1 / 49

Northern California

Northern California. Conference Agenda Report. Today’s Agenda. What is the Conference Agenda Report Overview of the World Service Conference NCRSC CAR Voting Guidelines 2014 Conference Motions 1-3 SSP Presentation 2014 Conference Motions 4-6 Discussion Based Conference

dawn
Download Presentation

Northern California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Northern California Conference Agenda Report

  2. Today’s Agenda • What is the Conference Agenda Report • Overview of the World Service Conference • NCRSC CAR Voting Guidelines • 2014 Conference Motions 1-3 • SSP Presentation • 2014 Conference Motions 4-6 • Discussion Based Conference • 2014 Regional Motion discussions • Discussion/Questions • Voting

  3. What is the CAR? The Conference Agenda Report is a biennial report published by NA World Services. The CAR contains: Motions Straw poles Proposals The 2014 CAR contains only Motions and Regional Proposals.

  4. What is the CAT? The Conference Approval Track (CAT) will be released on January 27th this document includes: • Service Material • NAWS Strategic Plan • Budget • Project (Transition)Plans for the 2014-2016 Cycle

  5. NCRSC CAR Voting Guidelines • Any individual member can fill out a written ballot at one of our workshops, whether or not they are representing an NA Group. Ballots must be turned in at the workshop. GSRs, or those delegated to act on behalf of an NA Group, may fill out a ballot at any time up until Friday, April 4th and submit to your RCM or email it to ncrscrd@norcalna.org. It is requested that if the member voted at the home group they refrain from voting at the workshop.

  6. Motion #1 To approve the draft contained in Addendum A as IP # 29, An Introduction to NA Meetings.

  7. IP #29 The service pamphlet has been around for many years (as a service pamphlet since 2008). The hope is to make it more readily available to others than just public relations through its approval as an IP. After releasing the pamphlet members and service committees from 19 states and four countries sent input for an IP. The revisions from the service pamphlet included the following changes to the current service pamphlet:

  8. Specific changes Clarify what happens in meetings Expand expressed paragraphs from those attending their first meeting ever to newcomers in general. Address Concepts such as anonymity and primary purpose Use terms and phrases from the basic texts and other existing literature rather than new language to convey ideas Offer more to underscore “spiritual and not religious” aspect of the program Clarify that there are a variety of meeting types and practices may vary.

  9. What this means The service pamphlet “An Introduction to NA Meetings” will be available as an IP. According to the GTWS literature has 3 methods of being approved: Fellowship Approved, Conference Approved and World Board Approved. “A Guide to NA Meetings” is currently World Board Approved as a Service Pamphlet. Voting to approve “A Guide to NA Meetings” as IP#29 will make this Conference Approved.

  10. Motion #2 To adopt the following as WSC policy: “ Seating at the biennial meeting of the WSC is limited to one delegate per region”

  11. Rational • To make the Conference more affordable, effective and meaningful as it can be. • In 2012 there were 112 Delegates, 82 Alternates, 15 Board members totaling 209 people. • The anticipated cost of sending 82 Alternates to the WSC is estimated at $168,000 to the fellowship • A smaller conference allows more effective communication • Adoption of this motion would leave the size of the WSC to 115 regions 18 world board members . • Allows for more regions to be seated for a true world wide fellowship presence.

  12. From the Guide to World Service (pg3) “The regional delegate works closely with the regions alternate delegate. Like the regional delegate, the alternate is a full participant in the regional service committee. The delegate often consults with the alternate, asking for different perspectives on world service affairs and seeking to involve the alternate in helping to carry the workload. “

  13. What this means • A smaller WSC that allows for collaboration between the World Board and RD’s. • An equal representation at the WSC • The RDA would not be included in the WSC, they could attend the gallery however there would be no workshops or training for the following WSC included. • Does not allow for the RD/RDA to have discussion on motions that come up on the floor in which the regions conscience should be considered. • Removes the mentoring process from the RD Alternate.

  14. Things to consider • NAWS states that the primary reason for this motion is to allow for better communication and participation ,however, it is primarily due to the discussion based conference that the larger group no longer works. • NAWS states that 91% of all US regions had alternates and only 48% of non US regions had alternates stating that this is primarily a US issue. • Should regions have the ability to send the ARD should they choose to send them, leaving the decision up to the areas and groups to decide? • NAWS states that only 47% of previous ARD’s went on to become RD’s. Could there be a potential solution without removing the ARD from the WSC that has not yet been explored?

  15. Motion # 3 To adopt the following policy: “ The World Service Conference does not automatically fund attendance of delegates. Delegates from regions that are unable to fully fund themselves may request funding from the World Board.”

  16. Rationale • Funding of delegates was adopted in 2000 and has been done for the last 6 cycles the intent was to equalize costs amongst the regions and take collective responsibility for the conference. • Donations do not meet the needs of the conference • Funding was adopted based on the pretence that there would be a criteria for Recognizing New Regions, there remains none. • Many regions can afford to send the Delegate • Prior to 2000 only 20 regions requested to be funded to the WSC, NAWS feels they could collectively cover those regions.

  17. What this means • Regions would provide for all funding of the Regional Delegate at the WSC • Regions would be responsible for their commitment to the WSC through the 7th tradition. • NAWS would not be responsible to arrange for the travel resulting in a reduction in staff hours. • This would undo a decision made at the 2000 WSC

  18. Things to consider • What if more than 20 regions request funding? • What if donations increased? • Regions could reduce the amount of funds sent to NAWS. • Could this lead to zonal/state representation or zonal support if a region could not afford to send the delegate? • Where would the money go that we send to NAWS if they do not support the WSC?

  19. Links There is a video by NAWS which also reviews motions 1-3 and can be seen at NA.ORG/Conference under materials. http://na.org/?ID=conference-index

  20. Break Time

  21. Service System Proposals What is the Service System?

  22. Motion #4 “To agree in principle to move in the direction of a service system that contains group support forums: Discussion orientated gatherings focused on the needs of the group, as described by the characteristics below.”

  23. Characteristics of a GSF Essential • Group Focused • Training oriented • Open to all Recommended • Neighborhood sized • Meets monthly

  24. What this means • Any group could use the GSF • Groups can discuss issues related only to a specific neighborhood. • Members may attend and participate without being in a service commitment • To agree in principle would be to agree with the idea to move forward with the SSP, which has not been outlined in its entirety. • While the SSP is not mandated at some point the State Issue will need to be addressed.

  25. Things to consider • Creating a Group Service Forum can be accomplished without a yes vote at the WSC thereby allowing the groups to remain autonomous. • Field Testing did not produce positive effects: • 2 of the 17 Field testing communities had no GSF at the end of the testing. • Groups ranged between 2-23 • Too short of a Field Test to gauge if the GSF will work in fund flow and literature • The proximity to the GSF was favored in the rural communities. • Information and communication was increased in the field testing. • Literature and fund flow has not been established in some GSF’s.

  26. Motion # 5 “To agree in principle to move in the direction of a service system that contains local service conferences: Strategic service-oriented planning conferences as described by the characteristics below.”

  27. Characteristics of a LSC Essential • Plan Driven • Form follows function • Strategic • Consensus Based Recommended • Meets Quarterly • Defined by County, City or town boundaries

  28. What this means • Local Service Committee’s would be defined by geo political boundaries • Group Service Forum delegates attend this meeting • This meeting could last longer than a traditional ASC • Event planning is switched to Proposal Planning • Provides for an annual assembly to create goals. • Suggested to meet Quarterly to follow up and review goal reaching strategies • This Committee would use strategic planning to carry out duties for work groups or projects

  29. Things to consider • Creating a Local Service Body can be achieved without a agreement in Principle Vote at the WSC. • Only 6 communities Field tested the LSC • Literature and fund flow at this level was found to be too difficult. • Some groups began to order their own literature from an RSO to address literature needs • Potentially reduces the organic nature of NA (groups and areas could not form on their own) Field testing incomplete due to the time allowed to participate.

  30. Motion #6 “ To agree in Principle to ,move in a direction of a service system that contains local service boards: a body overseen by the local service conference that administers work prioritized by the Local Service Committee as described by the characteristics below”

  31. Characteristics of a LSB Essential • Responsible to the LSC • Carries out the priorities of the LSC • Meets Monthly • Administers the LSC Meetings Recommended • Consists of an admin body and service coordinators

  32. What this means This is a Local Service Board made up of administrative members that carry out the functions of the LSC. The LSB would decide who would be best suited to carry out tasks for project proposals. Would be responsible to ensure that all functions of Local Service Committee are being addressed. (Phone lines, H&I, Literature)

  33. Things to consider • Short timeline for field testers (Basically there is limited information from the field testing on this because no testing occurred for more than 6b months) • Defined by geophysical boundaries • Can be implemented without an agreement in Principle vote at the WSC. • How are language barrier area’s addressed?

  34. How does the WSC vote? • How does the WSC vote on agreements in Principle? • 2/3rds is a good indicator that the fellowship agrees In 2012 only 40% of the fellowship voted and the Resolutions passed with 60% if 2/3rds are required they would need 67% • According to WSO “Any decision that provides a foundational level of guidance to NA groups and service bodies requires a 2/3rds vote at the WSC. This covers both CAR and CAT material”. • Project Plans do not require a 2/3rd vote. • A transition plan on the SSP will not require a 2/3rd vote. • Anticipated discussion on this on the floor of WSC.

  35. Links There is a video by NAWS which also reviews motions 1-3 and can be seen at NA.ORG/Conference under materials. http://na.org/?ID=conference-index There is also specific information regarding the entire SSP located at http://na.org/?ID=servsys

  36. Regional Proposals

  37. Movement away form Parliamentary procedure • 2014 Regional Proposals submissions • Proposal vs. Motion and where they land in the CAR • Proposals A-D as written by NAWS

  38. Rewritten Proposals? It is important to understand that the Regional Motions that are included in the 2014 CAR and presented in the workshop are as “re-written” by NA World Services. Please review the original Proposals in your copy of the CAR or go to NA.ORG/Conference to review the original written motions by the respective regions.

  39. Proposal A “ To place a moratorium on the Service System Proposals. Ideas for a moratorium range from two to four years”. 5 Proposals A1-A5

  40. Regions included in this Proposal: ABCD, California Midstate, Indiana and the Carolinas. The rationale behind the motions A1-A5 (summarized): • The fellowship the time to obtain a full accounting of all expenditures related to the SSP from 2008 to present so the fellowship may determine whether we wish to continue. • To provide the fellowship with the opportunity to study, workshop and develop input and feedback all ramifications of the SSP. • To provide the time and opportunity for our fellowship to study all implications and how its implementation would affect the groups, areas and regions. • To place a moratorium on the funding of any further development of the SSP. • To place a moratorium on the fellowship wide implementation of the SSP for at least two full cycles.

  41. Proposal B “To specify the specific decision-making mechanism for anything related to the SSP”

  42. Regions included in this proposal: ABCD and Northern California The rationale behind the motions include: • The ability to voice whether we wish to continue with the SSP by a 2/3rd vote. This region (ABCD) feels that our current structure does not prohibit us from utilizing any aspects of the SSP if the local bodies choose to do so. • To allow for a full discussion and clear and decisive opportunity for the fellowship to voice support or non support for the SSP and allowing the fellowship to vote whether or not to move forward.

  43. Proposal C “Currently seated regions retain their seat at the WSC forever”

  44. Regions Included in this proposal: ABCD Region The rationale behind this motion: To insure that the choice for each region to move forward with the SSP is lies within the regions. Should other regions be in favor of the SSP and the geo physical boundaries this motion would allow regions to remain seated at the WSC.

  45. Proposal D “ Ideas to evaluate or reduce the WSC costs either by creating a new workgroup to look into conference cost by eliminating World Board Travel to the WSC.”

  46. Regions included in this proposal: California Mid State, Utah Region and Louisiana The Rationale behind these motions is: • To form a workgroup to explore WSC cost reduction methods that do not include the reduction of WSC seated regions. • To keep in tact the organic nature of NA which created regions by group conscience. • To propose that the World Service Conference use technology, that World Board members will no longer travel to the WSC but be available via technology. • To reduce costs of the WSC.

  47. Links For the NAWS presentation regarding the Regional Proposals please visit: NA.ORG Conference Materials Video Presentations or http://na.org/admin/include/spaw2/uploads/files/2014_CARVideo

  48. Questions?

  49. Discussion

More Related