11/08/13
First I need to inform the RSC that the WB did not give any presentations regarding the SSP, they were meeting in the San Fernando Valley and did not participate in any of the workshops. I did however get a chance to sit and talk to a few of them after recovery meetings in the evening. I was able to give them input on the writing style of the SSP 3rd draft and subsequent tools, I suggested they use more familiar NA terminology to make the ideas more easily understood by the average service member. I also reiterated our displeasure at WB meetings being closed and my own displeasure of the WSC Conference Participants discussion board not being viewable by the fellowship at large. I discussed with them need for transparency and the perception of things being hidden leading to a lack of trust. They were receptive to the input but still felt their actions were acceptable. I will find an opportunity to broach this subject at the WSC also. I have trust in our servants but believe that these actions can lead to an erosion of that trust.
Instead of the presentation on the SSP by the WB we were given presentations by 4 of the test sites for the local services parts of the SSP. I will report on 3 of those.
SSP Local Test Sites
It was interesting how each area developed the ideas in the SSP in their own way, I was expecting each one to basically look the same what with NAWS direction and all. However it seems each area testing adapted the concepts for how they best served them.
Boston:
The test group around Boston only did the GSF portion and experienced more participation at their ASC from groups that had previously not participated. They had a mixture between the 2 options of representation at the LSC (which was their ASC); most groups sent GSRs but some GSFs elected delegates to represent all or some of the groups in the GSF. This led to them having contact with more struggling groups which previously did not have GSRs. They are going to continue in this way and begin looking at the LSC and LSB portions of the SSP.
Central California Test Group
This test area broke into GSFs and used the LSC and LSB components. Most remarkable was that they found that it was easier to have one place for the GSFs to meet and also did lit sales and collected donations there. The GSFs started out meeting separately but to lack of participation decided to meet at the same location but in different rooms and participation increased. They had some success with the project based service idea having all but one of their agreed upon projects completed. They have gone back to their ASC as per the motion that they approved to allow the testing of the SSP as long as when the test was over they went back to their previous structure.
Washington County Test Group
This test group had little to no success with the GSF concept,, having only one remaining GSF with 4 groups attending. They have basically adapted the local service ideas and have split their ASC meeting in halves, first part being group support and second part being business. They call their ASC an LSB now and meet as a LSB 8 times a year and have the quarterly planning sessions the other 4 times. They began by having GSF delegates being the only reps at the LSB monthly but due to the lack of support for the GSFs switched back to GSR attendance. The most significant change reported was that y changing how they did business they went from not meeting quorum to having 23 out of 24 of their groups represented monthly. Doing project based service and creating a list of people willing to serve they have increased the number of people participating in service efforts.
In general my perception of the reports was that there are good ideas contained in the SSP ( a lot of which is in the PR handbook already) that can be adapted locally to help with service delivery, strengthening groups and facilitating contact between more groups and local services.
RD Meeting
Don and I attended the RD meeting 9:30 pm on Friday night. Most of the discussion centered around the CA state coordinating body idea, with most regions reporting that they had not yet gotten the decision of their region regarding proceeding. A couple regions voiced support and frustration at one region having a relationship with the department of corrections but their region not getting any benefit or even information about it.
We also had general discussions regarding service and how to be more open to new ideas One RD saying that they have people getting involved and feeling invested in service because their ideas are not immediately shut down by others.
Collaboration
I attended a workshop on collaboration put on by members from the MN region. It was an excellent presentation about how can better work together. First we need to remember we all have the same common goal and not to get caught up in “turf” wars but learn to work with each other.
Some of the examples they presented was they’re combining of the area websites and phonelines into one regional phoneline and website that interface with each other rather effectively. They said they have saved money and made it much simpler for anyone to contact NA by having one contact point. They even have members who now live in other states still doing phoneline shifts for them.
They have also partnered with an area in CA to do BTW work, the area in CA already had a committee and process and rather than form another committee MN offered to get more writers for the CA area and within a short time had plenty of people willing. Also within a short time the MN dept of corrections decided they would like a BTW for the MN inmates; the area in CA is now also coordinating this effort.
They have a program where anyone getting out of treatment or prison can be hooked up with NA members to take them to a meeting upon release.
NAWS Database Update
I attended the NAWS database update workshop and as a result will be trying to facilitate an update of all our groups in their system in the coming months. Need to know if we are updating our meeting info with them on a regular basis.
They bused the Beach Area’s website as an example of what not to do, said it was too busy and had too many font mistakes. Said the simpler the better and that the main focus should be on what we want people to find, meetings or info about NA.
I also attended an input session for the piece CDBM Basics (Consensus Based Decision Making) and provided input on the draft
Overall I feel it was a good event and that we gained some useful information and gave some input.
Dave Tynes-RD