|
Upper Rocky Mountain Regional Delegate Report |
|
225 Grandview Cr. Evanston WY 82930 789-5455 |
March 11, 2007
Dear Upper Rocky Mountain Region,
In April I attended the WSC of NA in Woodland Hills, CA along with the AD, Tommy O. We took votes from several groups to the service conference on items they discussed in local workshops. Three groups actually sent in their decisions and we voted against all motions with the exception of one group that decided to abstain on motion #3. Since it was an abstention at the conference we took a no vote on the motion. This will be discussed more in detail as I get to the old business session of my report. We also held issue discussions and I turned in the main points to the discussions to NAWS to help in future planning sessions and issue discussions.
I arrived on Friday the 21st of April. I registered and attended a local NA meeting. On Saturday morning there was an open forum and welcome meeting for anyone wishing to discuss issues with the World Board. Saturday afternoon and evening were events held by the local fellowship which included workshops and an international speaker meeting held in the main conference room. Later after the meeting there was a world market that allowed participants the opportunity to buy and sell their local merchandise.
On Sunday morning the conference opened with introductions. I introduced myself and Tommy and the other delegates, WB, HRP, and Co Facilitators were also introduced. This was our first work session and we were asked to present questions for the WB, and HRP, and also focus on what we wanted to accomplish for the week. We were led through the conference week and what to expect. After the opening session we were able to tour the WSO and have lunch.
The night session had to do with leadership in NA and was led by the Executive Committee and the HRP. We learned to trust the process although it sometimes isn’t perfect when electing members to serve at the world level. Comments from Tom(WB) included, “no trust in the past, better system today. Still move on from the “old boy network” and drop the old ways and ideas.” Comments from Anthony(EDWSO) included, “– freedom of choice on selection of servants. Stand on principles. Look at our history and see if the process is working. Are we better off?” After the session we were encouraged to write questions and drop them in the question box for the WB and for the HRP for a future session.
Monday began at 9am with the Strategic Plan Overview. The plan is a living document and a way to get where NAWS wants to go. Lack of planning in the 90’s changed the WSC. Now there are 2 basic objectives, 1. Service, 2. Organizational. Service objectives help our fellowship with communication around current issues and also work to enhance the program to be a more credible option for recovery. Organizational objectives are for the office in general and include leadership, management, and ways to ensure NAWS continue to provide adequate support and funding to the fellowship.
The late morning session was the NAWS report to the fellowship and included these items:
NA speaks 65 languages, published in 25.
Translations start with a glossary of terms such as IP #1 and starts from there.
WB is responsible for the message, everything translated has to go to the WB for approval.
155 new materials have become available since WSC 2004.
New white books and Behind the Walls have no staples and are available for H&I.
Iran – has purchased 51,000 BT in the last 8 months, and 1.1 million IP’s. NAWS opened up a new branch office in Tehran to meet the demand. Iran has approximately 4,100 meetings a week(more than any other region in the world).
NAWS has 3 active lawsuits at the time. No information was disclosed, but it was reported that members are seeking solutions in the courts for their personal difference. The time has come when groups and regions should have liability insurance.
NAWS will create a new bulletin stating they exercise no central control and not in a position to advise the groups since it puts too much stake on the fellowship.
NAWS will restructure the web site. It has become the leading avenue for literature sales.
NAWS wants copies of guidelines from groups to pass along to newer groups.
NAWS has more and more communications with incarcerated addicts, but does not have a jail mail program.
And finally, the BT project has 703 items of input. Will be available 9/06 for review and input until 3/07, and anyone can review. The approval form will be out 9/07 and will be voted on at WSC 2008.
At a later session the Human Resource Panel(HRP) gave their report on the nomination process for members wishing to be newly elected trusted servants.
Tuesday started at 9am with an open forum of the HRP to answer questions the delegates had submitted. Highlights to the discussions included:
Maybe we can have a process to help each other in service?
Many members wanted to know why candidates were not nominated from other countries, why they weren’t women. HRP answered, “Candidates can come from anywhere, especially from the world pool”.
Some questions on why the HRP would nominate someone who has little experience within their region or zone or area? HRP said that the process involved addicts they felt were qualified and not just on their zonal or regional experience.
Anyone can send input to HRP@NA.org
Another idea for the process was to include CPR’s (Candidate profile reports) in the CAR?
Regions, Forums and WB can forward nominations for their candidates.
The next session was for the WB to answer questions submitted and these are some highlights of the questions and answers:
Questions of Leadership
WB Answer: Board consults past leaders and solicits members for the World Pool. Business experience helps at the board for qualifications.
Service Literature Questions
WB Answer: Groups are now available to send their input, email, letter, phone etc, for recovery literature.
Most communities translate their materials from within, project ideas are how most of this gets done.
All bulletins are subject to revision at any time, “great need to update these”, says Anthony(EDWSO), especially methadone bulletins including other chemicals.
Discussions have generated an interest in service, still 10% take on 90% of the work.
BT workgroup is still in executive work group.
Area planning tool if approved will be adaptable for our service groups and other literature.
IDT are two folds, some can have information created and some can instill a sense of discussion and awareness.
Common needs Questions
WB Answer: At one time everything was voted at the WSC, now special needs can be addressed with the CAT: the body can decide what they want as far as the needs issue goes.
Difference between guidelines and policies, policy has to be passed by 2/3 majority. Session was closed for lunch.
Old Business started after lunch with items from the CAR. Motions were presented and straw polls were taken to get a sense of which way the body would go and if we needed any discussion or amendments. After a “walk through”, the body voted. The 3 new motions failed except for the 3rd which was passed with an amendment. See the old business at the end of this report.
After old business the next session had to do with Public Relations and the thinking behind the new PR handbook which the conference is to consider in new business. Ron H (WB) led the workshop and several comments included: “Professionals are reluctant to refer members to NA, and it’s all about relationships, follow up, and repeated contact over time. Practical applications of the handbook can work over time. Other comments came from delegates who had experience such as New Zealand which has its own history book. Their AD also provided a survey about NA to the parliament, and they have a Regional PR coordinator.
Wednesday April 26 began with project plans and budgets. Our budget started last October, and the NAWS projects forward a year for the basis of planning. NAWS reports they will always have more demand than they have people to do the work. 90% of our income is from literature sales, 10% is from donations. NAWS is hoping for an operating reserve of $1.8 million and they have hired a financial planner to work on this goal. NAWS has a contingency plan if something happens in CA, they will be up and running in Canada within two days. They currently have a capital improvement plan which keeps value in the company, and discounts and subsidies listed in the budget are used to pay for those who can’t. NAWS has a new insurance carrier since the old one dropped them and they have limited theft coverage. They are in litigation to receive the rest of the money that was stolen.
Reports on the project plan included the need for a simpler way for projects to NAWS. Information from the CAR was helpful, and the WSC always plans to speak to us, we should trust the WB. The Business Plan Group will be an audit group. The PR Handbook Plan Group suggests that PSA’s are old and need updated, and the Training Group intends to look for more people who can speak and make presentations. You can always email the WB at worldboard@na.org.
After the session on projects we were fortunate to have a day at a local ranch. We were transported by bus, had lunch and some local entertainment followed by a recovery meeting.
After arriving back to the hotel we had our Zonal Forum Meeting for the Rocky Mountain Forum. Attendees included URMR, CR, UR, MR and SIR. We rewrote our policy guidelines at the meeting and approved them by consensus. Most will be happy with our new guidelines and the fact we now have no formal service committee which the MR and the SIR were reluctant to be part of in this format. We will now rotate to each region and the hosting RD will facilitate the meeting and provide the space and time. We now have no need to donate regularly to the forum, but we may wish to set some money in an account to fund the event when it comes to us as it is in July in Cheyenne. We may or may not fund this event at this time depending on the monies available and the wishes of our groups, and I will ask that this be on the new business part of the agenda due to some changes in our guidelines. The forum will also be a one day event instead of two and it can be up to the local region or any member what to include in the agenda for workshops and discussions.
Thursday began the day with a WB forum for discussion about the new motions. The WB gave their recommendations of the new motions and why they felt to adopt, not adopt or commit to the HRP, and also see how the body felt about a service material approval process.
After lunch we began elections. Two election challenges to nominations were entertained. For the first petition, the nominee was attending other 12 step meetings and the body decided they would not want that person off of the ballot. The second challenge was a nominee who had not told the HRP that they did not fulfill some of their service commitments, and that a board of officers had been removed from service including the individual. The body chose to remove the individual from the ballot and elections proceeded. Election results are in the first draft of WSC 2006 decisions at the end of this report. After elections we had a Fellowship Development session and it was very interesting and emotional . There were pictures and graphics from NA’s service efforts around the globe including world wide workshops and other efforts to carry the message to the addicts who still suffer.
After dinner we had the Zonal Forum report session and each Zone gave their report.
Friday April 28, we began the day with a leadership workshop and how to be more effective in our service efforts. The session was very helpful and discussed techniques for holding presentations to the fellowship.
After lunch we began the new business session which lasted well into the night. The PR hand book chapters 1-9 were approved which replaced the PI guide to service. Chapters 10-13 were also approved and will be revisable by the WB on an ongoing basis, as well as the resource material in the handbook and the Area Planning Tool.
The newer regions from the USA were not seated but Iran, W Russia, and S Africa were voted as new seated regions. There was discussion of having common interest workshops at the World Convention which resulted in a couple of motions. The body voted for having common interest workshops at the convention and also decided to remove the old convention guidelines from their inventory. Several other items related to the HRP and voting were approved and the budget and project plans were all approved.
On Saturday I boarded a plane around 10am for my flight to SLC to fulfill a commitment to my daughter who had her Junior Prom. I missed the Saturday morning recap of the events from the week and I also missed the recovery luncheon where everyone said their goodbyes.
I’m sure that some are wondering about all this information, and please feel free to email or call me if you have any questions. Please forward this to your groups and I will post this report on the world website under the conference participants’ page for anyone interested in downloading it.
I also have a request for my travels to the regional assembly and another workshop for the Central WY Area in the amount of $200. I want to remind everyone of the RMF meeting in Cheyenne, July 14th & 15 at the Hitching Post, more information is available at www.rmfna.org.
Thank you for letting me be of service,
Stephen Henderson,
URMRD
Old Business
Discussion and Decisions
Session led by Mark H (CF) /Roberto J (CF)
Tuesday 26 April 2006
Bob J (WB Chair) called the meeting to order at 2:30 pm at the Warner Center Marriott in Woodland Hills, California, USA and introduced Mark H (CF). He opened the session with a moment of silence to reflect on our primary purpose followed by the Serenity Prayer. A conference participant was asked to read Just for Today, the Second Tradition, and the Second Concept.
Mark introduced Roberto and Don Cameron, the WSC Parliamentarian, and gave participants an overview of the session. First participants will discuss the motions, Mark explained, then the conference will go into a business session to decide on the motions. Mark elaborated on the procedures and then he took roll call.
Roll call #2 conducted by Mark H (CF)
114 participants are present
102 seated regions are present
For old business,
68 represents a 2/3 majority
52 represents a simple majority
Discussion of Old Business motions
The body then discussed the old business motions.
Motion 1:
To direct the World Board to develop a project plan, timeline, and budget for WSC 2008, to create/develop a glossary of recovery terms typically used in Narcotics Anonymous
Intent: To provide a resource of common meanings for frequently used NA recovery terms.
Maker: Northern New York Region
Gail D (RD, Northern New York) explained that her region strongly believes that the glossary should be made because there are addicts who don’t know what recovery terms mean. The board recommended not to adopt because variations in definitions would make it difficult to have a common glossary. There was discussion—both in favor of and against the motion—about a glossary’s tendency to standardize definitions. (Ron H (WB) clarified that the “glossary” being discussed is distinct from the glossary used in translations. Straw poll on Motion #1: Very weak support from the body.
Motion 2:
To direct the World Board to create a project plan for the development of a fellowship-approved Identity Statement to be presented at WSC 2008.
Intent: To obtain literature that will recognize the distinguishing characteristics of the Narcotics Anonymous fellowship from other twelve-step fellowships.
Maker: Ohio Region
Roberto J (CF) read Motion #2 followed by board recommendation.
Michael K (RD, Ohio) said that his region feels a standardized identity statement would serve the fellowship better than the multiple version that are currently being used. The board recommended not to adopt because they are concerned that groups would feel they had to read such a statement if it were adopted on the world level. Discussion centered around issues of group autonomy, whether or not potential members would feel welcome, distinguishing NA from other programs or from treatment options, how to best guide members on use of NA language, and whether or not our current written material addresses the issues adequately. Straw poll on Motion #2: Very weak support from the body
Motion 3:
To change the time frame for approval form recovery literature from the current minimum of 150 days to a minimum of one year.
Intent: To extend the time frame for approval form literature to allow sufficient time to communities who choose to make a rough translation.
Maker: German Speaking Region
Christian F (RD, German Speaking) said that there are a number of people in his region who don’t speak English, but his region wants to be part of the process. The board recommended not to adopt because the time for review and input would be reduced. Among the points brought up during discussion were the opportunities prior to approval to affect a piece of literature, the speed (or lack thereof) of the literature development process, our tendency to procrastinate, the fact that a non-English-speaking community has a second chance after a piece of literature passes, and the desire to reflect the worldwide nature of our fellowship as much as possible. Bob J (WB Chair) clarified that this motion would not apply to the Basic Text project unless the conference took special action. Straw poll on Motion #3: Weak support from the body
Motion #27:
Amend Motion 3 by adding language – “…for book length pieces; the World Board may exercise its discretion to set a shorter period for shorter pieces of literature but that period will not be less than 150 days.”
Intent: To allow flexibility for shorter pieces where a one year minimum is not necessary.
Maker Jeremy F (RD, New England)/ Larry K (RD, Wisconsin)
Jeremy F (RD, New England) explained that this would give people an opportunity to participate without slowing down the release of shorter pieces of literature. The World Board recommended to adopt the amendment to allow for more flexibility in project planning. Straw poll on Motion #27: Support from the body
Old Business Decisions
Following discussion on the old business motions, Mark facilitated the decision-making on these motions.
It was M/F Northern New York Region, Motion #1:
To direct the World Board to develop a project plan, timeline, and budget for WSC 2008, to create/develop a glossary of recovery terms typically used in Narcotics Anonymous
It was M/F Ohio Region, Motion #2:
To direct the World Board to create a project plan for the development of a fellowship-approved Identity Statement to be presented at WSC 2008.
It was M/C German Speaking Region, Motion #3:
To change the time frame for approval form recovery literature from the current minimum of 150 days to a minimum of one year.
Amendment: It was M/S/C Jeremy F (RD, New England)/Larry K (RD, Wisconsin), Motion #27:
Amend Motion 3 by adding language – “…for book length pieces; the World Board may exercise its discretion to set a shorter period for shorter pieces of literature but that period will not be less than 150 days.”
It was M/C by unanimous consent World Board, Motion #4:
To adopt the WSC 2004 Minutes.
The session closed at 4:45. Mark reminded participants that the next session would begin at 5:15 pm
New Business
New Business Decisions
Facilitators: Mark H (CF) & Roberto J (CF)
Friday 28 April 2006
Roll call #6 was conducted by Mark H (CF)
115 participants are present
103 seated regions are present
77 represents a 2/3 majority
59 represents a simple majority
It was M/C by unanimous consent World Board, Motion #5:
To adopt Chapters One through Nine, the preface, and the conclusion of the proposed Public Relations Handbook as a replacement for the current A Guide to Public Information
It was M/C by unanimous consent World Board, Motion #6:
To adopt Chapters 10–13 of the Public Relations Handbook
Amendment to Motion #6: It was M/C by unanimous consent by Bob J (WB Chair) for the World Board
“,these chapters will be adaptable and revisable with World Board approval”
It was M/C by unanimous consent World Board, Motion #7:
To approve the proposed Public Relations Statement as a replacement to the current Public Relations Statement of Purpose in A Guide to World Service in NA on page 34. This statement would also be added to A Guide to Local Services and the Public Relations Handbook.
It was M/C by 2/3 majority World Board, Motion #8:
To allow the World Board to approve the resource material used as Addenda in the Public Relations Handbook on an ongoing basis.
Amendment to Motion #8: It was M/S/C Peter H (RD, Greater New York) / Louis H (RD, Chicagoland),
“including preface, foreword, glossary of terms, and appendix, etc.”
It was M/C by 2/3 majority World Board, Motion #9:
To adopt the proposed Area Planning Tool.
Amendment: It was M/S/C Jimmy S (RD, Chesapeake & Potomac) / Ron M (WB)
“…which will then be adaptable or revisable with World Board approval.”
It was M/F World Board, Motion #10:
To recognize Bluegrass Appalachian as a seated World Service Conference participant beginning at the close of WSC 2006.
It was M/F World Board, Motion #11:
To recognize North Carolina as a seated World Service Conference participant beginning at the close of WSC 2006.
This motion went to a standing vote which had 40 in favor. There was then a motion to reconsider which failed.
It was M/C World Board, Motion #12:
To recognize Iran as a seated World Service Conference participant beginning at the close of WSC 2006.
It was M/C unanimously World Board, Motion #13:
To recognize South Africa as a seated World Service Conference participant beginning at the close of WSC 2006.
It was M/C unanimously World Board, Motion #14:
To recognize Western Russia as a seated World Service Conference participant beginning at the close of WSC 2006.
It was M/S/C by 2/3 majority David J (WB) / Cedric S (RD, Western New York), Motion #30:
To remove the Convention Guidelines from the World Services inventory.
It was M/S/F (26-67-1) Nick C (RD, New Jersey) / Debbie E (AD, Show-Me), Motion #26:
To direct the World Board not to hold a common needs/special interest workshops at the world convention 2007. And not to hold said workshops at any convention without a motion going to groups in the CAR.
It was M/S/C by 2/3 majority Greg W (RD, Arizona) / Rick W (RD, Region 51), Motion #28:
To allow the World Board to develop and approve service related information pamphlets and tools for distribution to the fellowship.
It was M/S/C by 2/3 majority Toby G (RD, Spain) / Debbie E (AD, Show-Me), Motion #29:
To direct the HRP and the World Board to create a simple one to two page form for the World Pool. This form would be used for the workshops, workgroups, and other activities. It would be easily translated and used by those not interested in seeking nomination to a WSC elected position.
It was M/S/C (52-26-3) Richard S (RD, Mountaineer) / Darryl L (RD, Greater Philadelphia), Motion #34:
To direct the World Board to reinstate the Consensus-based Decision Making at the WSC Project for 2008.
It was M/S/C (69-22-3) Larry K (RD, Wisconsin) / David J (WB), Motion #33:
That common needs workshops be held at WCNA-32.
It was M/S/Committed to HRP Dale W (RD, Georgia) / Richard S (RD, Mountaineer) Motion #35:
That any nominee for a WSC position be endorsed in writing by an RSC. During the reference interview phase a letter will be sent to the RSC listed on the candidate’s World Pool Information Form requesting a written recommendation. In the case where no RSC exists then the candidate will reference their ASC.
It was M/S/C Richard S (RD, Mountaineer) / Larry K (RD, Wisconsin), Motion #36:
To direct the World Board to inform conference participants of any adopted project it wishes to eliminate.
It was M/S/Committed to HRP John F (RD, Panama) /Cesar G (RD, Guatemala), Motion #37:
That the Human Resource Panel present to this conference the evaluation criteria, grading or weighing that were used in order to select the candidates that qualify in order to be able to be eligible as members of the World Board and Human Resource Panel and that the candidates are informed in a prudent way the reason why they were not selected for the final list.
2006-2008 NAWS Projects
Budget & Project Plan Prioritization
Thursday 27 April 2006
After unanimously passing Motion #25: “To adopt the revised 2006-2008 Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. budget,” and adopting each project plan by individual motion, the conference gave a sense of their priorities through a non-binding straw poll that ranked projects “high,” “medium,” or “low” priority. Each participant was given one vote per category.
|
WB Ranking |
Project Plan |
High |
Medium |
Low |
|
Essential or Carryover |
Basic Text Workgroup |
103 |
3 |
2 |
|
Business Plan Workgroup |
62 |
34 |
4 |
|
|
Fellowship Issue Discussions |
84 |
17 |
2 |
|
|
Implementation of the PR Handbook |
81 |
15 |
4 |
|
|
Training & Orientation |
50 |
42 |
12 |
|
|
Workshops |
60 |
29 |
11 |
|
|
Priority Ranking |
Basic Service Material |
39 |
55 |
14 |
|
Targeted Literature |
68 |
30 |
7 |
|
|
Public Relations Development |
61 |
38 |
4 |
|
|
Second Priority |
NAWS Communications |
59 |
35 |
7 |
Elections
Nominations Challenges
Session led by Mark H (CF)
Thursday 27 April 2006
The elections and budget approval session opened with a roll call
Roll call #3 conducted by Mark H (CF)
114 participants are present
102 seated regions are present
76 represents a 2/3 majority
58 represents a simple majority
Prior to voting, two challenges to nominations were presented to the body.
Mark explained that when a nomination is challenged, a mediation panel, consisting of one member board-appointed member, one HRP member, and one RD or RDA, is formed. If the challenge still stands, after mediation is complete, the challenge is posed to the conference. (The complete procedures are outlined in A Guide to World Services in Narcotics Anonymous.)
The procedure is anonymous. If the conference accepts the petition, the name is removed from the ballot. If not, the name remains on the ballot.
Petition One
Daniel S (WB), the panel’s point person explained that the challenger had the opinion that the potential nominee was not as dedicated to NA as he should be because the he attended AA meetings. The candidate told the panel he attends one AA meeting, mainly attended by others of his profession.
Mark H (CF) then asked the body: Do you accept the petition challenging the nomination? Petition failed by show of hands:
Yes (support challenge): 17
No (do not accept challenge): 74
Abstain: 15
Petition Two
David J (WB), the panel leader for this petition, explained that the petition states that there is a misrepresentation of a service record: the potential nominee didn’t complete a treasury position on an RSO Board of Directors. The panel obtained regional records which showed evidence of removal of the entire RSO BOD, including this individual. The panel’s unanimous understanding was that this individual didn’t complete their service position and didn’t disclose this information. The potential nominee stated that they believed they finished the service position. When the board was “purged,” the candidate was given an opportunity to run again, but declined.
There was discussion of this petition.
Mark H (CF) then asked the body: Do you accept the petition challenging the nomination? Petition passed by show of hands:
Yes (support challenge): 59
No (do not accept challenge): 31
Abstain: 11
Election Results
World Board
Arne Hassel-Gren
Franney Jardine
Mark Hersh
Paul Craig
Ron Hofius
Tom McCall
Tonia Nikolinakou
Human Resource Panel
Gregory Smith
Mary Kay Berger
WSC Cofacilitators
Jimmy Stuart
Straw Polls
World Board Open Forum Straw Polls
Session led by: Bob and Craig
Thursday 27 April 2006
After giving the board recommendations about the new business motions that will be decided on during Friday’s session and having a question and answer period on the motions, Bob J (WB Chair) held informal straw polls on seven issues.
What support is there to create a category of service IPs authored by the board?
Yes: Very Strong Support
How many would support making the decision at this conference or at next conference? (For is this conference and against is next conference.)
Yes: Strong Support (a majority but not overwhelming to support this at this conference).
Would the conference support allowing World Board approval of Addenda in the Public Relations Handbook? (This would include material such as letters to professionals and allow them to be amendable and revisable by the board.)
Yes: Very Strong Support
How many would support having the Area Planning Tool be amendable and revisable by the board?
Yes: Very Strong Support
How many would support having Chapters 10-13 of the Public Relations Handbook amendable and revisable by the board?
Yes: Very Strong Support
How many support hearing the conference voice between conferences (to act to gauge the feeling of the conference through means such as an electronic straw poll)
Yes: unanimous
What support is there for having common needs meetings at WCNA?
Body is split