RD/RDA May 2018 Report Northern California Region of Narcotics Anonymous

Hi All,

The 2018 World Service Conference has ended, and as an RD/AD team our focus now turns to disseminating the results of the conference, and inward to help facilitate creation of our Action Plan along with the rest of the FST.

We’ll be reporting on the WSC over the next three Regions - doing our best to summarize while still providing enough detail to explain what happened, and what the things that took place there mean for our Groups, our Region, and the Fellowship as a whole. We’re also going to make a point of leaving time for Q&A, and intend to introduce a series of Open Forum Topics to try and spark discussion on issues that we think are important with regards to where we see things heading and how Northern California fits into that story.

2018 World Service Conference

Overview

The 2018 World Service Conference was unlike most in recent history. The ways in which we changed the way in which we did business led to massively increased efficiency – which resulted in some of the following outcomes:

Sessions ending on time, resulting in the entire agenda being covered An increased feeling of unity, at a conference where many expected

dissention A resolution negotiated to the South Florida FIPT request The Fellowship coming together around how to address FIPT

inspections and changes to the Operating Rules for the next two years, and in the 2020 CAR.

“New business” being turned into working sessions that, if action is carried forward, hold the promise of effecting real Fellowship-driven change.

Some of “The Future of the WSC” questions may have been answered here – as the conference showed that it could be effective even at its current size. And it was

very much the Delegate’s conference – the World Board spoke more sparingly than in prior conferences, especially “from the floor”, made a point of listening more than leading, and was supportive to the voice of the Delegates.

There are those who have said that we’ll look back on this conference as the one where the Fellowship “came back together”. It was an honor to be a part of, and we very much hope this turns out to be true.

In our first section of Reporting, we will cover the following topics:

The Main Motions The South Florida FIPT Inspection Request, and the FIPT Operating Rules The pre-conference day

Additionally, at his first conference back after an extended hiatus, Michael wanted to share some of his personal experiences.

The Main Motions

Procedural Motions

The Main Motions started with Motions #26-29. These weren’t CAR Motions, but Motions from the CAT (that we did vote on as a Region) that were required to pass in order for the Conference to change the way in which it did business. (There was talk about changing the name of these kinds of Motions in the future, since they weren’t actually CAR Motions). These Motions all passed. There was one notable Amendment, that had some support; for the Motion to change the threshold for all voting other than elections to 2/3, the amendment would have left certain procedural Motions at simple majority. It failed after an interesting discussion, but is something to think about ourselves should we as a Region look to move towards similar consensus-based decision making models in the future.

The one rule that did cause some difficulty at this conference was the following one:

“If a motion has consensus in the first straw poll (80% or more of voting participants in support or not in support of the motion), the Conference will have the option to discuss and decide on that motion without any changes (amendments) if participants wish.”

This turned out to have some procedural challenges, especially when there were multiple amendments that didn’t easily reconcile. The World Board and the Facilitators recognized this; we’ll talk more about this in a future report on the “Moving Forward” session.

We also approved two other rules on the floor, before starting on the rest of the Motions:

“Not to hear from maker or world board on any main motion in the CAR, to save time, since they are published.”

We voted yes on this, as our Region has already given us its conscience, and it passed.

“Reduce the amount of time speakers have from 3 minutes to 2 minutes.  Members requiring translation or English as a second language may require more time.”

We voted yes on this as well on behalf of the Region, and it also passed.

Motions that Passed, other than related to Zones

Motion #25 was the first Motion that we addressed. The original Motion was substituted by its maker (Iran). The Motion originally asked NAWS to look into remote participation- but NAWS figured that out logistically, and so the Motion was changed as follows:

“To approve remote participation at the WSC for conference participants who are unable to attend the WSC due to visa issues.  Remote participants would have the same rights as if they were at the WSC.”

Given our Region’s support of Motion #25, we voted in favor of this substitute Motion; it passed, and the Iranian Delegate team was able to participate fully in the 2018 WSC. It was a truly amazing moment, the Iranian Regional Delegate was shown on the overhead screen and cried, and was joined by many at the conference.

One brief notes – one mistake was made with this Motion, in that the language did not include that it should take effect at the 2018 WSC, though that was the stated intent. By approval of the conference later in the week, this omission and intention is reflected in the minutes.

And a second Amendment, that would have extended the original remit to NAWS to investigate remote participation to non-seated Regions, and which no longer reconciled with the passed Motion, failed.

With regards to the Literature-oriented Motions that passed:

Motion #1, to convert the service pamphlet Social Media and Our Guiding Principles into a recovery IP, that our Region was in favor of, passed.

Motion #9, to create a project plan to create or replace a piece of literature on DRT/MAT, which we did not vote in favor of, also passed. (But this is also consistent with our own Environmental scan, as one of our priorities).

Motion #5, to approve the NA service prayer (changing the word “write” to “serve”, using the prayer in the beginning of the Basic Text), passed. This means that we may start seeing posters with this prayer at some of our groups.

And both of the Event related motions, #12 (to have an official “PR Week”) and #13 (to have more “special days” on the calendar) both passed – so look for more “special days” and a “PR week” in 2019!

Zonal Motions

The conference was clearly split, as related to the role of Zones – with Regions in international Zones pushing for increased relevance, while US Zones for the most part were more reticent, at least as related to Zonal Representation. But overwhelmingly, the conference was supportive of Zonal Participation, as well as the increased development of Zones; our Region, which voted against all the Zonal-oriented Motions as well as gave a clear conscience statement as related to the expansion of Zones in our service structure, was clearly in the minority. This led to some interesting results, as related to the main motions themselves:

Motions #18 through #21 passed, by the following votes:

#18: 85-26-1-2#19: 82-25-3-4#20: 87-22-3-2#21: 88-21-3-2

What this means is that at the 2020 WSC, any Zone that has two or more unseated Regions will be able to send a fully funded, voting Delegate, and a fully funded Alternate Delegate. Only one such Zone exists in the US; the rest are from outside the US, and there will be at least several. This will expand the size of the conference, as well as make it more internationally represented.

Motion #16, to direct NAWS to develop a project plan on the role of Zones, their relationship to the wider fellowship, and integrating Zonal Delegate participation at the WSC, also passed.

These motions were a clear statement by the Fellowship with regards to the increasing perceived importance and prevalence of Zones as part of our decision-making and service structure, especially internationally. This reflects an increasingly international membership, where much of the world utilizes Zones in a way far different than the majority of US Regions.

On the other hand, Motion #15, to hold a 3-day conference funded by the WSC with 2 delegates from each Zone, with the rationale being the exploration of Zonal Representation, failed – starting with strong support (but just short of 2/3) of 73-31-3-4 at the initial straw poll, and ultimately failing by a final vote of 51-54-1-2. (It

was fascinating to see how many delegates felt empowered to change their votes regardless of what their Regions might have voted, or who were simply asked to vote their conscience directly). And the maker withdrew Motion #17, which would have moved the Fellowship to Zonal Representation over the next 6 years.

What this showed was that while there is a significant component of the Fellowship that supports Zonal Representation, and that the Fellowship as a whole supports greater worldwide inclusion and development of the Zones, that overall we aren’t ready to move to Zonal Representation as a whole. And the effectiveness of the 2018 conference at its current size, under its new operating procedures, may have some impact on this conversation and the Future of the WSC moving forward.

There were also two meetings of our Zone, the Western States Zonal Forum, that we will discuss at the June RSC.

The Implications of certain Motions that failed

Of the Motions that failed or we committed, we wanted to bring attention to the following items:

Motions #7 and #8, both on the FIPT failed; to create a pamphlet on the right of groups to reprint literature (and their responsibilities), and to change the language in the group booklet to differentiate between the third edition revised of the Basic Text and onwards, as “fellowship approved literature”. In a general sense, the Fellowship did support the FIPT at the conference though; more on this later.

Motion #24, to reduce the size of the World Board vote from one per member to one overall, failed – but with support, by a final vote of 57-53-3-1. This suggests an increase in Fellowship intent to limit NAWS representation & influence, possibly related to the South Florida FIPT request - and as also seen in our Region (as our vote on this Motion, which was also in the 2016 CAR, was significantly more in favor as well).

Motion #3, to create Project Plan to create a step study guide comprised of questions from the Basic Text, had support – the final straw poll taken was 60-49-2-2, not enough for passage. The conference ultimately committed this to the World Board, to try and work on “engaging in a conversation to create a product that addresses the needs of the Fellowship”.

Similarly, Motion #14 on how we select IDTs, was withdrawn and the World Board said they would look to improve the process themselves, taking the Motion’s suggestions under advisement.

The South Florida FIPT Inspection Request

There were three relevant sessions/events that took place; two at the conference and one shortly thereafter.

On Tuesday evening, an initial session was held on the South Florida FIPT Inspection Request.

First, Jeff, the delegate from South Florida, gave an impassioned dissertation on the request itself, their position on it, and intentions. Here are some highlights:

We have not printed any baby blues in 25 years, not withheld financial support, nor asked for any support.

We believe we have followed everything to the ‘letter of the law’.  That we have upheld group conscience.  That the FIPT is very simple as relates to the FIPT inspection request, and we have to decide whether or not to uphold the rules.

The FIPT does not say that we need to ask permission of the WSC.  It’s not in the FIPT that the World Board has to like the concerns.

It’s not in the FIPT that the World Board has to like the amount of money it might cost to do the inspection.

The FIPT says, ‘a region can request any records of NAWS’, except personnel records and records specifically excluded by law.

What you might not know - Jack is the South Florida world board liaison.  Me being the anal retentive OCD RD, I should give him an idea of what goes on in SF, in Nov. 2016.  The area that had voted on the motion for the inspection was in Sept; Jack was made aware in November.  It was ultimately passed in December; RD was not hesitant to inform the World Board.  The Motion passed without going back to the groups.  (In the Jeff’s opinion, it was a mistake that it didn’t go back to the groups).

In March there was the Florida Service Symposium, I tried to speak to the World Board; I felt like a mosquito being swatted away.  In September, RD sent a letter to Becky & Arne, with initial response.  Said that he would be in Greater New York Sep. 14-18, tried to meet with Board members to have at least an initial discussion, for a face-to-face talk to see if a compromise could be reached.  No response.  I sent three more Emails over the next month, trying to talk, to try and reach a compromise, and never got a response.  

I realize the position everyone here is in, and the position that the board is in. All I can say is, my Region has concerns.  It all has to do with transparency. That the information requested is not being made available.

Now we’re at the point where the last decision at my RSC was to hire an attorney and not go to court, should the World Board not comply with the request?  We don’t want to spend money needlessly, but we have concerns,

and we believe we have followed the rules.  So we are going to ask you guys, isn’t it important to follow the rules of the Trust? If the board doesn’t want to follow the rules, and the Trustors decide not to follow the rules, when we go after the conference and ask the folks who print the Baby Blues to follow the rules?  All we are asking is, “let’s follow the rules equally”.

I wish I wasn’t here doing this, I didn’t become a delegate for this reason, but that’s what I’m going to have to do.  Whether I like it or not, we’re going to go to court, that’s what we’re going to.  And I agree it is a waste of time, but it’s the conscience of the fellowship.

Then the World Board presented; here are some of the highlights from their presentation:

A 1991 lawsuit over the Baby Blue caused disunity & distraction. The 1991 CAR requested direction in a series of motions. This resulted in a statement from the WSC 1991 (which is in the motion).  “The WSO BoD is entrusted with the responsibility for protection the fellowship’s physical and intellectual properties, including the Basic Text…”

WSC 2008 approved the 6th edition of the Basic Text, which is the only approved edition other than exceptions called out in the Translation policy. This was supposed to put all issues to rest on who prints literature, and what version.  But it didn’t put them all to rest.

So the World Board wrote the FIPT, turned it over the Board of Trustees, who work-shopped it through the fellowship, for presentation at the WSC.

In 1992, a suit was filed against virtually all of the World Service office, to claim that the FIPT was in violation of a 1991 court order, and tried to stop NAWS from publishing literature and to stop the FIPT from being implemented.

Regardless, another year was spent with the FIPT in RD workshops, to try to bring the fellowship together. But it didn’t work…baby blues are in Denmark, East Africa, elsewhere in the fellowship…

In 1993, the FIPT was brought to the WSC and adopted 53-16-3. At that time:o WSC met yearlyo All decisions were English languageo WSO net sales = $1,432,055, or about 1/6 of what they are now.o There were separate budgets for WSC, World Service travel, H&I free

literature, Board & committee meetings, Translations, and the World Convention.

The inspection request provision was intended to heal internal rifts, and was intended to give the Regions the power to take action if something

extraordinary happens in the 11 months between conferences.  It is a “literature trust”, and there was no expectation that it addressed anything else.

At the WSC 1998, NAWS is formed, to combine the WSO, World Convention Corporation, and WSC admin & committees.  One board - the World Board - oversees all activity.  The GWSNA sets all financial management policy.  RSRs become RDs.  And the FIPT was not explicitly brought up at this time.

Since then, the fellowship is more than 2 1/2 times larger.  And we find ourselves in this situation of not having addressed the underlying documentation.

Additionally:

We as the World Board are simply your custodians, and your steward.   Our annual Report includes an extensive audit. Past motions seeking additional financial deal have not passed. Rumors the world board is trying to hide something or not be transparent

are not true. The FIPT operational rules come from a different era, where both the scope &

application have different meaning. Only at the WSC do we hear from the Trustor, through you, delegated at the

WSC. At the last conference, it never occurred to any of us that the Trust rules

would be used this way. Should the rules have been updated previously?  Yes - the same is true for

many policies in GWSNA.  It’s been on the “to do” list, but never made the top of the list.

With regards to this specific request:

We saw this request as so significant that every board member needed to be informed, and to ask questions of our attorney.  We’ve tried, despite threat of lawsuit, to keep this world board focused, and not legally focused.  We have had numerous conversations with our attorneys.

The current requests asks for 2 years of detailed records, covering almost every activity area in NAWS.  The resources it would require to meet even part of this request is far in excess of what the World Board would typically authorize for ANY purpose without conference approval.

Because we have the existing rules, we’ve dealt of this request with an attitude of “how can we better understand this request?  How can we come

up with a common agreement so that we can comply?”  There are some concerns we do not feel that we will EVER be able to adequately satisfy, which may lead to further controversy.  Our challenge it to deal with these issues at this conference- or, to force it to the next conference…or the next. The RDs in this room are the Trustors.

The original request said that it would take 1 week.  We agreed to 1 week; when we agreed to the week, we were presented with 10 additional points…one of which is the ability to extend beyond one week.  We do not want this to drain our already stretched resources indefinitely.  The week will require numerous staff for the entire week and countless hours to prepare.  

The auditor was provided with the concerns, to provide an estimate of what it would cost to oversee the request.  They estimated it would take over 1,000 hours to pull the requested records.  That translates to 25 staff weeks. 

The auditor, like all auditors, does sampling.  This request asked for all records - that’s why its so much more expensive.

There have been rumors that we are inflating the cost to scare the fellowship. There have been other rumors I’m not going to address, for example the board’s lack of transparency.  The problem is - how do you try to do what’s asked in the 10 concerns? When you see general statements about “all records” for an $8M multi-national corporation, and you start to think about the practicalities of preparing, some required so much speculation, that’s why the estimates are so high.

Then there was some discussion of the specific concerns, and a Q&A session, followed by a short dissertation from Becky, who was instrumental in the original creation and passage of the FIPT:

“Personally I am struggling with the fact that I can not believe we are here, and doing something that isn’t going to serve anyone for anything.  The FIPT was written to try to build a bridge; to folks to whom I don’t believe there is a bridge.  One of the things I’ve seen…it’s only about literature; it’s only for the 11 months between conference. I was here when the motion was made to try to stop the FIPT, and i was like, “good”…because the important motion was the one made in 1991 that stated the mission.  By 1993 I no longer believed we would have a bridge.  It never occurred that anyone would try to use this provision in this manner, because it was never what it was intended for.  These policies were written for a different

fellowship, in a different time, with a different focus than what we have now.  This issue is so complex it makes my head hurt. I do not believe in the exchange with South Florida that we will come to resolution, and we’ve been told that if we don’t come to resolution there will be a lawsuit.  I know this is a pain in the ass, but we have to make decisions…not on the technicality, but what do we want.  If there’s really something to be uncovered, let’s uncover it.  Otherwise, tell the board what we want.  Arne’s standing up here, but he won’t be here…he’s done.  I’m trying not to cry…it just breaks my heart that the thing that’s going to damage the fellowship the most is the US.  We got a letter from Tanzania saying, “please keep the baby blue and all your politics in the US, it’s killing us”.  How do we find some peace?  You guys did some great things the last couple of days…not just in what you did. but in how you felt.”

Finally, some straw polls were taken:

Should the FIPT operating rules be changed at some point?

We voted yes, as per Regional Conscience statements:

76-19-10-9, Strong support

Are you prepared to make a decision this week?

We voted no, as per our takeaway from the April WSC.

42-66-2-4, Lack of support

As the trustor should we:• 1: Attempt to comply as requested?• 2: Limit our response• 3: Not attempt to fulfill this request?• 4: None of the above

We selected 3, as per the Regional statements. Here was the outcome:

1. 452. 213. 274. 14

So the fellowship was roughly evenly split, between wanting to go forward with the request as written, and wanting to either not go forward or limit the response in some way.

Following this, there was a sit-down meeting between South Florida and the World Board. This resulted in a second FIPT session on Thursday morning where three things happened:

First, the World Board said this:

“The conference said that majority of the conference does not want one region to speak for the beneficiary, based on the straw poll.

What also seemed clear was that we did not wish to consider permanent changes to this rule this week.

This is our suggested change:

The World Service Conference may inspect the records and operations of the trust on behalf of the beneficiary, if it so chooses.  The details of such an inspection would be decided by the WSC.

But since the 2020 CAR seems the right place to consider such a change, we’re not polling you on where or when this would be considered.

Then the following straw poll was taken:

Do you agree that a change is needed in the future to Article III of the operational rules?   (This has no effect on the current inspection request).

We voted yes, as per our Regional Conscience statements.

The vote was 93-15-4-2, consensus support, and taken as a final vote.

Then a second straw poll was taken:

Do you support a temporary suspension of the right for an inspection request from a single region?  (This would expire at the WSC 2020).  This does not impact the current inspection.

After some internal deliberation, we voted yes on this, given our Region’s lack of support for the existing request and statement in favor of changing the Operating rules.

The straw poll was 77-32-3-1, strong support.

This was followed by some discussion, and a final vote on the following:

Acting as the Trustor, the delegates present at the WSC 2018 are suspending Article 5, Section 3 of the FIPT operational rules, while we make a decision abut the future.  This suspension would expire at the WSC 2020.

We voted yes, and it passed, 85-23-0-3, with strong support.

As a note to our Region, we asked some follow up questions, including:

Q: If we make this moratorium, is there still a way to conduct an inspection?A: Yes. Any single board member can request an inspection, at any time.

So if there were a concern, for example of malfeasance, it would simply take the support of a single World Board member to inspect any records. Additionally, we learned that there is a three-person Audit committee, made of former World Board members, and they can also request an inspection, as well as draw the attention of the World Board to problems they might uncover.

Finally, Jeff from South Florida came to the podium to announce that an agreement has been made to diminish the scope of the inspection, to take place May 21-May 25, 2018.

At the end of the day, the agreement was reached amicably - by sitting down face to face and having a discussion, and we were all working together in the spirit of unity.

The final event was our receipt of the specifics of the agreement, reproduced here:

Results of a Meeting with the South Florida Region

3 May 2018

At 6:00 pm, May 2, 2018, representatives from NA World Services, Arne Hand Anthony E, met with representatives from the South Florida Region, Jeff P, Regional

Delegate; Kevin D, Alternate Delegate; and Mat S., Regional Chair, met to discuss the request for inspection of the Ff PT records. The purpose of the meeting was to see if it was possible to reach a compromise, so that the region could receive the information they desire in a manner that NA World Services could accommodate. Following are the points discussed with South Florida related to the ten concerns that were addressed in NA World Services letter dated March 16, 2018 to the South Florida delegate. This inspection will focus on fiscal year 2016, except where otherwise noted below.

a) Both parties agree that the inspection shall be five working days beginning May 21, 2018 at 9:00 am at the World Service Office main headquarters at 19737 Nordhoff Place, Chatsworth, California 91311. If it is determined by the requestor that NAWS is purposely attempting to delay the completion of the inspection, then South Florida will be allowed to negotiate the possibility of additional time with the assigned Board members.b) South Florida is willing to focus on financial records for expenses reported for the world convention in Brazil, in whichever fiscal year they are posted. This includes records for the account opened for NAWS by the ACS in Brazil.c) South Florida agrees to remove the records from Iran, Canada, India, and Belgium from the inspection request.d) South Florida maintains its concern #1 regarding donated literature being reflected as a decrease of retail value as opposed to replacement cost.e) South Florida maintains both of its concerns that World Board general expenses as well as World Board travel are not being reported accurately.f) South Florida agrees to allow the assigned Board members to conduct the review of internal World Board minutes and Executive Committee notes for the period of inspection, to determine that no such undisclosed locations exist as it relates to Concern #3. The assigned Board members can also conduct a review of World Board minutes and Executive notes to identifying any discussion regarding the exempting of double occupancy that exists in those records.g) South Florida maintains its concern #4 regarding the equal application of literature discounts.h) Both parties agree that NA World Services will provide the designations of FIPT properties as it relates to concern #6.As it relates to concern #10, South Florida desires to see any communications to any internet service providers connected to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, issued during the inspection periodi) Both South Florida and NAWS acknowledge that NA World Services has, on multiple occasions, reported to the WSC that the Credit Card guidelines, along with several other policies, located in A Guide to World Services in NA are no longer

utilized. This will be acknowledged in the final inspection report.j) South Florida requests that the World Board conduct a future examination of the communication processes between a requestor for inspection and NA World Services to see if there is a way to improve for the future, led by a new board member who was not seated during the current process.

We have included the signed agreement as an attachment to our minutes. And speaking on behalf of both of us, we are grateful that a resolution has been reached without having to resort to litigation, in the spirit of unity as a Fellowship.

The Pre-conference Day

As in past years, the conference really kicked off on Saturday.

This year’s kick off included: A tour and lunch at the WSO - and if you didn’t know it, anyone can stop by

and request a tour. If you ever get the chance, it is an awesome experience. So much has changed since the days when the office was in Burbank, and even more since it was in Jimmy’s house or the trunk of his car! The walls of the WSO are covered with pictures from around the early days and items donated from around the world. A lot of the printing of IP’s and SP’s and other pamphlets for the fellowship occurs in house, except for book length projects. Seeing the warehouse with items in all the languages being readied for shipment, and the evidence or some of the Fellowship development being done is an experience that can alter one’s perspective.

There was an amazing presentation by Chris and Boyd on the History of our Basic Text - and even if your saw them at NCCNA last year, they have expanded on their knowledge. The input from Northern California and the gratitude in the room from the members and participants for our Region was palpable.

There was a workshop on Solutions and Successes, where some of the topics from NAWS included:

1. Success with Conventions and Events2. Fellowship Development3. Literature Distribution4. Sponsorship and Step Writing Behind the Walls5. Translations6. Websites and Online Presence

Some of the Regions and Zones shared about having CAR assemblies in WSC years and using the off years for Planning and Scanning and Fellowship Development.

Some Regions and Zones are experimenting with Database management for text and email blasts about events, service meetings and open positions.

Some Regions are using the emails from Online Event Registration to let members know about the upcoming Conventions or Events.

The best was the following quote, “Don’t let our Processes interfere with our Purpose!”

First Impressions of an Alternate Delegate

Our own Michael F. may hold the record for the most numbers of years between times spend serving at WSCs. And he wanted to share this report, on his experience:

Upon This Common Ground: WSC 2018

All of the efforts of Narcotics Anonymous are inspired by the primary purpose of our groups. Upon this common ground we stand committed. A Vision for NA Service. A Vision for NA Service.

With all the controversy leading into the conference, this was prescient theme. Within the opening remarks, the following questions was posed: When differences that would tear us apart and shake our common ground, how do we come back together in Unity? And the following observation: People don’t care about how much you know, until they know how much you care!

The contentiousness and divisive attitudes of previous conferences, and us vs. them and the corrosive attitudes of NAWS is not NA that led up to this conference, faded in the spirit of Unity. At some point, we are all reminded that Our Personal Recovery depends upon NA Unity and that our words and actions must be guided by this spiritual principle. It was this guiding principle that helped facilitate a reasonable resolution to the most contentious issues. We all must realize that when unity guides us, that we are them, and we are all in this together. No one wins if we don’t all win.

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to serve you, Northern California! It is hard to express the excitement and passion in the room with addicts from all over the world. It was moving to be in the room when Iran was recognized remotely, and with the whole room standing and clapping while the members from Iran were driven to tears. There were no geopolitical issues, just the miracle of addicts reaching out and touching other addicts.

The international fellowship is so grateful for us doing so much for so long to make recovery possible around the globe. It is similar to the gratitude our newer members feel towards our predecessors – and as one of the oldest regions in the world Northern California is definitely a Predecessor Region! It is our continued support and leadership that they are so grateful for, not just financial, although we traditional donate more than any other region, but for our human resources so many members of Northern California have provided through service over the decades.

During the history of Our Basic Text, it was Steve B., from Sonoma County who was Chair of the Conference heard taking the vote for the formation of the Literature Committee that was the basis of our 1st edition. We were surrounded by members from NorCal currently working at the WSO, multiple past World Board Members and Chairs, Conference Chairs and Co-facilitators. We have a long and storied tradition of giving away what has been so freely given to us.

It is the Regions in the WSZF that represent the Birthplace of NA, our regions have led providing resources in our wealth of trusted servants, our generosity of spirit, energy, time and knowledge and our innovative spirit.

NAWS and the NA Fellowship seem to be on brink of another expansion similar to what happened after our Basic Text was first published. NAWS is becoming more efficient and effective in delivering Service through the structural renovation that Zones represent in the international and developing regions of the world. Fellowship Development opportunities will follow, and flourish and the demographics will continue to shift as the growth internationally eclipses that here in North America.

Northern California, through its’ association with the California Collaboration project will again have the opportunity to serve as a model of shared services in the 21st century. The international fellowship has so much respect and gratitude for what we’ve done; they know that if not for our efforts over the last 65 years, they would not be able to share in our vision of NA, and not have literature in their language, and by extension, the promise of freedom our program offers them. It is humbling to walk in the footsteps of our predecessors and more humbling to continue this legacy of service. We truly keep the lights on for them to find their way home!

Environmental Scan for Action Planning

We want to thank the 9 Regions that submitted to the 2018 Environmental Scan. In a separate session today, we’ll be using this as the basis for our scanning and prioritization, which will be used by the FST for developing our Action Plan. We’ll also be asking at the end of the session how the body felt this went this year.

Upcoming RD/AD Events and Important Dates

Here’s what’s up ahead:

WCNA 37: August 30-September 2, 2018, Orlando, Florida Western States Learning Day XXXII, Phoenix, Arizona, October 26th to 28th

2018

Multi Zonal Service Symposium: Nov. 2 – Nov 4, 2018, Omaha, Nebraska

Lastly, as always we’d also both like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to serve our fellowship in these positions. It is indeed an honor and a privilege.

Thanks for letting us be of service,

Eric & Michael