New England Region of Narcotics Anonymous Basic Website

Hello everyone,

Today started at 9:15am. My notes seem scattered today. Some of it is scrambled from trying to follow everything.
It was shocking to me to see that there were really only a total of around 100 people that showed up for this. There were a huge pile of pre-registrations that were on the table from people who did not show up. There were people from Oregon, California, Quebec, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York, NJ, Illinois, Maryland and I am sure a bunch more places. Of course the workshop in Orlando this weekend kept the people from the south from here. In some of the stuff below you will see statements attributed to states. This does not mean they are Delegates or speaking for their region, it is just where they are from.

This was the recap of Background/Introduction from last night. We did the introductions again today with the World Board and Office staff. All levels of service were present again today: GSRs, RCMs, RDs, World Level and former World level (and of course Zonal). We revisited the desired outcomes from yesterday.

We were told that there are more than 58,000 NA meetings in the world in over 130 countries speaking 72 languages. It was stated the hope is for a service system that more closely embodies the Concepts
We revisited the foundational principles of the proposals:

* Purpose driven
* Group focused
* Geographically defined
* Flexible

In 2012 the WB hopes to get something called "An Agreement of Principle" of how this structure will look in the CAR. I asked a WB member if he could give me an example of what that means for the CAR, I was told that he did not have an example to give me

Question and rant from Maryland: We only have 2 months to get reasonable input on all of this. How are supposed to do that when we are doing the Living Clean Chapters at the same time. December 31st is too soon. This is not reasonable, etc
Craig (Workgroup coordinator): The concerns are real. December 31st is just for the first pass. The final product will not be in the CAR in 2012. NAWS has not even attended workshops outside the US yet. (although the [EDM] European Delegates Meeting, Sweden, UK and others have had workshops without the WB). This is not a done deal this is the beginning. This is a couple of cycles process. In the CAR you will see "Principle of Agreement"; another workgroup will take everything to the next level.

Question Northern NJ: Purpose driven...What purpose does the WB serve the groups - is there going to be a reduction of WB members.
Craig: There are 69 US regions and 39 regions outside the US. Also for the first time there are about as many meetings outside the US as there in the US. Somehow this imbalance needs to be addressed. The new service system is not a panacea and will not fix every problem.

Maryland: On page 6 there are no mentions of co-ops. In Western Maryland we have had a co-op for years. How does downsizing increase interest and input?
Ron (WB): The only thing we are trying to downsize is the WSC.
Craig: Co-ops are similar to the intermediate groups which we will discuss later.

Massachusetts: What if the structure we need does not look like these models? How do these workshops allow for a different model? Where is the room to come up with a different model. Once you put these models out we are kind of stuck with them. What if we took an inventory of best practices? Why should we be locked into foundational principles such as geographic boundaries that we do not
necessarily believe in or want?
Craig: We have gathered input from members and looked at best practices and then we came up with the foundational principles. The last thing the WB want at the end of this process is for the Service System to not be embraced.

Group & Local Service
Desired outcomes for local delivery:

* Increase amount of service we can provide
* Make service a more rewarding process
* Increasing Unity throughout NA
* Improving our reputation as a viable program of recovery

Our current ASCs are tasked with group support and local delivery. The (GSU) Group Service Unit is intended to help groups better carry the message within their meetings by separating out the group support function from the business of NA

Challenges:

* Groups do not always receive the help to deal with specific issues like drug court attendees at meetings.
* Members are often unwilling or apathetic about service
* Members are not always trained in service
* There is often a lack of NA Unity and a common purpose

With the 2 track option, groups send someone to the GSU and the LSU. You need to have 2 people, one to go to the GSU and one to go to the (LSU) Local Service Unit.
In the linear model, groups send a delegate to the GSU, which in turn sends on to the LSU

LSU

The LSU is the workhorse of the service system with the responsibility of carrying the message outside of NA meetings. The LSU could meet quarterly. There would need to be an annual planning assemblyto oversee approval of projects

We divided the room in half for a small group exercise. One half was answering questions on the GSU and the the half was doing the LSU. A couple of the questions are:

* What if any challenges might these proposals create in effecting local delivery?
* How would these proposals help you to maintain what is positive in our current system concerning local services or improve local service delivery?

Sorry, but I didn't write down the answers to the above questions.

We had a straw poll to see who liked the linear model or the two track...
Results: 19 Linear 28 Two Track 34 Neither 14 Not enough info

Question: What happens if one of these models gets approved by the WSC and and ASC wants to stay an ASC and/or a region wants to stay a region?
There was no answer to that question as of now.
Question: What happens if an area or region does not to conform to geographic bounds?
There was no answer to that question as of now

Question: Who pays for the expense of the GSU? The LSU pays

The GSUs could contain pockets of meetings centered around towns. The GSU should be neighborhood sized

"A rising tide lifts all ships" (quote I liked from Craig)

The LSU could be centered around the borders of a county or borough

Question and alternate idea from Western Maryland: "Why can't ASCs be focused on group issues one month and area business another. No voting on group months, just discussion.

The West Coast and East Coast US in NA are very different. Let's try to envision how the service system can be better. Something that can function for all of us.

Question: Why are we discussing structure before process? Does structure address apathy?

Comment: This is an enormous change - on a huge scale - we need to to slow down going in...

Intermediate Bodies and State Nation Services

Intermediate bodies would always be based on need. Their role would always be defined so that they address only the need for which they are created and do not duplicate services already being delivered.

Intermediate Body #1
Would be placed in between the Group Support Unit and the Local Service Unit. It may be practical for GSUs to come together and send a delegate on their behalf to the Local Service Unit. One example of this could be in Rural Communities.

* Can reduce travel for rural GSUs
* Reduce size for urban LSUs
* Allow minority language groups to come together

Intermediate Body #2
This places the Intermediate Body between the LSU and the State or National Level Body

* Neighboring LSUs can send delegates
* Reduces travel time
* Reduces number of delegates in large state/national body

Challenges:

* Rural groups often have long distance to travel to their local service meeting
* Centrally located service bodies are challenged to provide services to rural areas
* Service meetings in densely populated areas are often too large
* Urban service bodies usually do not cover a whole city and therefore cannot provide services on a citywide level

Question Maryland: We have not adopted the 12 Concepts. Looking for regions that actually use them. We send everything back to the groups. We are a city (Washington DC) with suburbs in 2 states. Our region has millions of people living in it. What is this going to look like for us? How is this going to be implemented?
Craig (I think): C&P might make use of an intermediate body. The State of Virginia stays separate (a state body), the state of Maryland stays separate, DC is unknown. There is a lot to consider with state boundaries
Jane (NAWS) talked about the beginnings of the Connecticut Region in 1984. Originally came from Mid-Atlantic Region. During the discussions for a region in CT a rationale was presented for a state boundary. It was one way to reach the addict in CT, it was one way to provide services. Connecticut Regions first RSC was in November of 1985. We kept talking to our neighbors and that helped us to grow.

Comment Massachusetts: Having trouble with the boundary issue. A lot of the current boundary issues could be solved without this. Representation is the real issue at hand as much as service delivery.

Maryland: This is about process. It doesn't make sense for Maryland to be one service entity. We must acknowledge that there are things that work well. Why to do we have to change our names? Why can't we just keep calling it an ASC and just change the agenda? I am not fear based. We asked for how to communicate better, not a new service structure!
Craig: The name changes are to really emphasize that this something new. We changed the names to fit some of the functions

WSC Seating

We watched another video from a World Convention

A little background on the WSC. (I didn't really capture it all)
For a long time at the WSC, you were automatically seated when you said were a region. At some point criteria was set up for regions to be seated. When the WSC started funding delegates things got expensive. In theory, it cost each group in NA $10.00 to fund the WSC. Donations only equal $1.00 per group. $9.00 per group is missing and must come from some place else. The seating moratorium was mentioned in 2008. The last 2 regions seated were Denmark and Lithuania.
Current Seating Challenges

* Growth of WSC is not limited, creating resource and manageability problems
* There are no consistently applied seating criteria
* The lack of clear seating criteria is one factor that can encourage regional splits, which impacts our ability ability to deliver services and reach addicts
* There is a perceived inequality between US and other countries

State/National Seating Option

* Slows the growth of the WSC
* No change for some, big changes for others
* Establishes clear, objective requirement for seating
* Encourages reunification of regions and therefore provision of statewide services

Zonal Seating Option

* Could significantly reduce the size of the WSC, depending on each Zone
* Zonal boundaries determined by WSC
* No alternates at WSC
* Changes the current role of zones
* Method of selecting Zonal Delegates as yet undetermined
* Possible unforeseen circumstances such as decentralization of services

Input (don't know from where): I am funded from my region and and need to bring something back and don't feel likme I am getting much out of this. Maybe this should be done more incrementally. Try the GSU and LSU first to see how it works before attempting the other levels

Small group discussion:
Picture applying this model at what is now the regional and zonal levels
A couple of the discussion questions (there was more but I can't get it all):

* What excites or concerns you about the effect these changes would have on the functionality of state/national service in your community?
* In what ways do you see this model providing a more effective voice or pipeline of communications between your community and World Services?

There was a lively discussion about whether or not to have small group discussion. After some heated comments and a straw poll/vote it was decided to have the small group discussion (even though over half voted against it.)

We heard a lot of different things. At our table we were supposed to be discussion the questions (I don't have the questions we were discussing in front of me)
A couple of things that I captured (not from our table): These comments don't make sense without knowing the questions they were answering (sorry).

* Conserve financial resources, maintain existing lines of communication, facilitates the move to CBDM
* Less effective communication between levels of service, any change from current world model is exciting, concern over process of elections, determination of delegates, concerns over the fallout of change
* A more robust representation of fellowship conscience. Streamline decision making, better utilize "right person for the right reason"

We had a straw poll for seating:
32 in favor of State/Nation Seating
25 for Zonal Seating
35 Neither
We were told that the results of the Detroit Workshop straw poll were pretty similarly divided between the 2 options, although they did not have a "neither" option
We were given a CD that contains:

* Workshop Power Points
* Reports and Handouts
* Session Profiles
* Workshop Flier
* Service System Project on the Web

Without cross checking, I am sure that most of this stuff is here: http://www.na.org/?ID=servsys
I will have a few copies at the Northern New England Region
In another month another CD (or access to files by email) will be sent out; kind of a condensed version of this workshop. NAWS was unclear if it was going to the Delegates or the workshop attendees

Stray comment: The WSC is the biggest line item in the NAWS budget
Another stray comment: The LSU and GSU could be more proactive with identifying trusted servants

Question Maine: If the WSC downsizes, would the WSC reduce it's vote proportionately?
Answer: No, the WB does not vote on Car Issues (Old Business), only on New Business. The WB does not vote lock step or as a block, but as individuals. The WB or BOT (World Service Board of Trustees) have not voted on Old Business since around 1993

Comment Rhode Island: You never lose your vote unless you do not have a homegroup. After the homegroup, votes are merely counted, not cast
Comment Virginia: Maybe there is too much information here
Comment California: Defects are like having a car with 4 flat tires and shortcomings are driving on it
Comment (not sure): Maybe we need to focus on GSR education. We do not give new member adequate help with the service structure

That is all I have for Saturday...
The Saturday night recovery meeting had our WB members as the speakers. As you know, they are from Sweden, Greece and Australia. It was really good to hear them all.

The Sunday session will not get sent out until i get back to Maine...

Thanks for listening,
Chris R