Too Tired To Fight

Finally, I have to admit that all the stress got to me. The fact that Dave died, and the judge would not allow us to substitute defendants for him, and his informing us we would have to sue them (which I already said above would not put us in a position to win), that they seemed to be pushing the concepts so well onto unsuspecting newcomers or those with a need for power who knew better, and that the WSO's propaganda machine seemed to be well tuned by now, was more than I could bear. Books started churning out of the office, step workbooks (just like the ones they needed for the treatment center funding) were announced, and I admit totally that I just gave up. While Bob Stone did leave office, the other three men who were behind him are still in our service structure pulling strings. I decided to remarry, and move out of state, completely dropping out of N.A. service forever. How can you fight Big Brother part time on a single mom's salary when everyone who won't take the time to look at the evidence thinks you're crazy? Why bother anymore with N.A. I wondered? I'm clean, so screw you all right? I didn't go to meetings for three years. I stayed in contact with my sponsor and other addicts with double digit time who understood how I felt, because many of them too had thrown in the towel and gone into almost isolation so the pain wouldn't be felt. Finally my sponsor lowered the boom. He told me to get more involved, or find another sponsor. I was living in a very rural area at the time with no N.A. meetings for at least a hundred miles, so I decided it was easier to move. I moved to an area where no one knew my background, nor anything about the controversy over the last ten years. I was asked to GSR a meeting, and did so like I thought was always done. I hadn't realized that the fellowship I once knew like the back of my hand, had changed so drastically in the last three years. I attended the General Assembly last week, on April 19th, and haven't been able to sleep since. I'm not shouting "fire" in a theatre _ the theatre is on fire. Let me take just a few points addressed in Theresa Middlebrook's letter that went out to the Transition Group for the World Service Conference Group just recently: 1. Please note her letter only addresses the legal aspects of this merger, not our traditions, or our fellowship's best interests. I must add it's also slanted. She's been in on the plan to merge this fellowship since 1990. She's been at the same meetings I have and I can guarantee you on my recovery that there's more to what she's saying here than what she's saying. This letter is pure propaganda to make you think this merger is harmless _ when it isn't. TRADITIONS VIOLATION _ An N.A. Group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the N.A. name to any RELATED FACILITY OR OUTSIDE ENTERPRISE , lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose. The World Service Office is not a group, nor is it Narcotics Anonymous. It is truly an outside enterprise. Their primary purpose is not ours, and money, property and prestige does divert them from OUR primary purpose. Any organization that feels $50,000 for Fed Ex letters to private members addresses threatening them with a lawsuit for not complying with a copyright they didn't even legally have is not someone we should lend OUR name to. The WSO bylaws state that they are purely a business office, and not us. How can we put our name on them? If it's not a traditions violation, then why does A.A. not call their General Service Office the Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Office in the phone book and in their incorporation papers? Call information in New York and you'll find that even the great A.A., whom we are supposed to be modeling our concepts after, does not list the General Office as the A.A. General Office. I have copies of their incorporation papers, which do not have the A.A. name on them. 2. She talks about the "impact of not spending $21,000 to update the trademark registrations" should this name change be approved. Who is the heck is going to use our name, initials, etc., but us? This is not to protect us, but to give them power to go after others who don't go along with their wishes. 3. It's said that Charles Ross of Thomas Harvey researched how we did business, and "concluded that only one entity was needed" for both corporations. Is Mr. Ross an addict? When he made this decision, did he consider our traditions? Who makes up the boards on these corporations? While the Convention is part of our fellowship, the office isn't. A fact I don't believe was an accident that it wasn't addressed. Who decides how the money is spent on both boards? Where does the money go? This is the plan I heard being made to have the WSO take over the convention money over nine years ago come to life. DON'T FALL FOR IT! 4. Catch this "avoided would be the need for new bank accounts, an extra set of returns, new permits, new contracts", etc. The convention is set up as a "for profit" so that an itemized tax return is filed so all can see what was raised and spent, and because items are sold retail, thus meaning sales tax has to be accounted for and paid out. The separate bank account is because different people are supposed to be signing on the accounts, and different people in control of them. WSO is a nonprofit organization, supposedly only selling literature to areas and regions for resale to groups. They ARE completely different organizations. DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU INTO LETTING THE WOLF SIGN ON THE CHICKEN'S BANK ACCOUNT BY TELLING YOU IT'S SIMPLY TO "SAVE MONEY". This lawyer and this accountant are supposed to be on our side BUT THEY ARE NOT. What would you think of a man going through a divorce who used his wife's divorce lawyer to save money? 5. She says she doesn't want to address "language and procedural questions that were discussed and addressed in the past", and prefers to work with "people who were already familiar with the old WSO and bylaws". In other words, she wants to draw the wagons around and not let the outsiders peek in. There's some tough questions she doesn't want to answer here. There are language and procedural questions she simply doesn't want you to know about folks! 6. "A general provision is included requiring Board members to abide by the Twelve Traditions and the Twelve Concepts" which contradict each other. So if one says "do it" and the other says "don't do it", I guess this just gives them their pick doesn't it? Who calls it on opposite concepts? 7. "Great care was taken NOT to give the WSC the LEGAL power to direct the affairs of the corporation . . . ". This reminds me of a car I once bought. The salesman told me I had three days to bring the car back for a full refund if I was unhappy when I got it home. On the way home, the car blew up on the freeway. I towed the car back that day, only to be told by the manager that I signed a contract stating that "all oral assurances were made void upon execution of the written contract if they were not included in the written contract". I contacted a lawyer who said basically that gives them the license to tell me anything they want to get me to sign, but gets them off the hook once I sign. Here this woman is saying that we're supposed to combine the two boards where the fellowship is supposed to rule over "special employees", and give the "special employees" the right to tell the fellowship to go screw themselves if they don't want to follow their wishes or honor their judgement. Who's in charge then? How can it be us? 8. Don't miss this one folks _ "if giving the WSC the power to go to court to compel certain action was desired . . . " Okay _ let's take away all possible rights of remedy for an out of control board. They don't have to listen to us on a polite level, and if we feel they're too out of hand and feel forced to take them to court, they want to make sure we have no legally enforceable power. HOW CAN THEY BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO US, WHO THEY SERVE, IF WE CAN'T CONTROL, DIRECT OR STOP THEM EXCEPT WHEN THEY "FEEL LIKE" IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST"? 9. Don't be scared by her threat of "economic disaster” that could put their corporate assets at risk. The office and the N.A. literature are two separate items. It's the office that can make bad financial decisions, and that could be sued, not the fellowship. Therefore, the only one liable for a bad business decision, "as is" is the office, not our literature, trademarks, etc. By entwining us with them, that makes us responsible for their debts. In other words, they're trying to say they want to protect us, but what they're doing is putting our literature, properties and copyrights up as their collateral. GUYS, WE'VE GOT TO BRING IN AN INDEPENDENT LAWYER OF OUR OWN BEFORE THIS GETS OUT OF HAND ANY FURTHER! There is doubt as to who Narcotics Anonymous is in a court's mind. Certainly enough that Dave won his lawsuit hands down against the office, the propaganda machine, and high powered attorneys. They've scrambled to try to make themselves N.A. ever since, so that there is no more doubt in a judge's mind should this ever go to trial again, and it might. They're telling you this is to protect you, but it's really to protect them and leave us vulnerable. The copyrights to our Basic Text were given to a trust to our fellowship, and only given away from their authors under those assurances. While Dave was fighting it out in court, they scrambled and changed all the paperwork around to protect their position, and assume control of the copyrights WITHOUT TAKING A FELLOWSHIP CONSCIENCE ON THIS ISSUE. If I'm wrong, did you personally ever vote on whether or not to take the copyrights out of the fellowship's name, and put them into the World Service Office's name? I didn't think so. These copyrights are no longer in the fellowship's name, and the literature is being altered without the author's consent, nor with the fellowship's group conscience consent. This means that as it stands, the copyrights to the Basic Text are in the office's name under false pretenses, and were taken away from their rightful owners by fraud. They are the ones vulnerable to a lawsuit, and they are still scrambling to protect themselves as we speak. This push to change their name to "Narcotics Anonymous" might be viewed as a judge as them being Narcotics Anonymous, and having a right to the copyrights. THE WORLD SERVICE OFFICE IS NOT NARCOTICS ANONYMOUS. They are not a fellowship of men and women, and are not under our direct control. They do not follow our orders, and as expressed in this letter addressed to the conference attendees, they don&#0

Chapter Sixteen

The Vocal Minority

During the 1980's a term was developed to describe, altogether, the people who read all the minutes, reports and were often participants in events that involved the founding of the NA Fellowship - expanded from an idea into a reality based in freshly written literature. They were totally unafraid and would speak up loudly if there were breaches of policy at WSO or anywhere in our service structure. In the beauty of hindsight, it appears that these fine members who stayed up on the mail, made copies of key documents and reports, drove thousands of miles a year to attend service workshops and conferences as well as the usual conventions of NA - these members we considered out of line and simply negative. Since they spoke up when things were done in violation of our written, approved, service structure and our 12 Traditions, those uninformed members who were committing the violations felt less than generous towards their concerns. The fact that the WSO manager and later executive director, Bob Stone, was not an addict made it easy for him to see these members simply as malcontents who jumped at an opportunity to attack someone for a real or imaginary violation. It was one of those strange times in history where a smaller group builds on the basic ideas and principles of a program and thereby moves in advance of the main body to conclusions that would only appear to the greater body in hindsight.

You have to wonder if they had numbered tens of thousands instead of only thousands, what would they have been called? The "Vocal Members?" Of course they were vocal! They represented the part of our Fellowship who cared enough to deal with the mounting paperwork and very often were key figures in the growth and development of NA in the hundreds of new communities emerging in the 1980's. Many of these treasured members are still in recovery and can be approached in one on one settings.

To do them justice, we need to consider:

1) what they were concerned about from WSC minutes and other sources,

2) how their concerns were brushed aside, often as a result of deliberately inaccurate or misleading information from World Services and

3) where they are today.

Of course, many are dead from addiction. They lost hope and fell by the wayside. Many just drew back from the source of their pain. When an organization breaks its own rules, members of good character and honorable disposition simply withdraw. We lost many of the finest members in our history to disorders that even now have not been factually resolved. Many of us did not fall by the wayside and found ways to stay active in NA with or without the structural involvement that characterized our early years. We are honored to witness their courage and dedication.

One of the most obvious instances of breaches of protocol is voting irregularities. These are most simply examined by considering the status of abstentions. In some voting bodies, there is a quorum of a set number based on participating groups or areas. Let’s say this number is twenty-seven. If simply motions are based on passing by simple majority, the vote would have to be fourteen to carry. If several participants were unable to attend or had to leave the assembly early, the number could drop to say, twenty-five. Then a majority would be thirteen. But if several members were unclear on the motion the might choose to abstain from voting while still willing to abide by the vote pro or con. Let’s say four of our participating group of twenty-five abstain. Now, passage would require eleven votes. The problem comes when some policies count abstentions as ‘no’ votes. Out of a number of twenty-five, they insist that it takes thirteen for a motion to carry, eleven is too few for the motion to carry where twenty-five members are present. So, in effect the abstentions are given the value of a no vote because the required number of votes to pass a motion is based on members present instead of members voting for or against the motion. This seems simple enough until a situation occurs where the policy is set one way and the chairperson rules that passage requires a majority of members present, not members voting.

Now, some members feel that the right to abstain includes that their vote is not counted either way, as a yes or a no. When this item comes up, there is a strong push to carry the motion on the part of members supporting the motion. Pushing past the rules by which the body ordinarily governs itself is a breach of policy and indicates disunity among voting members.

In general, a chairperson in a spiritual fellowship would either carry forward voting to the next session or at least extend discussion prior to calling for a vote. This allows members to think the item through more carefully. Opposition can state their concerns in more details. Supporters can explain their position more clearly. By the time the voting takes place, there should be a degree of certainty that not only the members voting are satisfied, they are prepared to explain their position to the members to whom they are directly responsible. 

[July 29, 2004]

Chapter Seventeen

Twelve Concepts

“The Twelve Concepts are the greatest threat to the NA Twelve Traditions ever.”

Con-Saps

It requires a period of study to comprehend what happened and comparison with the AA 12 Concepts gives the reader a quick basis for comparison. The Concepts should be clear and useful, not lending themselves, as they do, to intrigue and advantage over members not familiar with them. The Right to Redress for instance, implies that redress will somehow open up the minds and hearts of a group of members who has just taken a negative position towards an individual or their actions. Actually, this should rarely, if ever happen in a spiritual setting. If it does happen, by definition, the setting is not spiritual. So, it has the effect of approving bad behavior by the group. Most frequenly, what I hear and agree with is that a group that has just stomped on somebody, is usually ready to do it again and doesn't particularly care to re-examine the case. 

[The following article was originally drawn from a member who was concerned and creatively thoughtful. - Ed]                                    CON - SAPS con (kon), adv. [contr. <L. contra, against], against; in opposition: as, they argued the matter pro and con. n. an argument, reason, vote, person, etc. in opposition. con (kon), v.t. [conned (kond), conning], [earlier cond <me. conduen, to conduct; OFr. conduire; L. conducere; see conduct], to direct the course of (a vessel). con (kon), adi. [Slang], confidence: as, a con man. Vt. [conned (kond), conning], [Slang] to swindle (a victim) by first gaining his confidence. sap (sap), n. 1. the juice which circulates through a plant, especially a woody plant, bearing water, food, etc. to the tissues. 2. Any fluid considered vital to the life or health of an organism. 3. vigor; energy; vitality. 4. sapwood. 5. [< dial. sapskull & saphead], [Slang], a stupid person; fool. vt. [sapped (sapt), sapping], to drain of sap. sap (sap), n. [OFr. sappe < the v.], an extended, narrow trench for approaching or undermining an enemy position or besieged place. v.t. [sapped (sapt), sapping], 1. to undermine by digging away foundations; dig beneath. 2. to undermine in any way; weaken; exhaust; devitalize. v.i. 1. to dig saps. 2. to approach an enemy’s position by saps.--SYN. see weaken.

Concerning the “Twelve Concepts for Service” no real study has yet been made either by we Traditionalists or (we would say) by the current structure. Some of us would say this alone is a good argument against them. This is one addict’s perspective. You will no doubt see more from others in the coming months and there are doubtless others with greater knowledge than I. During most of NA’s history I was not here; I was busy (down at the dope house). I am an inheritor of the present situation.

Going all the way back there have always been two schools of thought, if you will - one that believed in greater administrative control or a more business oriented approach to the development of our Fellowship, and the other which opposed this, basing themselves (we believe) more strictly (or literally) on our Traditions. Viewed in this way the last 10 years can be seen as a protracted trouncing of one school of thought over the other, culminating, it seems today, in the adoption of the Concepts. Once upon a time “NA as such” was the Groups and the Traditions were their non-negotiable and only guidelines. The service structure was built to serve only and was defined outside of NA. Groups (NA as such) and service boards or committees were understood to be distinctly different entities. All we knew about authority was contained in the 2nd Tradition: defined on the Group. All we knew about service boards or committees was contained in the 9th Tradition: we (the Group[s]) may create them and they must be directly responsible to those they serve (again, the Groups).

It is interesting to reflect upon the phrase “directly responsible”. This section of our non-negotiable guidelines might just have easily read, “in some manner responsible to” or “through a representative system, indirectly responsible to” or “directly” could have been left out altogether to leave more room for “trust”. It was not, of course. Viewed in this manner the Traditions “add up” and hang together as a cohesive set. Viewed otherwise they give rise to more ambiguity than answers. Questions raised over the years have included: If our Traditions are only about Groups, does this mean service boards or committees may go ahead and freely violate Traditions? If the service structure has a Fifth Tradition (the current supreme raison d’etat) why does it not also have a Seventh Tradition? Can our services function without their own set of guidelines? How can our services function in an effective and timely manner if every decision must go back to the Groups?

As you no doubt know, the lines in our Text which defined the service structure outside of NA, forbidding them to rule, censor, decide, or dictate, and guaranteeing to the Groups the right to use or not use such services were deleted under scandalous circumstances. It has been said that “they deleted the lines that prevented them from deleting the lines.”

Efforts to come to terms with some of the above questions, and perhaps ultimately, “If the service structure is not NA then what is it?" gave rise a few years ago to a proposed Twelve Precepts for Service. This was written by a Trustee and circulated on a small scale for feedback. A later version seems much more sympathetic to the "authority" of the structure. We can guess where most of his feedback came from. With the printing of the Baby Blue in 1990 by autonomous NA Groups and the willingness of one member to become a spokesperson and focal point, these issues were rescued from oblivion and the syndrome of "a lie repeated often enough will become accepted". There came a frantic effort to hush up, cover up, clean up, approve retroactively and anticipate the next moves of this insignificant "handful" of trouble-making members (often called non-members). When I look back at the World Service Conference Reports for 1990-93 it looks like 3/4 of it is thus motivated. It was in this context and atmosphere that the Concepts were hastily approved at the World Service Conference. The first Concept seems to imply that our right to create a service structure began and ended with the one, now only “Approved" one. Given that service boards or committees continue to be created by service boards or committees constantly, (isn't the solution found by bureaucracy to bureaucratic problems always to create more bureaucracy?) it would appear that possession of this right has "changed hands". Another Concept says that grievances should be heard. It offers no further recourse or guarantee. Thus "let's just take him out in the parking lot and kick his ass" (an infamous WSO quote from 1991) might have to be, "let's give him 1 minute to talk then take him out in the parking lot and kick his ass" - a far cry from ideals such as freedom, autonomy and a Loving God.

Another Concept seems to define Group Conscience as decision-making without votes. Its always seemed to me that a better word for this is consensus. Many of us feel that this is the preferred way of deciding things as a Group. The problem is that the Concepts do not define Group Conscience on the Group(!), thus retroactively approving what has always been the practice in many places - the practice of decision-making by service boards or committees: Hence, 'The RSO BOD took a Group Conscience and decided that...". We have seen this kind of confusing use of our language more and more lately (This is in fact, along with the name "Concepts", A.A. language). And a Fellowship filling up with addicts who weren't here a year ago would seem now to find an against-all-odds chance for clarity...

Another Concept gives servants charged with carrying out decisions a right to "full participation" in those decisions. In practice, this is the legitimization of "administrative" or "add-in" votes. The original structure where only GSR's voted in ASC's, only ASR's voted in RSC's, and only RSR's voted at the WSC kept Group Conscience and thus decision-making defined on the Group. "Carrying conscience" is probably another bit of our terminology that will soon cease to have meaning. At each level approximately one-third of votes are cast by committee vice-chairs, offices, treasurers, subcommittee chairs, etc., who are carrying no conscience from any Group or Groups and naturally tend to have an administrative perspective or a vested interest, if you will. We say that in this manner the Ultimate Authority is diluted or corrupted along the way. The fact that this was the practice at the WSC as well as many RSC's and ASC's prior to the approval of the Concepts means that this historic transferal of decision-making power from the Groups to the service structure was legitimized without the approval of the Groups (do you remember your Home Group's decision on this one?). Or we could say that they delegated themselves the authority to delegate themselves the authority.                                                      [end of article]

 

 

[July 29, 2004]

Chapter Eighteen

Political Correctness

”Political Correctness. What is it and how does it affect Narcotics Anonymous?  Should it be a part of the discussion? Is it a myth or reality?”

"All liars believe everyone lies, All thieves believe everyone steals." Those in power can not believe we work without desire for political power, Those with money can not believe we work without thought of gain, Those who stand on others can not believe we seek to elevate the member and not ourselves. Those who believe in no Higher Power cannot comprehend  we trust Spirit to guide and build as needed.