WSC2000-Day 3

I forgot to inform you earlier about the number of participating groups.  Counting from the tally sheets, we had 114 groups participating.

Motions 6-14 discussion


The need for detail annoys.  So far the Board has decided to talk to the fellowships in Europe, Pacific Rim & Latin America.(already included in budget proposal/ or, maybe, the budget generally includes the 6 but the ground work for setting up the locations either there or in North America has not been done)

Support for this motion is strong, seems nearly unanimous despite doubts about details.  NJ Region voted 72 yes,14 no, 21 abstain.



Straw poll shows strong support for the basic motion

CAR Motion 21(World Board won't state opinions on motions just give info) must be considered along with 7

CAR Motion 37 "CAR includes reports, proposals and motions from the World Board and "will include any submitted Regional Motions and CAR designated Proposals " This is an amendment that meets the original intent ie no one wanted to have Regional Motions and formal CAR proposals included in CAR only at the discretion of the Board.

Straw poll suggest strong support for this amendment and it will be offered by the Board when 7 is offered.

Kevin's Motion 26 (relating to CAR publication schedule proposing 150 day preconference publication in English and translation) and Ohio's Motion 34 (CAR publication amendment of 180 days in English and 150 days in translation) Brazil's Motion 43 (also relating to CAR publication schedule hold to 180 day preconference publication in English and translation)will come up at the same time-as amendments to 7.


There is some controversy about the timeline issue.  The Board says 180 days is impossible.  The staff says 180 days is impossible. The Board says it is attempting to be responsible. The proponents of 180 days keep asking for honest attempts to achieve the stated goal. 

It is difficult to find a path of solution through refusal (board) and protest (more time proponents) As far as I (Muk) can tell, the problem is that the staff is saying as things are the idea cannot be implemented.  One, time to prepare the English language version is itself a problem for the staff.  Two, the translation issue is seen as undoable

One suggestion is that we are a 6 language fellowship.  We don't have publication until we have complete distribution. So no good reason to release to English speakers early.


Straw poll on 43 (180 day) it sounds like a divided group with support dominating rejection.


Straw poll on 26 (150 days) also a divided group with more no's than yes


MOTION 8  Zonal Forum

Straw poll-extreme support overall.

Friendly amendment (motion 39)add "business" to sharing since some Zonals already do discuss business. World Bd would adopt.  Straw poll indicates mixed response with yes balancing those who are opposed or undecided. Suggestion that editing the statement  to read "sharing and/or business" was greeted with general approval . straw poll result was to support this editing/amendment to Motion 8 language.


This is a cool process where we get to discuss what needs to be discussed and can eliminate discussion on issues of general or widespread agreement.


It is very difficult for me to report on these events without sharing with you the ongoing inspiration that holds the process together.  We are, here in California, as we are in our home groups, areas and region, working at the edge of our capacities.  We are stretching ourselves to serve NA and to work together for the benefit of the fellowship that is "all the time- saving our lives. 

For me this is hard work. Vigilance is required.  At every minute I am tempted to drop into laziness and just "judge" my way, instead of pray my way, through events. Please pray with me.



Motion 6  Cycle  Passed (NJRegion vote=72 yes, 14 no, 18 abstain)

Motion 7  Publications (NJRegion vote=66 yes, 28 no, 17 abstain///also on motion 26 [150 days for publication in all languages] NJRegion vote was 40yes, 20 no, 25 abstain)Passed


·       Brazil offered their 180 day all language publication amendment(see above) 180 day amendment failed

·       Motion 21 was offered as an amendment to Motion 7 (WB provides info but not recommendations on Regional motions in CAR) NJRegion vote on Motion 21 was 56 yes,33 no, 21 abstain. This motion failed probably because most non English speaking Regions feel they need the Bds recommendations.

·       Motion 26 (Kevin's 150 day preconference CAR publication motion) was offered. failed


Motion 8 Zonal Forums(NJRegion voted 69 yes, 39 no, 20 abstain)This motion as amended(see above) Passed unanimous



Basically the report contains 3 important findings: first, local NA fellowship lacks awareness of what World Services does for them or can do for them; second, World Services needs more info, but it can see that it has a role in the "problem"; third, the local fellowships-thruRCMS and RDs-can and should do a lot more to faciliate communication from the World and to the World. Further, everyone agrees that there are 2 other needs: the need to make the information from the World more understandable to the members of the fellowship; and, the need for more literature.

Ps  no one "likes" the CAR.


Communication small group discussion

Donna, Roger & I went to one group.  Kevin went to another.  I learned a lot.  I learned that  there are different ways of presenting the CAR.  We are free, even encouraged, to cut and paste together abbreviated versions of the CAR. We are free to break up the motions into smaller pieces to make them understandable. We are free to ask for "votes of confidence" to decide "housekeeping" issues on our own.  We are free to hold discussion meetings instead of motion by motion workshops.  Various Regions do these things. I was amazed at the variety of methods RDs used to "workshop" the CAR.

Also, it pleased me to discover that my RD committee idea was already an up-and-running institution in other Regions.

I am exciting about integrating "oldtimers" into a new keep-in-touch-with-World committee for RD tasks.


Evening session

Motion 55 Reconsider Motion 1. 

Hey people, it is as amazing to me as it is to you that I find myself hearing this. I, personally, have been educated by my home group to think that the Basic Text should be left alone.  I think the decision of the Conference to consider changing the BasicText was in error.  But, this motion is a big surprise. 

This motion failed


Motion 9   Regional Recognition Criteria (NJRegion vote 63 yes, 26 no, 27 abstain) This is a controversial motion because its design inhibits development trends that, until now, have been allowed to proceed pretty much "organically" (devolution instead of evolution)Chas from Phila points out how non-urbanized we are currently.  Our inner city communities are dominated by older more established and more establishment Regions.(disenfranchising of the future)  So, what to do? People have offered various time amendments. People offered criticisms of the criteria.  It's hard to function to modify anything as "settled" as this. 

A motion to shorten the time from 3 to 1 yr as a functioning Region was considered. The amendment failed

A Region becomes a Region for the purpose of starting the 3 yr timer when they begin to deliver services-when they can document the delivery of services.

The "extraordinary" reasons required for splitting from an established Region could cover the inner city communities who find themselves stymied in their efforts to serve their interests

The motion passed


Motion 10 Funding of RD attendance at WSC (NJRegion vote 70 yes, 19 no, 16 abstain)Aside from clarifications concerning the amounts of funding-the funding provided will be determined by World Services policies-the issue seemed to be about the 3yr non-attendance exclusion. There are about 5 Regions effected. Chris from Northern New England reminded us that we are drifting into a corporate system

The motion passed


Motion 11 RD & RDA only seating on the floor( NJRegion 74 yes,  13 no, 20 abstain)

Straw poll=unanimous support revealed prior to discussion.  An amendment was offered to modify RD&RDA to 2 "duly elected members" allowing flexibility to the Region about representation.

What the Conference needs is for Regions to send their best communicators, the people with the experience, strength and hope to best serve here. 

The best point in favor of WB reco of RD/RDA seating only is that it would end up costing too much because Regions would be encouraged to send more than 1 RDA.

The amendment failed.  The motion itself-RD/RDA seating only passed.

Motion 12 WSC description (NJRegion vote 67 yes, 19 no, 26 abstain)

An amendment, in the form of Motion 22, was offered.  Remember that Motion 22 is the motion to limit World Board voting (NJRegion voted 62 yes, 27 no, 20 abstain on Motion 22)

Boy, did that blow apart the Conference.  What is going on here(an explanation for those of you who, like me, can not immediately see the connection) Motion 12-description of WSC- and Motion 22-WB doesn't vote at WSC- work together as a system for reconstructing the WSC.

Motion 22 ?the issue of WB voting- arises frequently (every conference)  It is always potentially controversial to the point of explosiveness.  Tonight- so far- we are speaking calmly. The Board sees this in Tradition and Concept terms.  "It plagues our service structure that it was originally constructed on a system of hand the vote along" said one Bd member.  Another said she believed that "full participation" includes voting.  She also said that the board is better able to represent the interests of wider fellowship.

The motion as amendment- failed. And, according to Kevin, this is the 1st time this question was not favored by a majority. So, maybe there is a change in direction- a developing reliance on the WB- or maybe our service structure is changing in reliance on the full participation model of the WB and other units. Result=27yes/56 no/7 abstain

Motion 54 raises another tag-along question. It raises the question of whether we want to change the WB=24 members to a WB may =24 members.  This issue is arising because some members of the Conference want to hold the WB to a compulsory 24 members while the WB wants it to be more fluid ie up to 24.  We decided to wait until new business to cope with this.

Motion 12 passed

Motion 13 Adopt Addendum C-new TWGWSS (NJRegion  63 yes, 25 no, 22 abstain) Some housekeeping was necessary (see motion 45)Motion 13 passed

Motion 14  FIPT housekeeping (NJRegion vote 74yes, 14 no, 24 abstain)Motion 14 passed


Back to Day Two.

On to Day Four.

Back to About this site