Check back after each day of the WSC. Your RD Team will be posting updates and any materials we are asking for feedback on.
Sunday, May 3rd
Went to a virtual poolside recovery meeting with other WSC participants this morning. Feeling centered and a good connection to the WSC today.
If you are on Facebook (no endorsement or affiliation with NA) There is an excellent group/blog that has the most detailed and seemingly accurate record of our discussions that I’ve seen. The discussion is often recorded in the comments.
The last day of the WSC begins.
The first project plan we dealt with was one we had already spent some time on the day before. It doesn’t really seem like we did any prioritization… simply voting for or against the projects that the WB presented.
To accept two topics as our beginning focus for the Local Service Toolbox project:
1. Online Meetings Best Practices
2. Carrying the NA Message Effectively
I had queried “who” #2 was aimed at and “what” message specifically it was going to address, as well as concerns that there be no deviation from the message in our Basic Text the previous day, with not much answer. Stephen posed the question today, and was told “Yes” the message intended was the message from our Basic Text.
I voted Yes, as had been discussed with Region regarding the CAT motion.
The motion passed, as shown in the following screen shot.
The next project plan was for revising an IP length piece of literature. The Loner – IP #21 was the only option presented.
I vote Yes and the motion passed as shown above.
The next motion was to conduct further project prioritization and discussion later in the conference cycle.
I voted Yes and the motion passed with consensus support.
The next motion took up over 3 hours of discussion and straw polling. With much of the discussion revolving around how much or little CAR business would be dealt with, as well as CAT motions.
We straw polled the above motion 5 times, then had an amendment and straw polled that several times before finally abandoning that motion and discussing the following motion, presented by one of the Co-facilitators:
We straw polled this twice and then did a final vote, where it passed.
I voted Yes. It was interesting to note that most of the WB voted against any of the motions to return to the CAR… I would have liked to have heard their reasoning for voting as such.
We wrapped up the WSC session (WSC is not done, as we will reconvene at a later date, based on the motion we passed), with a moving memorial video for Marry Ellen, a WB member who passed this past year.
We will meet at 11am June 27th for our next Conference Participant’s Web Meeting, where we will hopefully have some better idea of when our next Virtual WSC sessions will be.
Saturday, May 2nd
Voting results on motions V3 – V10:
All motions, with the exception of V5 passed.
Straw poll (non-binding) results for where to go next with the WSC follow:
Based on these, we will be discussing where to go next at our meeting Sunday. I hope to have the opportunity to get some feedback and direction from the CIRNA RSC at our break between sessions.
A motion to challenge was presented:
There was a motion from 14 regions to overturn the votes on V3 – V10 because discussion was not allowed, among other reasons.
After extensive discussion and 3 straw polls, there was not enough straw poll support to continue.
Although we had already been presented all of the results from the CAR survey, Tana took the time to review a number of the responses before asking for straw polling of the items as they relate the WB projects plans.
We closed out business partway through the project plans.
Wednesday, April 29th
The Human Resources Panel (HRP) chairperson made a detailed report explaining the the process they utilize to screen and review candidates (they screened candidates for World Board, Facilitator/Co-facilitator, and HRP members and provided good information for all of the candidates).
The HRP chair also presented a video with a brief hello (name and location) from each of the candidates they had screened. Not included in the video were candidates who were nominated directly from regions or zones (those candidates do not go through the HRP screening process).
We will be asked to vote for candidates after closing the second session today.
The Co-fac made note of the fact that all voting participants were present.
The meeting was turned over to Anthony for discussion about NAWS’ response to COVID-19. After a brief rundown of NAWS’ response, he moved to discussion regarding a research project:
- 2 researchers who have worked with NAWS previously to publish papers which our PR committees were then able to utilize to demonstrate the effectiveness of our program.
- These researchers are assisting in presenting our fellowship as a “viable” program of recovery to other professionals.
- Extensive discussion ensued regarding the research, other research available, and their impact on our credibility with professionals
While interesting discussion, this was not the first time that I asked myself, “Does this really qualify as the ’emergency business’ we came together for?
Discussion of the results of ePolls and moving forward.
Tana (WB Chair) acknowledged that they were not really prepared for Sunday’s afternoon session.
None of the 23 Amendments proposed to motion V2 had enough support.
Motion 2VR was proposed by the WB:
To adopt the Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. emergency budget for 2021-2022 as presented.
Based on the discussion we had at our regional motion regarding deficit budgets, I voted no at each opportunity.
Straw Poll 1:110y, 18n, 2ab, 2pnv
Straw Poll 2:108y, 23n, 1ab, 1pnv
Final words from Tana: We are collectively committed to reducing expenses.
Tuesday, April 28th
Voting on Motions V3 – V10 is Due Today
I had hoped to have time to discuss the motions further in our Zoom meeting at 5:30 today, but that won’t be the case. All votes are due by the 5:30 start time of our Zoom meeting.
At this point, the World Board has pulled motion V2, probably to see what impact the amendments below have, and the matter will be discussed at one of our next sessions.
23 Amendments were proposed to the budget. Another way to think about that is that 17% of the 135 voting participants took issue with some portion of the proposed Emergency Budget.
When we discussed the budget from the CAT at our March RSC, I asked for direction from the body regarding what level of deficit they were comfortable with. The consensus was clearly “low” to “no” deficit in the budget. Chances are, I’ll be voting against the Emergency Budget, as I don’t think they’ll bring the numbers down to a level I could reasonably consider “low” to “no” deficit.
Sunday, April 26th
Emergency Budget was submitted. Although it includes some cuts in the first year, it really doesn’t seem to be realistic. Anthony E., the Executive Director of NAWS, basically said the same in his report. He has said several times now that it is clear that funding NAWS, Inc. based on literature sales is not a viable model to fund our services moving forward.
Hilights from Discussion of Emergency Budget by WSC Participants:
- There is concern that the Emergency Budget has a higher deficit that the original CAT Budget
- What happened to lowering the deficit?
- Income has been lowered by 33%, but expenses have only been cut by 11%, why not more?
- Anthony said several times that any budget is only ever a best-guess, and that in this case, things are too fluid to predict. They are asking for our trust to adapt as new information arises.
- Maybe it’s time to restructure WSC
- Look to the Future of Zones Workgroups
- This crisis is a big chance to re-evaluate the role of the WSC and Zones
- Hire management consultant
- What will Delegate involvement in budget adjustment be?
- (From Anthony E.) A corporation is not going to engage an external entity in managing its budget… the directors (WB) have this fiduciary responsibility.
- It is clear that the Print-Funded model for NAWS is not sustainable, can we use this time to create a workgroup to start discussing the NAWS financial model and what we can do?
Thoughts for discussion:
- MOTION V2 – Several amendments were proposed in the afternoon session. I will provide these once we receive the body of the motions.
- MOTION V2 – I am hoping for clarification if the “Emergency financial frame” mentioned in the motion is intended to be the “Emergency budget” as provided and discussed today.
- MOTION V3 – Seems like an overly wordy and possibly useless motion, saying “As WSC Participants we acknowledge and accept” doesn’t seem to accomplish anything… It gets confusing in the middle when it says “We will consider each project plan…” Based on the previous wording, We would be the WSC Participants. But, base on the maker (WB), it seems likely the We is intended to be the World Board.
- FUNDRAISING VIA DONATIONS — It seems that the current fundraising push seems to be putting NAWS in competition with meetings for funds. We’ve already established that NAWS is a business… Anthony said this several times yesterday… How do we reconcile ourselves with this? Is NAWS now actively marketing and competing with Groups and other service bodies for funds?
New Motions from the World Board:
Seven new motions (motions V4 – V10) were added from the World Board, all in regards to Project Plans from the 2020 CAT (Conference Approval Track).
Each of the new motions corresponds to a motion from the CAT. I have included the CAT motion number in case you want more information, and also included the direction we discussed voting at region.
CAT MOTION 18 – (yes)
To approve the Spiritual Principle a Day project for inclusion in the 2020‐2022 Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. budget.
This was specified to us at $75,000 at the WSZF in January.
CAT MOTION 19 – (no)
To approve the New Recovery Information Pamphlets project plan.
CAT MOTION 20 – (no)
To approve the Revising Existing Recovery Information Pamphlets project plan.
CAT MOTION 21 – (no)
To approve the Issue Discussion Topics (IDTs) project plan.
CAT MOTION 22 – (yes)
To approve the Local Service Toolbox project plan.
CAT MOTION 23 – (no)
To approve the Role of Zones project plan.
CAT MOTION 24 – (no)
To approve the Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust (FIPT) revision project plan.
If you are a member of the California Inland Region, we encourage you to email email@example.com with concern or feedback regarding any of the material or motions mentioned.
Saturday, April 25th
We have completed our first 2 days of WSC 2020.
We spent most of the day discussing the Emergency Budget (which wasn’t ready for review, but has since been provided).
If you are a member of the California Inland Region, we encourage you to email firstname.lastname@example.org with concern or feedback regarding the budget or the following motions.
For tomorrow, we will be asked to vote on the following 2 motions, both proposed by the World Board.
To adopt an emergency financial frame to serve as the World Service Conference approved budget for Narcotics Anonymous World Service, Inc. for the fiscal years 2021 and 2022. We acknowledge that this frame will be adjusted by the World Board during the cycle as a result of current and changing conditions. All adjustments made will be reported to conference participants.
Intent: To fulfill the responsibilities required of NA World Services, Inc as the trustee called out in Article IV, Section 12 of the FIPT and current policies in GWSNA while at the same time acknowledging the uncertain and changing circumstances of the world. All other reporting requirements remain the same.
Article IV: Rights and responsibilities of the Trustee
Section 12: Trustee reporting obligation
Each year, the Trustee shall give a full written report of its activities to the Trustor. This report shall be delivered to all participants of the World Service Conference at or before its biennial meeting, and shall be available at cost or less to any Narcotics Anonymous member. This report shall include:
1. A year-end financial report of the previous calendar year.
2. A description of all Trustee activities funded from proceeds generated by the Trust in the previous year.
3. A budget and project description for Trustee activities planned for the coming conference cycle.
As WSC 2020 participants, we acknowledge our understanding and acceptance that all 2020-2022 project plans were created and offered before the current world crisis and public health-imposed quarantine and will only be worked on when and if the resources become available. We will consider each project plan presented for the 2020-2022 cycle on a project by project basis as required by current conference policy with this qualification. We will also provide priorities for the plans for new and revising existing Recovery IPs, IDTs, and the Local Service Toolbox plan.
Intent: To continue to fulfill the responsibilities required of the conference for the initiation of projects.
Friday, April 24th
Things got off to a slow start, with 135 voting Participants in attendance, and 250+ total attendees. Much of the day was spent on procedural business and training on how to use the tools in our virtual meeting room.
The following motion was proposed by the World Board and passed by a Strong Consensus vote (giving ourselves authorization to conduct the WSC virtually).
Because current government law, public health orders, and other crisis-related effects preclude conducting the World Service Conference in person, we resolve that all 2020 World Service Conference participants may participate and vote remotely in the same manner as the current policy for participants who are unable to obtain visas:
“Participants who are unable to attend the WSC due to visa issues may participate remotely. Remote participants have the same rights as if they were at the WSC” 2018 GWSNA
Intent: To allow WSC 2020 to make decisions on issues that participants have selected to proceed with virtually in April 2020. These issues include an emergency budget and project plans, elections, and the FIPT moratorium end date.