Post by RCA Webmaster on May 14, 2024 6:59:37 GMT -5
May 08, 2024
The Proposal for the 2024 ABM Ballot Prepared by the RCA Structure Committee
1. The 2024 Ballot Proposals: The committee has prepared this document in accordance with its
assigned responsibilities.
2. Purpose of the Rationales, Comments, and Opinions. As has been the practice since the 2007
Annual Business Meeting (ABM), this document includes the rationale of the submitter, the comments
of the Board of Trustees, and the comments of the Structure Committee.
• We emphasize that all comments are simply opinions, as is the rationale provided by the
submitter of the proposal. None of these opinions is entitled to any greater weight simply because
of the service positions held by those expressing their opinions.
• As emphasized in our Second Tradition, there is equality among all RCA members. The members of
each RCA group are the ones to decide the position that their group will take on any of the
proposals.
• The various opinions included herein are provided to assist the member groups in evaluating the
merits of each proposal. A website discussion forum has been established so that other RCA members
can submit their comments and opinions for consideration by the Fellowship.
3. Request to Each RCA Group: Each member group is asked to review the proposal to determine the
position that your group may wish to take.
• Adopted by Special Ballot in 2021, the Standing Rules for ABMs were amended. The use of an
electronic ballot and a deadline for submission after the convention permit groups to include the
comments made during the ABM in their discernment of the proposals. Additionally, this process
ensures that decisions made at annual business meetings reflect the collective group conscience of
the entire Fellowship;
• We recognize that there are many demands on the time of RCA members and that priority must be
given to continued individual and couple recovery. Each member group, however, is requested to
review and vote on this proposal if at all possible.
• Your group will thereby help ensure that decisions made at the business meeting will truly
reflect “the collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.”
4. Openness in a Democratic Process: This document is for RCA members, not the general public. We
identify those RCA members providing the opinions included in this notice to ensure a level of
openness consistent with our commitment to “always remain democratic in thought and action.”
Openness is a fundamental element of a democratic process.
Structure Committee Members
David H, Alameda, CA USA
Joe E. Woodbury, MN USA
Mark R Plantation, FL USA
Scott L,St Louis, MO USA
Karl S Berkeley, CA USA
Rolly R, Norton Shores, MI USA
Members of the Board of Trustees
Dan & Mila, Piedmont, CA USA
Sydney & Kate, Sacramento, CA USA
Joe & Catherine, Woodbury, MN USA
Alison & Mel, Wellfleet, MA USA
Don & Deborah, San Francisco, CA,USA
Cody & Chris, Los Angeles, CA USA
Deborah & Jon, Washington, DC USA
Ginger & Jeffery, Rehoboth, DE, USA
Anthony & Laura Hayward, CA, USA
Proposal for 2024 ABM
No: 1 Title: Proposal to add language to By-Law 3.6.1
Submitter: Scott L RCA member Type: Amendment to By-Laws
Motion: Proposal that By-Law 3.6.1 be revised by adding the underlined and italic text to read.
Delegate Couple. Each Member Group shall select from the member couples of the group, a Delegate
Couple, to represent the group at the R.C.A.C. and to vote for the group on all matters considered
at the R.C.A.C. "The selected member couple is limited to representing no more than one group in the
capacity of Delegate Couple. This limitation has no impact on the selected member couple’s capacity
to be a proxy for an additional group as outlined in By-Law 3.6.1.2”
Submitter's Rationale:
This proposal makes explicit and solidifies RCA's past practice into the By-Law. The intention of
the Delegate Couple By-Law in 2006 was equity among the groups and ensuring that our fellowship
decisions are made by a consensus of the entire fellowship. By limiting the delegate couple to a
maximum of one group and one proxy the equity among all the RCA groups is ensured.
This proposal will not result in any change in how RCA conducts its Annual Business Meetings. It
simply incorporates what has been past practice and the intention of the fellowship into the
By-Laws.
Board of Trustees’ Comments on Proposal One
The proposal was review by all nine couples that make up the Board of Trustees for the WSO. One of
the members explained the meaning of the proposal and the rational.
There was some discussion and a vote was taken. The vote was unanimous in favor of the proposal.
Structure Committee’s Comments on Proposal One:
The Structure Committee supports the proposal for the reasons stated in the submitter’s rationale 6
Yays 0 Nays.
The Proposal for the 2024 ABM Ballot Prepared by the RCA Structure Committee
1. The 2024 Ballot Proposals: The committee has prepared this document in accordance with its
assigned responsibilities.
2. Purpose of the Rationales, Comments, and Opinions. As has been the practice since the 2007
Annual Business Meeting (ABM), this document includes the rationale of the submitter, the comments
of the Board of Trustees, and the comments of the Structure Committee.
• We emphasize that all comments are simply opinions, as is the rationale provided by the
submitter of the proposal. None of these opinions is entitled to any greater weight simply because
of the service positions held by those expressing their opinions.
• As emphasized in our Second Tradition, there is equality among all RCA members. The members of
each RCA group are the ones to decide the position that their group will take on any of the
proposals.
• The various opinions included herein are provided to assist the member groups in evaluating the
merits of each proposal. A website discussion forum has been established so that other RCA members
can submit their comments and opinions for consideration by the Fellowship.
3. Request to Each RCA Group: Each member group is asked to review the proposal to determine the
position that your group may wish to take.
• Adopted by Special Ballot in 2021, the Standing Rules for ABMs were amended. The use of an
electronic ballot and a deadline for submission after the convention permit groups to include the
comments made during the ABM in their discernment of the proposals. Additionally, this process
ensures that decisions made at annual business meetings reflect the collective group conscience of
the entire Fellowship;
• We recognize that there are many demands on the time of RCA members and that priority must be
given to continued individual and couple recovery. Each member group, however, is requested to
review and vote on this proposal if at all possible.
• Your group will thereby help ensure that decisions made at the business meeting will truly
reflect “the collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.”
4. Openness in a Democratic Process: This document is for RCA members, not the general public. We
identify those RCA members providing the opinions included in this notice to ensure a level of
openness consistent with our commitment to “always remain democratic in thought and action.”
Openness is a fundamental element of a democratic process.
Structure Committee Members
David H, Alameda, CA USA
Joe E. Woodbury, MN USA
Mark R Plantation, FL USA
Scott L,St Louis, MO USA
Karl S Berkeley, CA USA
Rolly R, Norton Shores, MI USA
Members of the Board of Trustees
Dan & Mila, Piedmont, CA USA
Sydney & Kate, Sacramento, CA USA
Joe & Catherine, Woodbury, MN USA
Alison & Mel, Wellfleet, MA USA
Don & Deborah, San Francisco, CA,USA
Cody & Chris, Los Angeles, CA USA
Deborah & Jon, Washington, DC USA
Ginger & Jeffery, Rehoboth, DE, USA
Anthony & Laura Hayward, CA, USA
Proposal for 2024 ABM
No: 1 Title: Proposal to add language to By-Law 3.6.1
Submitter: Scott L RCA member Type: Amendment to By-Laws
Motion: Proposal that By-Law 3.6.1 be revised by adding the underlined and italic text to read.
Delegate Couple. Each Member Group shall select from the member couples of the group, a Delegate
Couple, to represent the group at the R.C.A.C. and to vote for the group on all matters considered
at the R.C.A.C. "The selected member couple is limited to representing no more than one group in the
capacity of Delegate Couple. This limitation has no impact on the selected member couple’s capacity
to be a proxy for an additional group as outlined in By-Law 3.6.1.2”
Submitter's Rationale:
This proposal makes explicit and solidifies RCA's past practice into the By-Law. The intention of
the Delegate Couple By-Law in 2006 was equity among the groups and ensuring that our fellowship
decisions are made by a consensus of the entire fellowship. By limiting the delegate couple to a
maximum of one group and one proxy the equity among all the RCA groups is ensured.
This proposal will not result in any change in how RCA conducts its Annual Business Meetings. It
simply incorporates what has been past practice and the intention of the fellowship into the
By-Laws.
Board of Trustees’ Comments on Proposal One
The proposal was review by all nine couples that make up the Board of Trustees for the WSO. One of
the members explained the meaning of the proposal and the rational.
There was some discussion and a vote was taken. The vote was unanimous in favor of the proposal.
Structure Committee’s Comments on Proposal One:
The Structure Committee supports the proposal for the reasons stated in the submitter’s rationale 6
Yays 0 Nays.