New England Region of Narcotics Anonymous Basic Website

We would like to start by thanking you all for giving us the opportunity to serve the New England region in this capacity. We landed in Dallas and settled in to the hotel around 2 o’clock on Friday. After a late lunch we got right to work by going to the registration table and meeting many people from the local fellowship.

The workshop started at 6pm with a world board introduction and a background discussion. Arnie, Franny, Jim B, Mary, Travis, Chris and Dee were all present from the world board and WSO. They informed us that the primary purpose of this workshop was to inform and train trusted servants in the hopes that they will hold more workshops for their local groups/areas/regions. There were approximately 200 people in attendance with around 15 regional delegates/alternates.

Goals expected to come out of workshop were trying to build a holistic service system, help everyone understand the proposals, help us facilitate discussion and see how structure might work in our community. There are four main concerns with our current service structure according to WB. They are insufficient communication, insufficient resources, frustrated trusted servants and a poor atmosphere of recovery in service. It is their assumption that these service models will correct these concerns.

The next portion of the evening was led by Franny. She explained to us how by coming up with the structure models before they knew how the logistics of them was intentional. The work group was following a “form follows function” thought process. Franny then led a large group discussion which had various members dissecting the new vision statement for NA service. After about 40 minutes of people missing the point of this exercise we finally moved on to small group round table discussions. These were led by Jim B, the world board chairperson. We discussed various concepts. Our table discussed the 5th and 12th concepts. The question posed to us was: in order to be consistent with the 5th and 12th concept a service system must… We then posted our results on the wall and closed with 3rd step prayer.

Saturday morning we started at 9 am with a recap of the previous nights session. Arnie from the world board then opened up the floor for a few questions.

Q. Are you looking for something to be put into CAR 2012?

A. Yes, this is a four part project and looking for something structurally for this CAR.

Q. Are workshops being done outside the country?

A. Yes.

Question and answer session was put on hold and Franny started explaining the first aspect of the service structure model. The first thing we discussed was the group support unit (GSU). This new level of service is intended to aid groups in their efforts to carry the message. It is supposed to be a very laid back discussion based service committee. No business is to be conducted at the GSU.

Groups can either send a representative to the GSU and the local service unit(LSU) or just send a rep to the GSU who then sends a different rep to the LSU. The LSU is the next level of service which is supposed to take care of the “business” aspect of service for the groups. The LSU is also intended to use consensus based decision making and utilize work groups instead of standing subcommittees. Next , Jim B. presented the LSU models and explained the differences between the linear and two-track options. (see page 9 of the hand out).

After the presentation a straw poll was taken to see which model was preferred. After the straw poll one member asked what about taking a vote with neither model being an option. The world board members informed us that this was not an option. We then asked for an abstention vote to be taken. The final vote came out to be about 1/3 for linear option, 1/3 for the two-track option and 1/3 abstaining. Jim then went on to briefly explain the intermediate level which serves as a metro committee for shared services..

After a lunch break Frannie went on to explain the state, national, service unit. This serves like a region. She went on to explain that it would be easier for professionals to contact us as well as potential members if we used geographical boundaries. With this model there would be one phone number, one contact person and one meeting list for entire state. Historically people get run around when trying to contact us. They get shifted from area to area with no easy single point of contact. The state model should eliminate these issues.

The next session was presented by Jim. We discussed the WSC seating. The concerns were/are unrestrained growth of the WSC, too much of a financial burden, facilities limitations and an unfair united states to global voting ratio. There are currently 114 seated regions 76 of which are United States. By following the state/national structure each state would get one vote which would reduce the amount of U.S. regions to 50.

The other option is the zonal model. This would allow the state/national levels to select a trusted servant to attend the zonal meeting who would then send a predetermined amount of delegates per zone, which would be determined by the WSC, to attend the world service conference. This model would drastically reduce the number of delegates participating at the WSC. There would also be no alternates at the conference. The zonal model would also possibly decentralize service by taking over some of the WSC roles. We finished this session off with a round table exercise pertaining to zonal seating.

Next on the agenda was answering the question columns. If a member had a question we were directed to write them on a piece of construction paper and post them to a column located in the middle of the room.

Q. Why are you trashing Roberts rules of order when it works for us? And why are you pushing us to use consensus based decision making?

A. if it works use it but CBD tends to be more inclusive and has a better flow of information.

Q. how is your voice heard at world with CBD?

A. WB walked around this question and never gave a direct answer.

Q. is structure input deadline December 31 and is it just for structure?

A. yes and yes.

Q. where is input coming from?

A. workshops, work groups, bulletin boards, emails etc.

Q. who would implement these changes?

A. unknown till all input is collected.

Q. how do we get everyone on board with these models.

A. do work shops.

Q. what happens to groups/areas/regions that are not willing to get on board?

A. no real answer.

Q. what is number of seats you would like to see?

A. less- conference would have to reach a consensus.

Q. if fellowship votes are reduced will WB votes be reduced.

A. don’t know yet. Comment from floor- feeling like these models will be getting rid of the possibility of the lone voices by lowering the number of delegates.

The question and answer portion ended and we attended a recovery meeting then finished for the evening.

Sunday morning we took part in large group discussion. The topic was “what challenges will we face in discussing these models as a fellowship”? The major points were trying to fill 3 days of info into 3 hours at a workshop, people fearing losing their voices and presenting only the structure portion of the model and telling people we’ll create the other parts later. The next topic was “what should we stress to show the benefits”? Major points were nothings being forced on us, flexibility of structure, benefits of the GSU, will possibly re-unify the groups, best for whole of NA not just areas and regions and we are a fellowship of change.

We were finally allowed a short question and answer period without using the “question columns”. A few questions that we presented were… How many world board members and how many workgroup members are in attendance? A. 6 WB members and 1 workgroup member.

Q. how come work group members aren’t putting on this workshop?

A. workgroup gives findings to the WB and then move onto the next part of the process. The WB oversees this group and has had “unprecedented participation” within this group.

Q. how do these proposed models in any way better the 4 ongoing challenges listed in the project background slide?

A. by having the laid back GSU people will be more willing to get active and have a better shot of being mentored. We made it known that this didn’t really answer our question and were told to talk to them after the event. Unfortunately we had to catch a shuttle to the airport and weren’t able to have that one on one interaction. The session wrapped up with a NAWS update and we were given discs to aid with putting on this presentation.

Sorry so long. Hopefully you guys stayed awake through entire summary. Any questions please don’t hesitate to contact us either by phone or email. Thanks again for allowing us to serve.

In loving service,
Pat and Delia