Report on NJ CAR results


We had approximately 130 groups from our Region participating in the CAR process. Not every Area provided votes. There was a small problem in accounting for some of the votes from one Area because of a communication problem. That difficulty will yield unbalanced counts when we get toward the second half of the CAR. Still, it was a pleasure working with everyone this cycle. I learned a lot from you. I also appreciate everyone who filled in the discussion form. Thanks.


                                                        Yes          No        Abstain

1. approve sponsorship book            85            20        19


2. approve sponsorship pamphlet        76            28        17


3. revise JFT                                  52            52        10


4. approve basic text project             65            17        9


5. decrease world board                       63            25        17


6. eliminate committees                     38            36        28


7. short moratorium                             71            43        16


8. longer moratorium                     35            52        11


9. book one version of BT           47            61        11


10. tradition guide                               14            73        13


11. internet posting                             37            53        11


12. key tags & medallions               58            33        15


13. rescind WB voting                      39            41        19


14. elect WB by 51%                 44            39        17


15. lower cost of events                      38            46        14


16. consensus decision-making        17            56        26


17&18 Resolution A (MN)                23            56        20


19 Resolution A (Lone Star)         31            45        22   


Report On Old Business Motions


·       The board had already informed us that the sponsorship book would have a table on context, now we will consider an amendment to add an index.

We will vote in favor of this since it meets the desires of our lit review chair and was mentioned in comments on the CAR.

·       There were several motions to make it clear that the basic text project was limited to English speaking stories.

·       There was a motion to add another cycle to the basic text project to allow for more review and input.

·       There was a motion to allow NAWS to change the colors etc of Key tags to meet the tastes of different cultures.







HRP believes in its own independence. They believe the Board is not committed to the same process. They do not feel appreciated and supported.



World Pool is resume dependent. This has had the impact of narrowing the field instead of opening the field as was intended.


We do fear “old boy” operations. We do have doubts.


Current WB elections reflect the same problem as Trustee elections. We used to elect only a few. We still elect only a few. Our pattern is not to vote for the number of openings we have.We do not trust enough. We demand people to be present or known.


The board believes we can do better. They believe in leadership cultivation. They would like this to replace the self-nomination process we are reliant upon. They—bd members --keep themselves alert to the individuals in the fellowship. They think they can do better than this process.


Leadership is not bossiness, controlling. It is about giving people access to the system to develop skills of service.  We only vote for people we have confidence in.  How can we have confidence in people we don’t know—people whose work/service we are unfamiliar with.


Planting trees that none of us will sit under.


Bd members need to have better prep and skills.


World Service Resource base must be developed.


We really want people to have experience at the level for which they are to be considered to be elected. For Bd that means working at Bd level. The bd does have this hands on experience with people but the process precludes their effective contributions


The Bd believes we need at least 12 no more than 18. Elect 4-8. We need for us to vote for 6-7 to get the mininimum number. This is not our history of voting. We hope we change.


Peter NY 

We can take the leap of faith necessary to vote for people we don’t know. If HRP were given adequate resources we are certain they would do the job we want for them


Cultivate leadership means cultivating infrastructure.


We all want to have input. The W Bd wants input into the process, the participants want input and especially we want an opportunity to talk with each other.


John (MN)

Are we all cognizant of the time commitment for WB of 40-60 days a year is a commitment most cannot make. This reality is troubling.


John (Mid America)

What is the difference between tension and differences of opinion. (referring to the HRP/WB division over what about election process needs to be fixed.


We all have the same goals—we want to elect suitable people. He thinks we need to talk about how to cast our votes. If we have confidence in HRP (and many do) then we should vote for the maximum number we can in order to elect the number we need,



Maybe some people could talk to Latin American fellowship to help them comprehend the profiles so they can understand who they are voting for (Resumes/profiles are only in English)


Jane says the idea of getting together to talk has been brought to the floor a 2nd time. Spanish community can get Johnny to help them go thru profiles with HRP people present. This is a new process. In the past the Board has refrained from talking about candidates, so we are all a bit nervous.


REGION—name unknown.

Is the flaw in nomination process as bd sees it or election process as HRP sees it. (assuming these characterization are correct)



Someone has to do clearing work We now use HRP. We could have Bd do it, or staff but someone must do it. The problem is that electing 2.4 or 2.6 just doesn’t work for us.


The way thru election process is to look at other organizations—many rely on committees like HRP to do the filtering—these work because the people nominated are assumed to be the best available.


Will we straw poll on the difference between HRP (blind CPR review, ie names and regions of candidates are initially removed for 1st level review) and Bd that favors specific recommendations of specific people.


HRP will show us a PP that will answer the patterns of voting.


Responding to how many people Bd voted on last cycle: Susan voted for 7, bob for 9, jane for 6, craig for 7,


John (FL)

This is not a problem of not having qualified people nominated. We have confidence in the nomination. The problem is statistics. When there are many more people running than can be elected it is not statistically feasible to elect many . Better to have a primary. Then run off between those that survive this primary.


Floridians later spelled out ‘primary’ system in writing for us.


William (NNY)

When did it happen that HRP had to report to WB?

Jane-there was no process for WSC when not in session. WB found itself in accountability position. Didn’t see HRP as having that position, so assumed ‘supervisory’ function.


Seth (NM)

We need to have a good reason not to vote for people, not a better reason than nomination to vote yes.



We could tell you more about how we cull candidates. HRP objective this week is to build trust.



The judgment/assessment of people is very subtle/nuanced. We don’t have a process that allows for this fragile, heartfelt evaluation.



Cultivation process should involve inquiry of regions and areas where candidate functions.


HRP has been looking into how to do this. HRP would be more confident if RD/RDA backs candidate.


(All this discussion moved me to feel bad and a bit stupid for not asking for you to lend support to my candidacy. To the degree you feel left out, I apologize. To the degree that it is better as a policy judgment not to involve the region in supporting or not supporting people for World Services positions, it is best that I did leave you out until you can formulate general policy about the issues and not have to make a special judgment about a single individual candidate.)


Monica (Norway)

Can we have the resumes sent before the conference so we have more time to go thru them.

HRP says that is a good idea if we can work out the details. Privacy/security are issues


Brian (CalmidState)

Does WB make nominations? NO But, in theory-according to Guide—any conference participant can make a nomination.


(Board has stayed out of process because there was a feeling that their involvement might make the process seem tainted or skewed. Now, as you can tell from the notes, they want in. This is a huge decision. I hope we do not have to make it here. I hope it is a decision we get to bring back for workshopping.)


Paul (Rocky MT)

Nomination process is fine. It is election process that is flawed.


Jane (WB) has confidence that knowing the need, we will take the action. (what she means is knowing we really must elect people this year, we will find a way to do it. I took this to mean we would use our votes more generously-vote for more people- in a committed attempt to have enough people on the board. Not everyone is confident. The FL ‘primary’ is a potential way of solving our problem.)




Thanks HRP


The transition from old to new system has bumps. David learned from George to look for underlying principle.

Learned to try not to do things out of fear.


Is HRP designed out of fear to be an isolated entity in order to insulate process from ‘old boy’ influence. We could do HRP workgroup where BD and workgroup nominated together.


The 60% came from the past. We could do it differently. Bd could identify the number of people needed to do the work and let conference elect them. No need for 60%


Worth (Mountaineer)

Who reviews nomination challenge forms(page 24 of Guide) deadline is wed


(you should know that we aren’t thinking as randomly as these notes seem to suggest. Top speak requires queing up. So, we must trust our own intelligence to connect the pieces of the discussion together as we move through the que.



Wants to hear candidates “from the heart.”

Suggest video as a possible way to progress past paper.



2 questions in election process

·       experience & ability:she trusts HRP to filter, but characteristic 2 is ranking

·       confidence: she thinks she cant reach a decision about who to have confidence in without face to face interaction. This 2nd one is about 60%. This is ranking.

Our system as is addresses the first, but not the second.


Shawn (NNE)

They only eliminate 3-5 when their Region voted last time. And, they have a policy commitment note to vote for regional nominations.


(Maybe you don’t know—

1. there is a ‘self-nominating’ process. It is self-nominating in that people must submit World Pool Resumes to be considered. The HRP reviews the resumes and initiates the following process of evaluation.

·       They initially create a pile of people ‘qualified on the numbers,’ ie people with the clean time and maybe basic qualifications.

·       They then contact the people on the long list and ask about continuing interest. [I think they get more info]

·       They somehow select from the long list a shorter list of people they will interview and reference check [ I think the numbers for this year were 115 on the long list with 95 going forward into interview process.

·       They use info gathered from interview & reference check process to make the HRP nominations.

2. there is a regional nomination process in this case a region sends in a letter or a vote of confidence nominating someone. The person nominated must be in the world pool. I think that generally that means the nominee was already eliminated by the HRP. But, I admit to not having paid much attention to this latter process)


Manny (Buckeye)

A self nomination process needs investigation.


HRP says be very careful about this self-nomination thing, the self action here is the expression of interest. (see above)


Sue(WB) says filling out a resume is self nomination.


(How do you see it? If I am correct and everyone who is nominated by a region has to already have a world pool resume, then Sue is wrong. We can hardly distinguish between the people recommended by the HRP and those recommended by a region by calling the first set ‘self-nominated’ since all had to filled in the resume to nominate themselves.

I think the difference Sue wants to highlight might  avoid the world pool resume for some or may have Board members acting like regions and nominating people. Maybe the bd would tell you they wished to have you file a resume?)



We need help from HRP and BD. We aren’t able to elect from paper. We elect people that we know. We have no process to talk about our needs for this personal knowledge. We turn to the ‘hallways’ when what we really need is help.


We could ask RSC—could do it by a confirmation card or send an info sheet to the Region.


HRP or BD should consider workgroup performance.


Michael (pacific cascade)

Delegates want some kind of Q&A to help them consider confidence info about the candidates. Michael thinks this idea troubling. This is not the same as the spanish speaking community’s request to have help with the English language profiles. Michael and just about everyone else favors this 2nd idea and it was scheduled to be implemented.


Skip (Argentina)

If we need 6 we should ‘elect’ the 6 people who get the most votes? He would like to have this considered.




Isnt the allowance for Regional nominations contradictory to the HRP nomination



What criteria used to qualify candidates?

Will answer tomorrow.


Tom (Bd)

People who are really qualified are cut. Blind resume takes the heart out of process. Shame that we lose qualified people.


How do we get heart & soul into the process.


Bob (FL)

Regional Nominations circumvent the process.




World Board Forum


Demo board meeting reviewing motion amendments to old business.


Motion 20: amend motion 4 to be limited to English language only editions of BT.

BD offered the idea that rather than do this by formal amendment, what if BD gave assurance that Motion 4 was intended to change personal stories in English language version.

Anthony reminded the motion 20 maker that translation policy already allows for the effect motion 20 seems to address.

Bd reco not adopt


Motion 21: Move amendment to motion 4 to have the process take 3 not 2 cycles

Board says the addition of an extra cycle will not gain the 3 rounds of review the motion has as its intent. Board still thinks there is no need for more time for review and input.

Bd reco not adopt


Motion 22: amend motion 4 to read ‘some’ personal stories, not some or all. That is the intent of the motion is to preserve some of the personal stories.

Bd would prefer full flexibility. They want workgroup to create guidelines that will operate as semi-objective standards for inclusion/exclusion. If we adopt motion 22 the guidelines might not be applicable in an even handed way.

What bd recommends is that anyone who has a personal story that is especially meaningful to them should input that desire to have the story stay. Bd will give great emphasis to this desire.

Bd reco not adopt


Motion 23: add index to sponsorship book

Bd did discuss adding an index. Asked for topical suggestions by special workers. The bd decided that because of personal experience nature of the book (80-90%) the indexing would be awkward/difficult to accomplish.

Index would not translate well.

Bd reco not to adopt


Motion 24: amend 13 so that it refers properly to the WSC Rules Of Order. (Frankly, its one of those policy issues that cause my mind to blank out) Anyway, Bd says that if motion 13 passed the WSC Rules of Order would have to be changed anyway. (Again, I just blank out regarding these policy issues. You are on your own. Jason, go for it!)

Bd obviously reco not to adopt


Motion 25: amend 12 to allow bd to select color & format of non English language chips, keytags & medallions to ensure that different cultural needs were addressed responsibly. In China a white chip means death. So, we should permit the bd to make necessary variations.

Also, the motion maker never desired to make the system as rigid as bd interpreted it.

Since bd didn’t support original motion, it didn’t seem consistent to support saving amendment.

Bd reco not to adopt.


Open Forum


Skip (Argentina) Thanks MN for resolution A proposal. Greets the attempt to generate unity with happiness. He wants to know if the bd will now generate a plan that does move us forward toward this goal in a timely manner.

Bd says direct bd to develop a project plan for next cycle.

Skip asks if we can get to proposal for project plan without formal motion.

Bd says it is up to the body. Some want moratorium on resolution a discussion for 5 years, some want to push forward  now. Bd says lets see what this afternoon’s discussion brings.


Tim (Lone Star)

Review & Input process now in place is not what it used to be. Lone Star doesn’t like it the way it is now. Tim thinks that 6 mths for 31,000 groups to eval any changes to BT is irresponsible.

Bd says basic review and input has not changed, what has changed is the type of lit we are developing. Sponsorship book- based on experience—needed different way. But Jane-speaking for bd- admits that the detailed outline for sponsorship book didn’t elicit identification of the problems that actual book revealed. See, for instance, same-sex sponsorship: Not many objected to seeing the topic listed in outline. Lots objected to reading what was written under that heading. This is a problem we will have to find a way to address.

He thinks bd should vote in old business. Also, their participation in recommendations on regional motions pissed him off. What he wants to know what reco from fellowship is acceptable. (recall CAR workshop in Middlesex where an addict made exactly the same point.)

Bd says the reason it looks like they are always objecting is that they have lots of info that a single region does not have. Also, generally dialogue would serve better than motions since motions are not going to accomplish what the motion makers hope. (It is an experience thing, how things change in operation)

David (bd) says that we might all treat CAR motions as expressions of opinion—a form off communicating with each other.

Ron (bd) this issue makes him uncomfortable. We now have a collaborative relationship that still has this communication difficulty built into it. How can we get away from contentiousness at Conference if we keep pressing forward with regional CAR motions. Regions are a part of NAWS and we all need to figure out how the regions get to be full participants in the full work of NAWS. This is a developmental problem. Bd gets to Zones and informal communication is working ok, but there is a problem in developing a structure that allows more formal input.

Anthony (EX Director) says input works on things pretty well. See treasurer workbooks, CD Rom products etc. So it isn’t that everything that ever comes from fellowship automatically gets squashed. But, truth is, we haven’t figured out how to make input/exchange/ communication/partnership between bd and rd(regions) work well when it isn’t about things, but about process, values.


George (CA) proposed a workgroup to work on elections/nominations.


Mindy (Show Me) The problem is lack of conversation and not the lack of good ideas. For instance,Region wanted opportunity at WSC to discuss HRP. They wanted an opportunity to have HRP forum all of its own. It felt like everything was going well. But CAT discussions left them unhappy because the leadership development idea seemed to ignore the entire communications process. Also, they were very disappointed when HRP were not given a full open forum. So they experience a disconnect.



Gentle blue air,

Sweet water sun,

California’s warm enough

To turn me on.



 I go home to California

Over & over again

Without staying long.


A Noah bird,

Its journeyed search for land,

Begun, begun, begun.





We began with ‘prebusiness discussion’-- a transitional exercise in an attempt to move to a more discussion based conference.    


First group                                      Yes          No        Abstain

1. approve sponsorship book            85            20        19

·       no one wanted to say anything

·       strawpoll indicates certain passage


23. index the book

·       we managed to say that NJ lit review chair will be very pleased if this motion passes. This discussion went on for a long time. A meaningful aspect of this discussion related to how people saw the book-how it might be used. Strawpoll indicates almost certain failure.


2. approve sponsorship pamphlet        76            28        17

·       strawpoll indicates almost certain passage


3. revise JFT                                  52            52        10

·       stickers will be supplied.

·       This is a hard call for us given the vote. We decided to vote yes at least for strawpoll. (how did we decide? Well we were taught yesterday that if there is not a majority of yes votes then the motion fails. Consistent with that principle, we should vote no. But, sitting here in informal setting, fred tossed a coin. We apologize if this method of resolving a difficult vote offends anyone. And, in fairness, I admit to allowing my personal inclination to vote in favor of the motion –I am a compulsive housekeeper, a bit anal. I want the literature to be consistent. So I took advantage of freds whimsy. I am responsible for this decision. He isn’t. we all know that I could have stood on principle. And, from here on in, I will stand on principle because handling it this way made me too uncomfortable.)

·       Stickers will be available soon.



Second group

4. approve basic text project             65            17        9

·       Q:Where do we discuss extra time for review & input? A: we decide it ourselves—the CAT says we can have 3 extra months ie extended from 6 to 9 mths.

·       Norway is already collecting input in prep for adding diversity to personal story section.

·       Strawpoll indicates certain success.

20, 21, 22  (English language only/ keep some personal stories/3cycle process not a 2cycle process

·       Re motion 20: intent of this motion is to insulate non English language stories from forced modification. But, Anthony says there is a translation policy problem. Strawpoll= failed

·       Re motion 21 make the process a 3 cycle rather than a 2 cycle. Review and input for 18 mths so that people have enough opportunity to express concerns. Strawpoll= failed I did not vote on this because I was uncertain whether our vote should reflect lit review committees opinion or the wishes of regional groups. I could easily say yes to extended time, but extended cycle is a harder call.

·        Re motion 23: amend 4 to say some not some or all. Strawpoll= failed.


Motion 30: allow up to 9 mths instead of 6 mths for fellowship review & input on BT project.

·       Bd has no reco. Something will have to get shortened somewhere, but there is no way of knowing now what that will be.

·       Strawpoll=failed (we voted for it, but few others did.)


7. short moratorium                             71            43        16

·       Show Me no longer wishes to present the motion. I believed myself required to vote in favor of the motion if presented, but I didn’t feel empowered to insist on its presentation.


8. longer moratorium                     35            52        11

·       Strawpoll= failed


9. book one version of BT           47            61        11

·       We are dependent on lit sales to keep ourselves supported. The bd believes that we have reached a point where it is unsound to have our services financed by sale of lit. But, the fact is we still have so many unmet needs that we are nowhere near the ideal of donation dependency. Strawpoll=failed


Third group

10. tradition guide                               14            73        13

·       Lone Star believes that they worked very hard on this project and feel belittled/demeaned by bd. They didn’t want it to go to the bottom of the pile and not be considered. They wanted action.

·       Others expressed the NJ belief that the submission subverted lit development project.

·       Still others expressed the belief that were the Texas document be sent to a workgroup for development including review & input process it would garner their support.

·       Several people expressed a regional wish for tradition working guides.

·       Bd offered an option of submitting a project plan in new business.

·       Michelle from Tennessee says IT WORKS HOW & WHY is a tradition working guide.

·       Strawpoll= failed



Fourth group

5. decrease world board                       63            25        17

·       Minimum 12 & up to 18 is what bd recommends

·       This is a 2/3 motion, ie, requires 2/3 vote to pass.

·       Strawpoll=passed


6. eliminate committees                     38            36        28

·       Corporate by laws require exec but no other committee. It is our own internal guidelines that require the standing committees.

·       Communication seems, to some, to depend on committee structure as points of accountability. We have widened the synapse between local and world services. We did this to avoid the ‘turfing’ of decisions. 

·       Strawpoll= ? ( I wasn’t paying enough attention)


13. rescind WB voting                      39            41        19

·       The world bd speaks for the developing NA community= the regions that aren’t formed yet.

·       This is another 2/3 motion

·       What is weird about this motion is that the fellowship outside the USA has a service structure where trusted servants vote, while in USA these people don’t vote.  (There doesn’t seem to be an easy way thru this controversy. And, frankly as david –bd—points out, voting is not the direction of the future.

·       Strawvote=failed.


14. elect WB by 51%                 44            39        17

·       Strawpoll=failed

·       Remember that following the instructions I was given yesterday, when positive vote is less than negative vote and abstentions added together, the motion fails.


16. consensus decision-making        17            56        26

·       Lone Star has transformed itself into a fully functioning consensus decision-making body. It is more flexible, less rigid. They don’t use it for elections or maybe they aren’t suggesting using it, what they are suggesting is that it is a more commonsensical

·       Lone Star will look at project plan from last year and if that meets their desires they will not present the motion.

·       Wb doesn’t give this project plan high ranking because consensus decisions are based on sound communications. We haven’t gotten there yet.

·       Strawpoll=failed.


17&18 Resolution A (MN)                23            56        20

·       The idea behind 17 is reduction of reps at wsc.

72 total.

·       International fellowship wants movement. This is the spirit of Resolution A we voted for 6 years ago. Even if not ready for it now, they believe it is time to discuss the process seriously.

·       Greater NY voted in favor of the motion. For them it is time to move forward. (as a note of personal privilege, I was moved by the willingness of the NJ fellowship to think favorably about a restructuring of World Services that did not always leave the ‘haves’ in power. I am proud of you.)

·       We shouldn’t elect political people to fill political roles.

·       France thinks weakness of this motion is inequality of representation. Weakness of resolution A is its complex inclusiveness-all those different goals

·       Some participants from abroad do not want to lose the variety at the conference now.

·       Some think that this condensation plan will prove too expensive, ie, participating in this form of self-govt will require developing closer ties-intimacy-on a wide geo scale that will cost money to facilitate.

·       Whatever we do, we should avoid coming from fear. We have learned to work with the equality of homegroups despite disparate numbers of participants.

·       Adding another filter will not help communication.

·       Strawpoll= failed


19 Resolution A (Lone Star)         31            45        22   

See above

Strawpoll= failed



Fifth group-various


11. internet posting                             37            53        11

·       Copy write is secure on internet/ fair use=25% of chapter/section w/o infringement. ‘public domain’ refers to material so generally available that the privileges of ownership are lost.

·       Motion maker wants to post readings. The motion maker was sent a letter by WSO saying that if it didn’t remove language they would lose right to link to That letter resulted in this motion. They thought they should have been permitted. They thought the only alternative was to bring the issue to the fellowship thru CAR.

·       IPs now available on website in 25 languages.

·       Maker wants to put quote on home page that is covered by fair use allowance.

·       The board is saying ‘please lets not manage our internet intellectual property thru the CAR or on the floor of the conference.’ It is true that bd has been too conservative but it is moving more reasonably now.

·       Strawpoll=failed


(Jose Luis from Region Del Coqui-Puerto Rico-says that our participation rate is impressive. Good job guys!)


12. key tags & medallions               58            33        15

·       Intent was not made to restrict NAWS authority.

·       Motion 25 (the one that allows NAWS to make adjustments for cultural differences) was also not offered to restrict Bd or office.)

·       The problem is with NA groups distributing non NA approved merchandise at an NA meeting as part of the NA Recovery Meeting format.

·       Strawpoll=probable failure


15. lower cost of events                      38            46        14

·       Home group started this by saying that it ought to cost much less money to send reps to NA service. Find cheaper hotels or negotiate for cheaper rates for hotel space and negotiate cheaper air travel costs.

·       There are no current plans to stop funding delegates.

·       Put more money in the basket. Actually, when you are here and you see how our ability to function as a world wide fellowship.



ROLLCALL=   93 Regions 47 majority/ 62 =2/3



1. approve sponsorship book          85            20    19 

index failed

motion passed


2. approve sponsorship pamphlet        76            28        17

motion passed


3. revise JFT                                  52            52        10

motion passed


4. approve basic text project             65            17        9

substitute some for some or all failed

substitute 3yr cycle for 2yr cycle failed

substitute 9 mth review for 6 mth failed

motion passed


5. decrease world board                       63            25        17

motion passed


6. eliminate committees                     38            36        28

motion passed


7. short moratorium                             71            43        16

motion withdrawn


8. longer moratorium                     35            52        11

motion failed


9. book one version of BT           47            61        11

motion to commit to board failed

motion failed


10. tradition guide                               14            73        13

motion to commit to board failed

motion failed 


11. internet posting                             37            53        11

motion failed


12. key tags & medallions               58            33        15

motion failed


13. rescind WB voting                      39            41        19


14. elect WB by 51%                 44            39        17

motion failed


15. lower cost of events                      38            46        14

motion fails for lack of second

16. consensus decision-making        17            56        26


17&18 Resolution A (MN)                23            56        20

motion 17 failed (13 yes 81 no)


19 Resolution A (Lone Star)         31            45        22

motion failed      


motion: approve minutes of wsc 2002 passed




We did one sort of work on Monday. We did another sort today. No motions, no voting. Today we worked in groups. We brainstormed, and worked at something called mind mapping. Mind mapping is an exercise designed to see how the various aspects of a situation fit together and how progress toward solution can be initiated in a variety of ways depending on the resources, inclinations and values of the problem solvers.


We should try these exercises at Regional Service Workshops and GSR Assemblies.


Today we also had reports. The HRP (Human Resource Panel) formally reported on their process and on the voting patterns at WSC in past elections. We all want to solve the difficulty we have in electing people to the World board. So, we are being treated to lots of input on the issue. The Conference has growing confidence in the HRP. It expressed general wishes that it continue to function independently from the Board.


Anthony- the Executive Director of the WSO (World Service Office) also reported today about the office and its operations. We will get into indepth discussions about budgeting another time. 


One thing that concerns me, our Region is listed as having contributed over $28,000 between July 2002-July 2003, but slightly less than $11,000 from July 2003- now. Since we just sent NAWS $8,000, this figure seems very low to me. I am going to ask Anthony to check to make sure the March donation, and all other relevant donations, are recorded. I will ask Rodger & Troy to do an accounting of our own.


Anthony definitely wants to hear about inmate correspondence projects. His current data bank shows 6 Regions and 4 Areas with such programs. NAWS used to be resistant to these programs, now the office (and presumably the Board) are looking with some interest. Anthony wants to hear about the inmate correspondence programs that are operating. If we haven’t informed the office about what is going on in our Region, we should email him this info.


Speaking of office-region interaction, our local website servants will find the revised system for maintaining timely and adequate local info on the site more user friendly than the old one. Try it.


The World Board is suggesting NA’s Public Image and Infrastructure in NA as this year’s discussion topics. I may not have encouraged you to participate in on line discussions of these topics at last cycle, but I do encourage you now.

Conference participants decided on a new medallion design. It isn’t really new. It is just a tiny bit different—see Arabic instead of roman numerals and smooth instead of slightly ‘pebbled’ metallic surface. We also decided to have We Do Recover added to group readings.


Finally, we began the process of addressing our election difficulties by recommending that Regions be invited to become integrated into the HRP nomination process, by recommending that workgroup experience be evaluated as a significant part of the evaluation process (fill in those World Pool Resumes), by reaffirming the HRP process and by recommending that non-English language groups get WSC assistance with reading and deciphering the candidate ‘profiles’ (the info we receive about the candidates).


I am tired.


It is good to be here.


It is a privilege to serve.


I hope the reports reach you and that they are informative—and maybe a little fun. For instance, I left you a poem in the middle of yesterday’s report.


Love MUK








Budget etc.


·       $12,000,000 2 year budget

·       $700,000 projected from donations with almost $900,000 received. Way to go guys! Although Anthony says that despite the way this appears, it can be a bit deceptive because we always budget donations at the low end.

·       Sales of lit also seem to be up about $1,000,000 from budget project.

·       Convention budgeting is difficult because these events are fluid. 50th anniversary convention was budgeted as ‘an usual.’ Then it was rebudgeted to be  a true celebration. So Anthony thought it would turn out to be more expensive. For instance main meeting support & transportation for it =$300,000. The fact that San Diego made rather than lost $100,000 surprised Anthony.

·       Reserve account=$1,400,000=85 operating days. Now business group reco that reserve be enough money to pay fro all services for 1 yr. But that amount hasn’t been established.

·       We have 4 activity areas



Fellowship development


·       Auditor has been hired to do ‘forensic site checks’ This is a bit like random drug testing. The way it works, the auditors call in the morning of the day they will come. They show up and ask for anything they want. There isn’t enough time for anyone to fudge in this system. Also, the auditors have been given authority to run specific fraud/theft checks, i.e.,  inquiries designed by auditors to prevent as any frauds as possible. Also, WSO plans to pursue recovery of all ‘costs’ from the individual who embezzled the money

·       Anthony is very happy with business workgroup. In conjunction with this group additional policies are being designed. A new protocol is being developed to cover investments and other operational realities—bringing us up top date with other non-profits.

·       Check out shopping cart and on-line donation capacities of You need a credit card to make a donation. I am not certain how that works for purchases.


Project Plans


Biggest change about the cycle’s priorities is the defocusing on interests of bd and delegates and focusing on issues bd believed were more fellowship oriented.


Notice that regular operations must have a priority in the sense that except as modified, it is the basic way things are.


Assigning dollar amount for staff work has been dropped. This wasn’t helpful even though we know that work takes time and people’s time costs money.


Some things have to be completed befoe others.


Also how much we can get done is dependent in large part on filling staff vacancies. This, Becky says, is not about money but about human resources, ie, talent.


One of the things Becky reports is that the process of prioritizing was such a deep, slow, personal integration process that there is virtually no way to adequately communicate it to us.  This is a “trust the bd’ message from Becky --who is about the most trustworthy person we have (after Anthony)—so, I am listening.


Two priority problems:1) WWW we believe in them but service lit really is more important. Literally, Becky says, it is a staff rather than a money issue; 2) convention workshop is a key way we have of helping major fundraising efforts from depleting funds through theft, yet again, it is an expensive and US focused endeavor that couldn’t be as fully justified despite the obvious need.

So, Becky made it very clear that from her perspective the issue is the size of our staff not necessarily a matter of the expense of hosting or having certain events.



Our positions are open and funding for them is available.


Staff people have to be encouraged to apply. So, if we know people who are willing to work collaboratively for NA, speak to Rebecca and BD.


Years ago the Bd made the determination that the world convention- generally-should be ‘break even’ event.


People like the WWW(WorldWideWorkshops).

NAWS is trying to find a way streamline WWW support drain. Everyone seems to like them. Latin America asks for continuation.



Open Forum left over from yesterday


Discussion Bd on PI,H&I etc where people raise problems and share experience, strength & hope.


Anthony said that large reserve is about keeping operations ‘afloat’ through dramatic changes so that organization can adjust to these changes. Changing a large entity takes time, so it needs large reserves to allow it to adjust/adapt if necessary


CAT on line? Bd will consider.


Exec Committee, in response to conference participant input agrees that WWW will move to 2nd tier.



New Business


#27, 28,33,57,58,59,61,63 are all about changing the election process.

·       One is a unifying motion, ie, create workgroup (=61)

·       Another is to create 2tiered election system (primary) (=28)

·       Others (27,33,57,58, 59 & 63) are about getting regional nominations better integrated into election process.


#29 US Assembly Bd says similar to question asked last cycle, they do not favor it.


#31 2nd alternate can sub for RDA #1 at discretion of RD. Is it Bd or Conference’s business to tell Regions how to best serve their needs? Is it another way to separate regions totally reliant on funded participation from regions that can fund who and what they wish, ie 2 tiered system.


#32 Resolution A is done. No, it is a happening, process thing. There is more to do, but we need not rush forward. We can work it out as we have been doing.  For instance, to get to consensus decision making requires building trust. That takes time to evolve.


#33 Include Regional conscience & endorsement of HRP nominations There are some people who do great service who are not attached to a Region as most of us are? Bd reco not to adopt.


#34 Take action to pursue damages from NA funds embezzler. Anthony assures us that he will pursue.


#35-53 World Board Project Plan and seating motions


#54 Moratorium on world board voting privileges motion.


#55 All Lit content be available for input/review

Bd reco not to adopt


#56 Regional CAR motions don’t need 2nd on the floor.

The point is to eliminate unnecessary parliamentary procedure.  But, how long does it take to get a 2nd? The problem here arises because not every motion is as serious as it should be. We should eliminate them. Bd= not to adopt.


#57 Make sure all Nominations come from Seated Regions or HRP. RD and Board (conference) could not actually make nominations.  Does this narrow down the source pool of nominations especially from places that don’t have established (seated) regions? Bd says no.


#58 RSCs& Bd get to forward candidates to HRP independent of blind review process. Jane thinks input from Bd is necessary. If we don’t elect people we do not know, then what we need to do to fix the process to increase the number & variety of people we have an opportunity to work with –get to know. This may be a way of stating a principle without wading in too far into implementation,ie, we can step outside blind structure to feed people into 2nd level of review. It opens system for more highly qualified people to be introduced into eval process.

Bd reco adoption which = policy motion


#59 Nominations by regions & participants must be communicated to HRP no later than 30 days prior to WSC?

Some board members in favor/some against/some ‘in part.’


#60 WWW get higher priority What does this mean after Jane’s announcement that exec committee recommends 2nd tier.


#61 Workgroup to study all nomination & election procedures and offer recommendations.  If we go in this direction it becomes a special project that falls outside budget. It does ‘violate’ strategic planning. We need to concern ourselves with using conference to generate project plans.


#62 World Board tell us how many candidates we ‘need’ to vote for—ie statistical projection—to elect people. Not adopt


#63 HRP figure out a single path for all nominations

no reco