Western States Zonal Forum Meeting Record

August 2, 3 & 4, 2002 Portland, Oregon

Friday 8/2/02

Meeting opened by Michael M. with a moment of silence followed by the Serenity prayer at 5:07 pm.

Introduction of the facilitator – Greg I.

Introductions of participants and observers.

Cathy K. discussed after hours attractions.

Greg I. discussed logistical information (bathrooms, internet, late check-out, etc.)

TOPICS:

Added topics:

- Incorporation of Regions/Areas

- Taxes

- Creation of co-op Areas

- Regional Assemblies

Deleted topics:

- All Texas Convention – Texas State Convention

REPORTS:

California Mid-State Region - Bryan Walker (RD)

Christi Weaver (RDA)

Washington-Northern Idaho Region – Rex Smith (RD)

Franney Jardine (RDA)

Southern California Region – Debbie (RD)

Arizona Region – Greg (RD)

Northern California Region – Roseann Berthron-Arechiga (RD)

Jimmy Lee Provance (RDA)

Sierra-Sage Region – Vince P. (RD)

Sarah G. (RDA)

Pacific Cascade Region – Michael Miller (RD)

Cathy Klupenger (RDA)

Marisha Johnson (2^nd RDA)

San Diego Imperial County Region – Pat H. (RD)

Southern Idaho Region – Tom W. (RD)

Central California Region – George Littleton (RD)

Steve Ferris (RDA)

Angie Young (2^nd RDA)

Saturday 8/3/02

Opened at 8:35am with a moment of silence followed by the Serenity Prayer.

Roll Call.

Greg distributed copies of the PCRSC Loss and Recovery of NA funds guidelines and PNWCNA guidelines.

GUIDELINES:

Current wording under Functions The summer meeting…

3. Previously submitted topics and any new topics for the weekend are prioritized during the forum on Friday evening. This will be replaced by 3A below.

1. Proposed wording:

- 3A will be added to the guidelines (consensus)

3A. Friday evening of the summer meeting the list of topics that were selected and prioritized in advance of the meeting will be displayed. Any new suggestions for topics will be added. Any consensus on combining any of the topics will be gathered by the facilitator. The topics will then be reprioritized for Saturday morning.

-

- 3B will be added to the guidelines (consensus)

- 3B. During the discussion of topics at the summer meeting there will be a 3 minute limit per person and a 1 hour limit per topic.

2. Guidelines accepted by consensus

3. Correction made to wording of guidelines (biannual change to biennial)

Discussion regarding who should facilitate the WSZF. Decided to leave it up to the hosting region as to who would facilitate – RD or outside facilitator.

REPORTS CONT’D:

Region 51 – Jeff Horn (RD)

Rick Whitman (RDA)

Rio Grande Region – Jim Walker (RD)

BIDS:

Region 51

Rio Grande Region – Accepted by consensus– will look at holding it the first or fourth weekend in August of 2003.

TOPIC #1 (2^ND ALTERNATE DELEGATES)

• Steve F. – seeking consensus re: how many use a 2^nd; why don’t others? Decision to continue use of 2^nd RDA based partly on fear of people not fulfilling their position
• Cathy – PCR chose to utilize 2^nd due to length of commitments (3 people serving for 6 years rather than 2 people serving for 8 years); Cathy sees having the 2^nd attend the WSC was a beneficial learning experience
• Pat – Deciding whether or not to continue with the 2^nd RDA position. SDICR confused regarding the role of a 2^nd RDA.
• Jim – RGR; funding questions; forwarding RD travel allotment to NAWS
• Bryan – CMR not using 2^nd alternates; questions regarding term length
• Eileen – Attending the WSC gave her a better idea of what to expect and helped her feel more comfortable with her position.
• 3 Regions utilizing a 2^nd RDA – 11 not utilizing a 2^nd RDA
• Angie – Best way to learn about what happens and the process is to be there
• Michael M. – money regions use to fund a 2^nd RDA could be used to help less fortunate regions fund their RDA’s. PCR will keep 2^nd RDA position for 2 more conference cycles to see how it works.
• Michael Mc. – May be a lot of purpose to a 2^nd RDA rather than just the issue of attending the WSC (i.e. help with admin., help with traveling the region, fellowship)

**15 minute break**

TOPIC #2 (CONSENSUS – WORKSHOP EXPERIENCE)

• George – Used small group discussion and consensus for voting on the CAR; working at getting consensus based decision making at the area level; would like to see opposition given the floor to discuss their views; likes the aspect of learning from decisions rather than having an “I told you so attitude”.
• Jeff – question regarding the working definition of consensus
• Michael Mc. – World Board does not have a definition at this time; board has internal guidelines about how the Board uses consensus based decision making; difficulty is that a consensus is developed; sometimes a vote is still used; this is cultural shift that will not be made overnight; consensus needs to start at a grassroots level at the groups
• Bryan – Ron H. has a lot of information regarding consensus based decision making
• Jimmy Lee – not about who is right and who is wrong, but about looking outside of the box and listening for new information; trying something different
• Eileen – wants information from other regions using consensus rather than Robert’s Rules of Order; how did they implement it? How is it working?
• Franney – WNIR is not using consensus; watched an area switch – voted out guidelines and bylaws; anyone can participate; decision would be made when 75% were partially in favor of, then brought back at the next meeting; movement is not made until consensus is reached; chairperson invites objection
• Roseann – find a way that works for each body; trying to find a balance; NCR utilizes open forum

TOPIC #3 (REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES – OFF WSC YEAR PROGRAM)

• Michael M. – PCR first assembly was basically a CAR workshop; has evolved into topic discussion; holds an assembly biannually; provides continuity; Elections still take place in the old-school way; no voting at the assemblies – discussion only; RSC and assemblies rotate on a bid process; attendance by outlying area GSR’s is low, but overall attendance does well
• Bryan – Discussion based assemblies; November – discussion topics; Spring – small retreat/campvention; provides time for fellowship; funds some GSR’s; 162 people attend the spring assembly; give the GSR’s what they want not what we think they need
• Jimmy Lee – most areas have their own subcommittees, and not much regional fellowshipping; off-conference assemblies are not attended; apathy in service
• Eileen – nobody come to the off-conference assemblies
• Rex – held an assembly in conjunction with an activity and it was well attended; utilized a lot of small group discussion; beginning of getting people to think out of the box
• Greg – AR holds one assembly per year; pays for gas and food for GSR’s; members don’t like voting
• George – invited members of different subcommittees; RD’s are elected at the assembly
• Jeff – RD’s are elected at the assemblies which results in increased attendance

TOPIC #4 (DELIVERY OF SERVICES BY REGION AND ZONE)

• Angie – what are we really doing to serve the groups?
• Eileen – wanting more information about zonal participation at WSC.
• Franney – helping with facilitating area inventories; travel to area events; make themselves available for facilitating issue discussion topics; we provide services by asking what can I do and then following through with what they ask
• Christy – RD’s make themselves available to distribute information to groups and members
• Cathy – share experience with other representatives from the western states, RD’s are not invited to attend ASC’s
• Jeff – Region 51 has no formal committees – used as a way to distribute information to the member areas
• George – problems in the service body increase attentiveness by members; Zonal forums provide for RD’s with an avenue of learning and disbursing experience, strength, and hope; may help to provide integration of services
• Rex – attends member area ASC meetings as a visitor; helps members learn what services are available
• Bryan – guidelines require RD’s to attend ASC’s; co-operate with other regions; does not have many regional subcommittees in order not to duplicate services
• Jimmy Lee – local committees provide local service; zonal forums are used to share experience regarding situations that are new; zonal forums are sharing sessions; RD’s are able to use the forum as a sounding board; if there is no reason for zones to provide services then don’t do it
• Vince – felt as though he needed to validate why he was here; RD’s used to do very little; the conference was their “job”; SSR now holding workshops and small group discussions; zonal forums are an educational tool; region gains invaluably from RD’s attendance at the WSZF
• Michael M. – topic may have been raised by California Inland Region

**Lunch Break**

TOPIC #5 (WESTERN SERVICE LEARNING DAYS)

• Rex – Where are the guidelines approved? (Answer: at the yearly meeting) Who votes (no guidelines regarding this) Include all regions as speakers; does not feel that it is accountable to the NA groups; Should be accountable to the WSZF or the hosting region; questions the appropriateness of fundraising for this event; suggested that concerns be brought to the Sunday meeting by trusted servants from each region
• Angie – How are we to get representation at the yearly meeting (send someone to the meeting held on Sunday of WSLD)
• Steve – Who is responsible for the convention (answer: hosting region)
• Greg – Asked for the convention/Learning Days to pass on archive information to the next host committee; Asked for guidance regarding what is the purpose of the event (is it a learning day or a convention?) Possibility of providing a procedure manual? Needs to have accountability; Doesn’t have a problem with the event, but the way it is managed
• Franney – Would like to see a bid process put in motion including who the event is accountable to; learning days should include all services in the service structure; suggests having world board members present; would like to have an accountability of money information regarding who gives and gets money
• Michael Mc. – Mid-State did a great job!! Suggestion made to speak to the EDM about gaining some accountability for this convention/learning days (send an e-mail to Francois)
• Jim – RGR did not know about WSLD
• Roseanne – Questions regarding the clarity of the guidelines; discussion regarding the possibility that it has outlived its purpose
• Jimmy Lee – no clear definition of accountability; feels that WSLD should go away
• Christy – feels that it is good way to disburse information to the areas; Mid-State sends their area H&I and PI Chairs to WSLD
• Michael M. – we don’t have authority over it; give the information back to our regions and ask them what they want to do with it

WORLD BOARD REPORT

• Michael Mc.’s final WSZF – gave the report.
• Did not lose money at the convention – 13,729 paid registrations (higher than San Jose), highest ratio of attendance to registration, 86% registered attendance (no idea how that happened), made approximately $150,000; $19,368 made at the Unity Days; informational meeting happening today regarding the San Diego World Convention; tapes will be reviewed using the WSO tape review board; names can be sent in with first and last name, phone number, and clean date (10 years for main speaker, 5 years for workshop speaker); looking for our early members and people instrumental in starting regions and areas; looking at changing the alternative store rules
• NA way is also looking stories at the startup of areas and regions
• Next weekend will be the first meeting of the world board – elections will be held
• Executive committee will stay at 4 members, Fellowship Resource Committee 2; Guardians 2; PR 3; Pubs 3; Events on hiatus
• Will be going to China with the World Health Organization – taking literature and will be starting Chinese speaking NA groups
• Worldwide workshops – UK workshop is happening at the end of this month; will be having one in Austin, TX; Will be having one in Philadelphia; negotiating having one in India; Latin America is up in the air (possibly Ecuador or Chile)
• HRP will be meeting with the board
• Response to the survey unknown at this time
• The cutbacks at the WB does not seem to effect the services offered, more world pool members will be used much more J
• Professional consultant used to facilitate the meetings
• New world pool forms have not been sent out to already registered world pool members
• Work groups will be formed for the San Diego convention soon
• Discussion continuing regarding making the main speaker meeting at WCNA a “badged” event
• No discussion yet regarding having a World Services Meeting at WCNA
• Question regarding World wanting archive material for WCNA
• World Pool elections were discussed – it would be nice to ask nominees questions; board is working on election and HRP processes
• Groups are welcome to fill out the Lit Survey as a whole, but they suggest that individuals fill out the survey
• Completely reimbursed ($289,000) minus $2500; a civil suit will be filed to recoup other costs associated with this issue
• Members and/or groups can request the literature review; Deadline to request info is October 31^st ; Deadline to return information to WSO is March 1^st, 2003.

TOPIC #6 (WSC 2002-2004 ISSUE DISCUSSION TOPICS)

• Michael M. – Format of issue discussion topics are different than previous years

TOPIC #7 (TAXES AND INCORPORATION)

• Vince – has gotten a lot of information and contacts at the WSZF; RSO treasurer has not filed taxes for the last 7 years; owes approximately $4500 for the past 2 years in penalties and interests; had an area using the SSRSC’s tax ID
• Jim – wanted clarification on the position of the SSR
• Greg – Wanted to know who did the taxes – a member of NA or a private CPA?
• Michael M. – Shared information that the Portland Area incorporated and told the groups that they needed to use the ASC’s Tax ID # - This is not correct and should not be done – if there is theft you will not have recourse if not incorporated
• Roseanne – You can get a Tax ID # without being incorporated – call the IRS for the form – This number can be reused – you do not have to be incorporated to sue in civil suit
• Bryan – Convention committees have separate Tax ID #’s rather using the region’s #
• Cathy – Question regarding whether or not our Region/Areas should incorporate
• Franney – If your convention is 500 people or less you probably do not need to incorporate; talk to an attorney; if you are not handling in excess of $100,00 a year it may not be worthwhile to incorporate
• Greg – you do not need to be incorporated to get insurance; find someone who understands the issues of our fellowship
• Jimmy Lee – Cautions against outside entities using our non-profit status as a tax right off which is a traditions violation
• Marie (observer) – the income on a Tax ID # is tracked by the IRS to see if an entity has to file (do not use another bodies ID #) – GET OUTSIDE HELP (i.e. tax lawyer, CPA)

TOPIC #8 (SPECIFIC NEEDS AND LIT DEVELOPMENT)

• Bryan – How can we be proactive in development of specific needs literature
• Michael M. – questions whether drug specific literature is appropriate;
• Roseann – trying to develop literature as PI tools; ways to reach the addict who still suffers
• Vince – Wanting literature to target specific cultures and races; how do we help the Native American population (Peyote churches); underground NA (?) meetings being held with a diluted message
• Derrick – H&I reaches out to Native American facilities
• Christy – suggests reaching out Native American treatment facilities for information on peyote use in recovery
• Steve – appropriate literature would be formulated with the professional community to get the NA message out to the addicts that are not being reached
• Michael Mc. – some literature needs to be developed for professionals; not necessarily for distribution as meetings; is it possible that literature can be created to specific populations in a timely manner? – What are we going to do about what we have identified as a problem – What can we do different to reach more suffering addicts? How do you create literature in the current literature creation and approval process that some people may not have any experience with?
• George – some members have an attitude that if it doesn’t speak to all members then we shouldn’t have it
• Angie – our view should be “how do we reach the using addict?” instead focusing on special needs literature; reminded us all of keeping an open mind
• Eileen – also need to take into consideration the “special needs” of our worldwide fellowship.

Start time for 08-04-02 set for 8:30 am.

Sunday 8/4/02

Meeting resumed at 8:45 am with a moment of silence followed by the serenity prayer.

TOPIC #9 (INTERNET ISSUES/MEETING LOCATOR)

• Reuben – SCR has had complaints regarding the difficulty of changing information on the NAWS website; contact person at WSO is Laurie; maps violate traditions?; very important to keep the NAWS website current; Outreach committee checks on meetings that do not attend the ASC
• Bryan – uses a word file to transmit changes to WSO; hook-up time for the Unity Day at WCNA could be lessened by using Real Audio or Windows Real Player; RCM’s check on meetings and invite meetings to attend the ASC meeting
• Derrick – meeting lists have been a problem for a long time; will there be a way to link all the regional/area websites
• Michael Mc. – does not link to websites that link to any other site; web address is www.na.org not www.naws.org. Most meetings do know that they are responsible to update the NAWS website.
• Roseanne – Simpler will make it happen; puts a reminder in her report to the RSC to update their meeting information; Guidelines should be made for Directories
• Jimmy Lee – home area has a PO Box that helps to insure the continuity of contact addresses
• Greg I. – a handbook on guidelines would be beneficial; Eugene Area has guidelines that a member of PI checks on meetings that do not attend Area
• Angie – who tells NAWS when the meeting information changes;
• Pat – SDIC has a Regional Directory Chair that is responsible for changes to the NAWS website for all meetings in the Region

TOPIC #10 (WESTERN STATES UNITY CONVENTION)

• Rex – who has the seed money? Will be asking his region not to support floating convention (except for PNWCNA)
• Bryan – forget about the money and the convention
• Roseanne – Circle of Sisters was accountable and wrote guidelines while in the Northern California Region; focus on what we can do to help fix the problem
• Vince – last WSUC convention was in Colorado; Colorado still has the $$
• Jim – The same issues are alive and well in Texas
• Franney – There are also area events that do the same thing; what are we doing as individuals to help the floating conventions to become accountable; we must not only talk about the problems, but be active in helping
• Jeff – Talk to our regions about the concerns that were discussed here
• Jimmy Lee – changes will start at the group level

TOPIC #11 (INCREASING SUBMISSION OF WORLD POOL FORMS)

• Michael M. – You do not have to be willing to serve right now to fill out the form; Would be nice to fill it out online
• Bryan – Using terror tactics; “you’re stealing your recovery”
• Rex – Announce at conventions; Have people fill them out on the spot rather than giving it to them to take home
• Michael Mc. – would like to make it more database friendly and eventually may be able to fill it out on-line; it’s very important to NAWS to know the qualifications of our fellowship; may be something down the line that people may be interested in that they didn’t know about when they filled out the form; can always say “no”; This is the RD’s responsibility
• Greg – Any person that has a position at region or area to fill out a world pool form

**15 minute break**

TOPIC #12 (INSURANCE INFORMATION)

• George – got cost of insurance down by assigning the Regional VC as single point of accountability; covers all regional events as well as individual meetings
• Bryan – insurance costs went up due to the agent having misinformation regarding the size of the region; Areas help to pay for the insurance based on the number of meetings that are held in the Area; having a local agent is beneficial; shop insurance agents
• Jeff – Region 51 does not have a regional insurance policy; requests information regarding costs of insurance (incorporated or not) and also information on agents that other regions have used
• Greg – Arizona has insurance that covers all of the meetings in the region, and then purchases separate riders for events
• Roseanne – it is very important to make clear to people what is and is not covered by insurance

TOPIC #13 (FORMATION OF US SERVICE CONFERENCE)

• Rex – frustrated that the US Service Conference was brought to this forum; will be asking his regional Chair to write a letter to the Plains States Zonal Forum stating that they will not be involved in such a conference
• Bryan – was at the formation meeting for the US Service Community; seems that the USS Community has a feeling of anti-current service structure
• Debbie – confused as to why we are addressing this issue; felt as though this issue was brought in through the back door; Southern California did not come to support this issue
• Michael M. – Suggests sending a letter to the contact person stating that our region is not in support of; important to state that our region is not in support of this
• Roseanne – suggest sending a letter from the WSZF stating that the regions of this zone are not in favor of this idea
• Steve – his understanding of the WSZF is that we are not a deliberative body; fears that making a decision as a body is not appropriate action
• Michael Mc. – The Board does not have an opinion on this issue; outside of the US there is very little formal PR; does not know what national services are not getting done; needs the US to continue to support WSO
• Jimmy Lee – there is “stinky stuff going on with this”; suggests to response to the questionnaire from Mindy; walk-out in Vienna was powerful; feels that this should be ignored, and that the people involved in this process know how our regions feel
• Greg – ask how they expect it to work; we have not been provided with enough information
• Emma – send a packet of letters from the regions with a cover letter from the WSZF.
• Debbie- this seems to be group that is anti-world. Non-response is best.
• Franney- questionnaire seems to be for zone to respond to. Would like to know what is being done with the data collected. What are we going to do about responding? 9 say they will at least discuss this at their region. Suggests each region sending a letter stating “Our region has received your correspondence. Our region does not agree.”
• Vince- We already said no at WSC. I will not be discussing at my region.
• George- I responded at WSC to a questionnaire about funding.
• Cathy – major objection was world funding the conference

Vince requests information from Regions/Areas that have experienced growth.

Jim suggests 1^st or 4^th weekend for the 2003 WSZF.

Think about whether any of the communities in our zone are interested in hosting a Worldwide Workshop during the 2004-2006 conference cycle.

Forum was closed at 11:29 with the serenity prayer.