May 28, 2025
Tom M. – Good morning, Danette and Jack. Thanks again for doing this—what is this, our third conversation?
Danette:: Yes.
Tom M. – Fantastic. I need both of you to fully understand how lucky I feel to be talking to you. And I’m not a person that blows smoke.
Jack B. [laughs] Good clarification.
Tom M. – But really—when I look at the big picture of NA history, the two of you played a major role. One thing that keeps coming up is how people who were active in building NA often get demonized. From Jimmy K. on down—anyone who got involved and didn’t just sit on the sidelines got some heat. And Jack, I think you unfairly got your share of that during your time as a trustee.
You stood up and called out dysfunction—especially around the Joint Administrative Committee. It seemed like no one else did at the time, but you did. Can you talk about that? Was it about power? Were they disconnected from the fellowship?
Jack B. All I had to do was look in the mirror every morning to be reminded. [laughs] Honestly, I don’t remember doing that. I don’t remember being demonized, except when someone actually told me I was.
Early on, there was this line in the minutes of one of our first meetings—something about how the Board of Trustees overestimated the fellowship. I don’t think we overestimated anything. I don’t think we gave a shit what the fellowship thought of us, or what we were doing. I really doubt it.
Eventually, I became one of those people who didn’t care either. After I was no longer in a position of service, I noticed the demonizing came partly because people gave us credit for being way more powerful than we were. Some of the things we were accused of—we couldn’t possibly have orchestrated. We just weren’t that clever.
And honestly, I don’t think it was the fellowship doing the demonizing. Most members had no idea what was going on and didn’t care.
Danette:: Yeah, that makes sense.
Jack B. What you two have done—staying involved without holding office—that’s meaningful. You’ve brought me back into this, and I’m okay with that. But still, I don’t think it matters much. Either I’m naïve or unaware—I’m not sure which—but I still believe in a loving God expressing Himself through our group conscience.
And here we are, 54 years later. The fellowship has grown. It’s still doing some of the same dumb stuff it was doing back when we were on the board—and yet, we’re still here. We’re flourishing. So, was any of it important? I don’t know.
Tom M. – Maybe “demonized” is the wrong word. But people were definitely questioned, and not always fairly. Today, I see a kind of groupthink at the World Board—everyone voting in unison. But back then, trustees had their own opinions. I’ve looked through the old minutes—you’d vote yes on one thing, someone else would vote no. People weren’t afraid to disagree.
Now, it’s harder to speak out. Back when the conference met every 12 months, if something dysfunctional happened, you only had to wait a year to address it. Now it’s 36 months between conferences. That’s a long time.
Danette:: One of the reasons I’ve been interested in these conversations is Thom. He brings a different perspective than I have—or maybe you do, Jack. I believe he represents a part of the fellowship that was never directly involved in the California “center of power,” so there’s always been some skepticism. “Why are decisions being made without us?” That kind of thing.
Jack B. I think some people saw us as “the docs ?” and they probably saw themselves as the “real” fellowship. There were always two opposing forces in the room—those in service positions and those outside. And I get it. We’re a microcosm of the wider world. Just like society has Democrats and Republicans, NA had its factions. We were at odds, and maybe still are. But we all thought we were doing what was best for NA.
Some of the same people involved back then are still involved now. They’re still doing the same stuff. I guess that’s just how it goes.
Tom M. – I’ve been trying to understand how the financial side of World Services really works. I asked our delegate about it, and she said, “You can go online and get all that information.” So I did. And I still didn’t understand most of it. But what I did see—on page 10 or something—was the staff roster, and it showed people getting laid off. And that broke my heart. It felt like we had failed. NA has grown so much. Why are we still so financially unstable?
Jack B. I’ve asked myself the same thing. I don’t have a good answer. There are so many moving parts—so many levels of service, so many priorities. And it seems like we’ve built a structure that’s always chasing its own tail.
Danette:: It’s frustrating. People in NA still believe that dropping a few bucks in the basket on
Wednesday night somehow helps pay for the work happening at the world level. It doesn’t. It never has.
Jack B. Right. But that’s not what people believe. They think, “I gave my dollar—I’ve done my part.” But when you look at the actual numbers, it’s literature sales and events that keep World Services afloat.
Tom M. – And when the pandemic hit, the bottom fell out. Literature sales dropped, and suddenly we’re cutting staff. That’s not sustainable.
Danette:: And the irony is—we’ve always said NA should be self-supporting through member contributions. But in practice, we’ve never really made that work.
Jack B. It’s one of the central contradictions we live with. We claim spiritual
principles—self-support, transparency, unity—but then build systems that run counter to those principles. And then we’re surprised when things fall apart.
Tom M. – I think about the spiritual foundation we talk about in the Seventh Tradition. And I wonder: Are we living up to that? Or are we just repeating slogans and hoping for the best?
Jack B. Probably both. [laughs] And I don’t mean that cynically. I think we want to live up to those ideals. But we’ve created a service structure that’s very complex. We’ve got regional offices, zonal forums, all kinds of committees and workgroups. And it all takes money.
Danette:: I keep thinking about something you said last time—about how we used to make decisions with stacks of paper and no technology. And somehow, we still managed to get stuff done.
Jack B. That’s true. But back then, we didn’t have the same scale. The fellowship was smaller, and the expectations were lower. Now, we’re global. We have NA meetings in 140 countries. We translate literature into dozens of languages. That’s not cheap.
Tom M. – But it is beautiful. It’s still incredible that this thing—this program—has spread so far.
Jack B. Absolutely. It’s miraculous. But miracles don’t keep the lights on. That takes planning, and funding, and a lot of work.
Danette:: I just wish we were better at explaining that to the average member. Most people don’t know how the structure works. They don’t understand where the money goes, or what’s needed to keep things running. And if they did, maybe they’d step up.
Jack B. Or maybe they wouldn’t. [laughs] But at least they’d have the chance.
Tom M. – One of the things I’ve always wanted to ask you about is the Gray Book. There’s so much mythology around it now. People treat it like sacred scripture—or like contraband. What was it really like, being in the middle of all that?
Jack B. The Gray Book… wow. That was such a chaotic and beautiful time. It was written by a bunch of recovering addicts trying to figure out what NA really was. We didn’t have any professional writers. We barely had typewriters that worked. But we had passion. And we had some time clean.
There was a real feeling that we were building something. Not just a fellowship, but a message. Something that hadn’t existed before. AA had the Big Book. We needed something too—something ours.
Danette:: I’ve always loved that spirit. It feels like it came from the heart of the fellowship.
Jack B. It did. But the problem is that we didn’t know how to finish it. Everyone had a different opinion. Everyone wanted their voice heard. And that’s not a bad thing—but it made editing almost impossible.
Eventually, it got handed off to World Services for final review and formatting. And that’s where things got complicated. Suddenly we had copy editors and legal consultants. The language changed. The tone changed. And some people felt like their words were being erased.
Tom M. – That’s what I’ve heard—that people felt betrayed.
Jack B. Yeah. And in some cases, I think they were right to feel that way. It wasn’t handled well. There was a lot of mistrust. And that mistrust didn’t go away. It festered.
That’s how we ended up with groups insisting on reading from the Gray Book, even after the Basic Text was published. It wasn’t just about the words—it was about ownership. About feeling like the fellowship had lost control of its own voice.
Danette:: That rift never really healed. Even now, people talk about “official” literature versus “fellowship-approved” or “group-approved.” It’s become a litmus test for some folks.
Jack B. And the truth is, both sides had valid points. The Basic Text needed to be readable, consistent, and inclusive. But it also needed to reflect the spirit of the fellowship. And in trying to fix one, we may have lost a little of the other.
Tom M. – It reminds me of something Ron said—how authority in NA comes from the fellowship, not from any structure. But when people feel like the structure has taken over the message, trust erodes.
Jack B. That’s exactly it. We built a system to serve the fellowship, but somewhere along the way, the system started serving itself. And we lost some of that original connection.
Danette:: Do you think it’s possible to repair that?
Jack B. Only by telling the truth. By having conversations like this. By admitting what went wrong—and what went right—and finding a path forward that honors both.
Tom M. – You mentioned how messy it was to get the Gray Book finished. I think it’s still messy—but in a different way. Now we’ve got these formal processes for literature approval, but they seem so disconnected from actual members. Does the group conscience really shape literature anymore?
Jack B. That’s a hard one. In theory, yes. The approval track is still in place. There’s review and input. There’s fellowship feedback. But how many people actually participate? And how much of the input is taken seriously?
Danette:: I’ve sat through enough workshops to know the answer to that. [laughs] Most members don’t show up. And when they do, they either haven’t read the draft or they say, “I like it” without much thought.
Jack B. Exactly. And some of that is just human nature. People are busy. They trust the process—or they don’t care. But the problem is, that opens the door for decisions to be made by a small group of people who do show up. And that creates the same imbalance we were trying to avoid.
Tom M. – It also makes it easy for critics to say the process isn’t real. If 99% of members never give input, is it really group conscience? Or just a few insiders calling the shots?
Jack B. That’s the dilemma. We created a process that honors participation—but we didn’t build a culture that encourages participation. And so we end up with this weird disconnect.
Danette:: And when feedback does come in, it can feel like it’s just being collected for show. Like a box that gets checked: “Yes, we held a review session.” But did it matter?
Jack B. I’ve seen both sides. Sometimes the input really does shape the outcome. Sometimes it gets filed away and forgotten. And I don’t think it’s always intentional. It’s just… the machine keeps moving. And if no one stops to say, “Hey, this matters,” then it doesn’t.
Tom M. – I’ve always wondered—what would happen if we started over? Like, open up a blank page and ask the fellowship: What do we want to say now? Not just revise what we already have, but really listen.
Jack B. That would be amazing. Risky, chaotic, probably messy as hell—but powerful. Because the real power in NA comes from the voices in the rooms. When we stop listening to those voices, we’re just managing a brand, not nurturing a fellowship.
Danette:: That’s the challenge, right? How do we stay open enough to be real, but structured enough to function?
Jack B. Yeah. That tension is never going away. But I’d rather live in that tension than pretend it doesn’t exist. At least then, we’re being honest.
Danette:: I think about this stuff all the time—how to stay grounded in the core of what NA is. Not just the structure, not the politics, but the message. The spirit of it.
Jack B. That’s the only reason to keep showing up. If it becomes about anything else—titles, power, recognition—it’ll eat you alive. That’s why so many people burn out or get bitter.
Tom M. – That’s why I respect both of you. You’ve served at the highest levels, but you never stopped being members first. You never stopped being addicts in recovery.
Jack B. That’s all I ever was. Still am. Every good thing in my life came from this program. So how could I ever walk away from it? Even when it’s messy. Even when I’m mad at it. I owe my life to this.
Danette:: Same here. And that’s what keeps me from getting too jaded. When I focus on the newcomer, on sponsorship, on the basics—that’s where I find the magic again.
Tom M. – That’s where it always lives.
Jack B. You know, we used to say, “If you want to stay clean, make coffee.” There’s something to that. Do the little things. Show up. Be of service. That’s how we stay connected.
Danette:: Thank you, Jack. For today—and for everything you’ve done. I know you don’t like praise, but I’m going to say it anyway. You’ve made a difference.
Jack B. Thank you, Danette. And thank you, Tom. I really appreciate these conversations. They’ve reminded me why I cared in the first place.
Tom M. – Let’s keep talking. There’s still more to explore. Jack: I’m in. Just let me know when.