|Report from the NJRSC's representatives at the World Service Conference. We will be providing daily updates.
Day begins- business day begins- with intro of motion 1. A quick straw vote tells us that Conference is split on 1 with a 80-20 split toward positive. NJ Region voted 64 yes/44 no/6 abstain.
Motion 2 straw vote= 2002-very few/2004 close/2006 close. NJ on this issue was 29 A/ 31 B/ 14 C.
Discussion arose about dividing the question.
· Revisions? Additions? (generally the result was not to split at this level, i.e., people didn't want to select a 'revision only' option, or an 'addition only' option)
· Leave book 1 alone & change 2?(generally less resistance to change 2, pretty split on 1)
Then there was this long discussion about languages. Motion 1 we discover is about changes to English language Basic Text. As far as I can tell the non-English speaking people wish we would let it go for now. The Germans will or won't change their version as they wish. Of course they don't mean this to be divisive. What they mean is that it is such a big task and that given a choice between using their resources at a revised Basic Text translation or translating another book-say How & Why-they might prefer to use the resources to translate the unavailable resource. The French already have different personal stories. They have no intention of adopting ours. And, for those who don't know, it is policy that translations can replace personal stories. Most translated versions only have section 1. Portuguese (Brazilian) said that they think any changes in English language ought to be reflected in other languages.
Surprisingly, no one seems very clear about the implications of changing the first part of Basic text for translations. Can a language community select the route described by the German speaker? We got off into a discussion of unity. But, the idea wasn't about resisting a decision of the Conference, it was about informing us regarding the costs and confusions of changing the Basic text. Then we shifted a bit to focus on copyrights.
On the copyright protection issue, all versions are considered derivative. That means they are covered by our copyright. In technical terms this means even if the non-English versions lag in translations the version they use is covered.
Maybe for now the most practical plan is to allow English language need to dominate. Speak/Think clearly in one language and the translators will be able to work with the clear thoughts.
It is easier to change the Basic Text then to change yourself! The delegate from Italy said this.
Financial impact=about $150,000-200,000 for the evaluation process.
How comprehensive is this evaluation? Are we at core principle investigation level- do these core principles reflect the way we recover in NA today? Is this what we mean? Answer=YES. Comprehensive & thorough means comprehensive and thorough.
Generally strong support
Motion 4 straw pole reveals strong support generally although some opposition to specific items.
Motion 1=initiate a project to change basic text /table vote =failed/ amendment to split in 2 (part one additions/part two revisions)=failed
VOTE Favor= 58 Opposed= 28 Abstain=5 Passed
NJ voted opposed despite more groups supporting approval.. Why? It's a complex thing, but the reason relates to the translation issue that our groups had not considered and our eval of the depth of commitment to the positions taken in ignorance of an important factor.
Motion 2=when eval-project proposal- produced Passed (2004)
VOTE A 2002 13 B 2004 40 C 2006 40 (NJ Region voted for B in accordance with the majority of group votes despite our RDs belief that members in our Region might easily have selected the 2006 option given the circumstances.)
Second vote 2004= 49 2006=38
Motion 3=begin sponsorship Passed- unanimous
Motion 4=approve process plans Passed (yes 86 no 1 abstain)
MOTION 5 Service Material 2/3 required
Debate emphasized 2 matters. The concern some members had was that the board might be assuming the capacity to, on their own, to change 12 traditions or concepts. But, of course, never was that intended. The language of the proposal did lead some members to express worry. Also, some objected to 90 day before limit and wanted that deadline extended. The Board was open to change the language to remove worries about traditions & concepts. But, they were more resistant to changing the timeline.
Motion 5= approve service material process Passed
ISSUE DISCUSSION SESSION
We met in small groups to discuss the 2 issues selected for the 99-00 year. These small groups discussions are a great opportunity to hear the collective wisdom of members with lots of clean time from all over the world. In this case, for instance, I was three individuals in a room of 30 with less than 10 years clean.
The discussion of retaining NA members with substantial clean time was well informed. Among the highlights of that discussion were the following suggestions: avoid pedestals, just because someone has years clean doesn't mean they don't need recovery and support; don't be nasty to them when they do attend meetings, just because they may not come to a meeting every day, every week or even every month doesn't mean that we should give them a hard time when they do come; call them and make them feel welcomed and needed, ask for their experience strength and hope; plan events with them in important roles, keep them involved in the ways they are available; love, appreciate and respect them.
The discussion about medication & abstinence was excellent. I learned that the very best thing an addict can do for him/herself when confronting the need to take medication is to be extremely honest and open with sponsor & network, keep in close touch with others in the fellowship. Trying to do it on your own is risky. I also learned that the road for addicts taking medication in recovery is narrow. Care, vigilance, is especially necessary in matters relating to medication. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise, after all, drugs are what brought us here.
HUMAN RESOURCE PANEL
Motion 16 ( World Pool Eligibility Provisions)as amended-took out the 'personal experience' prohibition. They do want to keep 'personality' out of the process. They want to emphasize principles rather than personality. But they don't want to deny the relevancy of having actual personal knowledge of a candidates skills and abilities.
Straw poll result =strong support
Motion 17(Human Resource Panel [and Delegates] empowered to nominate for human resource panel)
Straw poll result =strong positive
Motion 18 (changes terms of HRP and puts them on staggered terms)
Straw poll result=strong positive
Motion 25 (2 members elected at 2000 will take 2 year term to begin staggered term system, 2 members will take 4yr terms. They achieve this result by lot) will achieve this result by amending 18.
Straw poll result =strong positive
Motion 16 World pool eligibility Passed unanimous
Motion 17 allow HRP to nominate for HRP Passed strong support
Motion 18 amend term of office for HRP so they serve 2 Conference cycles and don't nominate themselves as amended by motion 25 so that HRP elections this year will result in staggered terms Passed strong support
Back to Day One.
On to Day Two.
Back to About this site