to decide if you’re in process. It certainly makes good sense that if there’s only one group in a whole country right now, they are also the—whether they filled out the paperwork or not—they are also the national service board. It makes sense for them to get to participate. But again, I think that decision would be made∏—there’s a lot of decisions regardless of which way, which, method we use, it’s never been done before—so the trustees will have to work that out.

Gary: Thank you, Lisa. Are there any other questions for Lisa, regarding Amendment Proposal 5? Oh, Lisa, you had an easier answer.

Lisa T.: That was so easy. We have—we can all go listen in on Session 1, I think?

Gary: We can. Are there any other questions for any of the amendments? Oh, there we go. Sharlotte.

Sharlotte: Hi. Sharlotte G., compulsive overeater, delegate. Thank you very much, Lisa. Appreciate it. So my question relates to the rationale behind changing this to “service bodies.” If a service body, say an intergroup from middle of nowhere, or a country similar to Emilia’s question, a country with just one or two groups, should that, in your service body’s opinion, should that intergroup with only two or three meetings have the same vote in this process as an intergroup, say OA footsteps that has 200 meetings, because obviously they’re representing a much larger voice? So is it fair that they own they got the same representation within this process?

Lisa T: Thank you for your question, Sharlotte, I was hoping somebody would ask that. Here’s our take on that: The current system has the same problem. A meeting of two people has the same vote of a meeting of 200 people. Also, I go to a lot of small meetings, so that gives me more influence in how the votes of the 7 tiny meetings a week I go to vote, for example. There isn’t a possibility of “one man, one vote” of fairness. But what we want is something bigger than that: we want an informed group conscience. And I think because the whole purpose of the intergroup is talking about what’s best for either the groups in that area as a whole or OA as a whole, they’re much more set to be able to spend the time, get the input from the groups to really talk out what it means to have—what any particular step change would mean, as opposed to: in an individual meeting we have our quarterly group conscience, we’ll spend 15 minutes talking about this and then decide. I think we would get a better quality discussion from all of the groups coming to the intergroup to really discuss.

Gary: Bob.

Bob: Thank you, Lisa, for the proposal. Question I had is that service bodies includes regions. Is it the intent to have the regions vote on this as well? And not just only intergroup and service boards?

Lisa T.: All service bodies.

Bob: All the service boards and include regions as well?

Lisa T.: Yeah, all of them. Regions, national language boards, national boards, intergroups.

Bob: Okay. Thank you.

Gary: Sharlotte.

Sharlotte: Thanks. just follow up from Bob’s, Lisa just listed off the list of people who would be eligible to vote, but didn’t mention specific focus service boards like OA Rainbow and Anorexia Bulimia. So I’m just checking. That was an oversight in not mentioning them rather than a deliberate not mentioning them?

Lisa T.: Oh. Oh, good. It was all service boards.

Sharlotte: So your motion would allow specific—

Lisa T.: Yes, you think I would leave myself out?

Gary: Any other questions for Lisa on New Business Motion 5? Then thank you everybody. Thank you so much for your participation for being inquisitive and curious about the motions. Thank you, Cyndy, for timing and for and for taking care of the screen sharing. You are welcome to pop over to the other room if you would like. Oh, I’m sorry. Emilia. Yes.

Emilia: I wanted just to know if we can go to the other room.

Gary: You can—at least you have my permission. If they throw you out, you can say, “Gary said I can.” Yeah, you can. You can go there or or wherever you’d like. but thank you mostly for your curiosity and for your, participation, and we’ll see you all next week!