May 14, 2025
Tom M. – Well, thank you, Jack, for sitting down to talk with us about the history of Narcotics Anonymous and the significant role you’ve played in its development. You’ve served on the Board of Trustees for over a decade and were deeply involved in shaping the organization as it grew from its infancy. We’re grateful to have this conversation and to hear your insights.
Jack B. – Let me start by saying something I didn’t include in the written responses I sent you. When I was on the Board of Trustees, we had a lot of conversations — both formally and informally — with people involved in World Services. One thing I noticed was that the board, in my opinion, often overestimated how much most members actually cared. I used to say, “Most of them just don’t give a damn.” And after I stepped down, I became one of them. I stopped following what was going on. I didn’t call in to ask for updates — not daily, not weekly, probably not even once a year. I trusted the process. I believed, and still believe, that NA was going to be just fine whether I was involved or not. The truth is, this stuff only really comes to mind when people like Danette ask me about it.
Danette – (Laughs) That’s fair.
Jack B. – I ran into Chris and Boyd — I think those are their names? — at the World Convention in Washington last year. We talked briefly. One of them said they’d give me a call, but that’s happened a few times and no one ever calls. They’ve done the NA history project but never talked with me about it. We did finally have a short conversation and he gave me his number, but I lost it. So maybe I still have something to add to the process. Anyway, I just want to say: since stepping down in ’92, I really haven’t followed things. So if your questions are about anything that happened after that, I probably won’t have answers.
Tom M. – Well, I think they’ve missed out by not talking to you. You were involved at such a critical time in NA history. When did you actually join the board?
Jack B. – Early 1981, and I stayed on until 1992.
Tom M. – So, over a decade — and right in the middle of some of our most important growth. One of the questions I had was: how did your perspective on the board change between the early ’80s and the early ’90s?
Jack B. – Not a lot changed from my personal perspective, but the board’s responsibilities definitely grew. By the ’90s, being a trustee was a lot more demanding. That’s actually part of why I didn’t seek a third term, even though some people encouraged me to. I seriously considered it, because I thought I had a good chance of being elected despite term limits. I always tried to treat everyone equally, whether I agreed with them or not. But with things ramping up at Cri Help — and my youngest daughter on the way — I knew I couldn’t give the board what it deserved. So stepping back was the right choice.
Danette – That was around the same time I left, too — ’92?
Jack B. – Yeah, I think so. You and I probably stepped down around the same time.
Danette – Honestly, I don’t remember exact timelines. Once I stepped away from World Services, I didn’t look back for a long time. But this has been a rewarding experience, reconnecting with old friends like Michael Lee and Ron, and remembering things as NA asks these questions.
Tom M. – Jack, back in the early ’80s when you joined the Board of Trustees, NA had three distinct entities: the World Service Office (WSO), the World Service Conference (WSC), and the World Convention Corporation. Do you remember if the WSC had any say in how the WSO was originally formed?
Jack B. – That predates my time on the board. The WSO already existed when I got clean. But I do remember that in 1974, during a World Service Convention, a motion passed to elect officers for the WSO to get it incorporated. I was working at Cri Help at the time and got pulled into that effort because someone assumed I knew how to incorporate nonprofits. I had minimal knowledge, but I was elected president of the WSO board. Nolan Warner became vice president. We also had a treasurer and a secretary, though I don’t remember who they were.
We held two meetings — that’s it. Nothing got done. The WSO wasn’t incorporated by the time the next convention rolled around. But I felt like I needed to understand what was going on, so I started going down to the WSO every Saturday in Hollywood, where Bob Barrett was running it. I helped fill literature orders and answer letters. Eventually, Bob stopped showing up. Around then, someone — maybe Danny Trejo — told me about a free space available at the Suicide Prevention Center. I initially declined, not wanting NA to be associated with that, but they offered it as a separate space with its own address and phone line. The WSO rent in Hollywood was $50 a month — a lot back then — so I moved us into the new space and started running the office.
Tom M. – So just to clarify — that was Bob Barrett running the Hollywood office, right?
Jack B. – Yes, Bob Barrett.
Danette – I thought Bob lived upstairs?
Jack B. – No, that was the Crenshaw location. This was before that. Anyway, after Bob stopped coming in, I kept running things. And I remember clearly — when I finally decided to move the office, I didn’t get approval from the other officers. There wasn’t really a process at that time. Bob Barrett had been running the WSO independently. So when he left, I just stepped up.
I remember sniveling to Jimmy about all the criticism I was getting for making that move. And he told me something I never forgot: “If you want to be in service, get used to it. You’ll get kicked in the ass a lot. The people kicking you today will be patting you on the back tomorrow — and vice versa.” Jimmy was absolutely right.
Tom M. – So essentially, you were elected to a board that didn’t really exist in any structured form?
Jack B. – Exactly.
Tom M. – How did the literature get produced and end up at the office? Was that something you ordered, or was Jimmy handling that?
Jack B. – I don’t really know. In the early ’70s, the only literature we had was the White Book and a handful of IPs — six, I think. Maybe Jimmy handled the printing. There’s a famous mimeograph machine story, but I honestly don’t remember the details. I may not have even known them at the time.
Danette – Was that Danny Trejo who helped with the Suicide Prevention Center connection?
Jack B. – It might’ve been. I’ve known Danny for over 50 years. I vaguely remember him being involved, so yes, probably him.
Tom M. – You were the chairperson of the Board of Trustees during a pretty turbulent time. What’s your take on the changes that occurred during the approval process for the book — particularly changes from the first to the fourth traditions?
Jack B. – To be honest, I don’t think I was directly involved in the changes. As Danette knows — and you’re probably aware — a lot of things were done behind closed doors, especially with people like Bob Stone and Raymar. That secrecy was one of my big frustrations with the process.
Tom M. – Well, I want to acknowledge something. In 1985, the Board of Trustees — and I think it was you who presented it — proposed changes to the White Book. Those changes made our literature significantly better. It was a huge improvement.
Jack B. – It might’ve been me — I honestly don’t remember. The one presentation I clearly recall was about the “How It Works” section on traditions. I brought it to the conference as a final draft and said, “Let’s vote on it — yes or no. No discussion unless it fails.” I was trying to avoid endless, irrelevant debate. Surprisingly, it passed unanimously. That’s the only literature I distinctly remember presenting.
Tom M. – I remember trying to get clean in ’83. The literature back then said, “The only way to avoid returning to active addiction is not to take the first fix, pill, or drink.” It didn’t say anything about toke. So I left treatment and got high 20 minutes later. In ’86, when I finally got clean, the updated White Book had changed the wording to “the first drug,” which made a huge difference. So thank you.
Jack B. – Glad to hear it. I wish we could make a few more changes — not to the White Book, but to some of the stuff we read in meetings today.
Danette – Oh, I’m right there with you, Jack.
Danette – I might be getting this wrong, but I remember one change — it was a rewrite of the last paragraph in one of the chapters. I think Ron Hopias was already at the office, and someone decided that it would better reflect the NA message of addiction. He rewrote it, and it went out to the conference and got unanimously accepted. I’m fuzzy on the timing, but it happened. And the one change I always remember? The White Book cover. When I got clean, it had a circle with lines — which some people apparently thought looked like a cross. So the lines were removed. Years later, I wrote a letter asking how long they were going to keep calling it “newly revised.” After that, they stopped.
Tom M. – You were involved with the office, the conference, and the convention corporation. My first World Convention was in New Orleans, and honestly, anyone who gets to experience that magic — the vibe, the circle, the message — it’s unforgettable. What did you think about the decision to form a separate convention corporation, instead of having regions bid to host the event?
Jack B. – I remember hearing some criticism about how World Services was run, but the results speak for themselves. I don’t recall the exact reasoning behind forming the separate committee. But looking back, considering how large the World Convention has become, I think it made sense. And now, after the last World Convention, I think there’s talk about whether we should even continue having them.
Danette – There are so many conventions now.
Jack B. – Exactly. That discussion started years ago when more and more conventions began popping up. The big ones weren’t so big anymore. I remember being on the planning committee for the first Southern California Regional Convention. The biggest debate was about how much to charge attendees. I argued that it wasn’t supposed to be a fundraiser. It should be affordable for everyone. But even then, the conversation shifted to money — and I’m sure that’s still the case for most convention committees today.
Tom M. – They need to take the “D” out of “fundraiser.” I think the last time I saw you, Jack, was at the World Convention in Australia. You were walking down a dock to look at the boats, and I was heading to a “Fun in the Sun” event on the docks with some friends.
Jack B. – That must’ve been after the convention. I was very sick at the time. After the convention in Sydney, I went with Tom Flager — he used to rent a big yacht with a fishing boat attached to it. We’d fish during the day and come back to eat great food on the yacht, which was fully staffed — no cooking, no cleaning. It was heaven. But the fishing crew had just gotten over some kind of crud, and I caught it. When I got back to Sydney, I was sick as a dog. I went to the hotel, climbed under a blanket, and was shivering like a leaf. I don’t know why I decided to go for a walk — probably not the smartest move. On the way to the convention site, I almost passed out and had to lean against a pole. Back at the hotel, I found out I had bronchitis. The flight home was miserable — I was seated in the middle of a middle row, surrounded by large people on both sides. Everything hurt, from my hair follicles to my toenails.
Tom M. – That flight was hell even without being sick. I made the mistake of getting a smoking seat. I figured fewer people would sit there, but instead, people just stood next to me and smoked.
Danette – (Laughs) Live and learn, right?
Tom M. – Yep! So that reminds me of another time I saw you — at a World Service Conference quarterly. Can you share your thoughts on the quarterlies and how effective or valuable they were?
Jack B. – Like the World Conventions, I think the quarterlies were effective and valuable. Especially for the communities where we held them — there was a lot of mystique around the Board of Trustees and World Services. Having those meetings locally helped break down some of that mysticism. And about your earlier message — you mentioned someone named Lynn A. The only Lynn I remember was someone Jimmy talked about, probably in 1972 or ’73. At a Southern California Regional meeting, he introduced her as someone from New York who wanted to connect with other members. I believe that was Lynn.
Tom M. – Okay.
Jack B. – I may have written her a letter. I don’t remember if I got a response. But I’ll never forget one moment — I think it was the year Dutch was elected to the board. We were meeting at the Retail Clerks Union in Santa Monica. During a coffee break, Raymond and I were at the pot when a representative from upstate New York approached us. He introduced himself and said, “I expected the two of you to have horns growing out of your heads.” We were stunned. He explained that the image painted at his regional meetings — thanks to Lynn — was that Raymond and I were the devil incarnate.
Danette – (Laughs)
Jack B. – It didn’t bother me, really. I’ve told people for years: when someone talks bad about you, ask yourself, “Is it true?” If it’s not true, why get upset? Would you be bothered if someone said you had a purple horn on your head? No, you’d just think they were nuts and move on.
Danette – (Laughs) I love that.
Jack B. – That’s all I remember about that Lynn. I do remember Sue and Alicia playing some kind of secretarial role back then. And there was another woman — blonde — who I think moved to the Midwest. Can’t recall her name.
Danette – Was it Jody Spears or Jody Keith?
Jack B. – No, not either of them. I probably did know her at the time, but not anymore.
Tom M. – Back to the quarterly — I remember attending one as a newcomer. Someone stood up and said, “You motherfuckers are doing this and that!” And you were at the podium and fired right back, “You motherfuckers are doing this…” (Laughs) I thought, I love this. I want to be involved.
Jack B. – (Laughs) The only quarterly I remember losing it at the podium was in Van Nuys.
Tom M. – No, this was in St. Louis. Grateful Dave was there.
Danette. – Oh yeah, he was a tough personality.
Tom M. – I know we usually try to keep things around an hour, but if you’re okay going to an hour and a half, I think we’ve got time for one more big topic.
Jack B. – Sure, that’s fine.
Danette – So here’s something I have been curious about. There’s this story where someone asked, “Why is the WSO holding all the money?” and you replied, “Why not?” We’re trying to pinpoint when that shift happened — from the World Service Conference receiving donations and literature funds, to the WSO holding the finances. There’s no clear documentation. Do you remember how or when that change took place?
Jack B. – Nope. But feel free to blame me if you want. I have no idea how that came about.
Danette – (Laughs) Fair enough. One thing I do want to bring up — and something that made a big impression on me while I was on the Board of Trustees — was the work you did on the Trustee Bulletins. Especially the one about special interest meetings. I remember lots of back and forth in our discussions, and then you said something that helped us reach consensus. It was along the lines of: “If it’s really serving a purpose, it’ll grow. If not, it’ll die out.” That always stayed with me.
Jack B. – I still feel that way. We acknowledged that some special interest groups listed in directories probably violate the traditions. But groups are autonomous — if they’re really a problem or go against the spirit of the traditions, they’ll fall apart. I still believe that today, even more than I did back then. There’s a lot of evidence now to support it.
Danette – What about other bulletins — like the one on methadone?
Jack B. – The conclusion we came to with methadone was that NA doesn’t have an opinion. Individuals might, but NA doesn’t. And I’m not even sure when my personal view shifted. Like many people in that era, I was strongly opposed to methadone. But over time, I started seeing people who had been on it and were now clean. Maybe it kept them alive long enough to get clean. And today, things are even more complex — my own daughter is dealing with her husband, who’s been using, probably continuously. Kratom is involved. I don’t know much about it, but I bet in 10 years, we’ll hear about the damage it caused. It’s all part of the same disease.
Danette – Yeah, same disease — just evolving.
Tom M. – Jack, I always saw my niche as starting NA in areas where it didn’t exist, which meant getting into the Guide to Service, developing area service committee guidelines, and learning all the ins and outs of the manuals. One thing that confused me was the difference between the Board of Trustees’ internal committee structure and the subcommittees at the World Service Conference. The trustees had internal, external, policy, and literature committees — but those didn’t align with the WSC subcommittees. Do you think that was a mistake?
Jack B. – Honestly, I doubt it had much impact. I don’t remember the exact committee structures or how they evolved. They probably existed before I joined. But at that time, the Board of Trustees was probably seen as the most respected body within NA. And maybe that was the problem — maybe we believed it too.
Tom M. – What’s your recollection of the Guide to Service development? You were there for the whole rollercoaster — from its inception to the green service manual and the years of revision that followed.
Jack B. – I don’t remember a lot, but I do remember working on the Green Service Manual. That’s the one that really sticks in my mind.
Tom M. – When the green manual was submitted for approval, only part of it passed. The rest became what we later worked on for over a decade — the Guide to Local Services. But during that time, the 12 Concepts were written and approved in 1992 — your last year on the board. Do you think the concepts were a necessary addition to our service structure?
Jack B. – Were they necessary? Apparently not, since they’re probably the most obscure piece of literature we have. But I do think they have value — especially for people involved in service. I just don’t think they’re relevant for the entire fellowship.
Danette – Changing topics — Jack, you and I once talked about the time Bob Stone’s contract wasn’t renewed. I remember thinking it was brought up by a newer trustee, maybe Chuck Lehman. But you had a different recollection. You said someone from the board approached you and asked to have the topic put on the agenda. Can you walk us through what you remember?
Jack B. – Yeah, my memory’s a bit different from yours. I don’t remember Chuck Lehman being on the Board of Trustees. Maybe he was on the Admin Committee and sitting in. But here’s what I do recall: The morning of a trustee meeting, I got a call from a woman on the board — I can’t recall her name — who wanted to discuss whether we should make a recommendation about Bob Stone’s contract. She asked that we put it on the agenda. I agreed. We brought it up at the beginning of the meeting, had the discussion, and ultimately decided to recommend to the Board of Directors that they not renew Bob’s contract. And the surprising part? They took our recommendation. That was probably the most shocking piece of the whole thing.
Danette – So, in hindsight, does it seem odd that the trustees had that much influence on a personnel decision?
Jack B. – Not necessarily. I don’t think it was unrealistic that our input would be taken seriously — even if it was surprising in that case. And to be honest, I always felt that the trustees were the most reasonable board among the World Services structure. Probably because we had more clean time, on average.
Danette – That definitely tracks. When I think back, the trustees always seemed to take the most measured, principled approach — and a lot of that had to do with your leadership, Jack. You had a steady, thoughtful style that helped guide discussions constructively.
Jack B. – Thank you. I appreciate that.
Tom M. – What are your thoughts on the merger of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors into what is now the World Board?
Jack B. – Honestly, I don’t know enough about how it’s played out to judge it. From where I stand, I still believe there’s value in having a separate Board of Trustees representing the fellowship. But whether that’s practical given how big NA is now? I’m not sure. One benefit of having a distinct Board of Trustees was that we didn’t have to deal with the money. That freed us up to focus on the spiritual and philosophical aspects. Once you bring money into the picture, it complicates everything.
Tom M. – Absolutely. That separation probably helped you all stay grounded in principle. Speaking of money — let’s go way back to the beginning of the Basic Text. There’s a story about a printer that Jimmy K. hired who ended up ripping him off. Do you remember anything about that?
Jack B. – Not really. I remember who the printer was, but I don’t remember if it was Jimmy who found him, or if Bill brought the printer to Jimmy. And honestly, if someone was scammed, it was probably Bill’s connection.
Tom M. – It was supposedly $10,000 that was given as front money to a printer, and then nothing happened. A year later, the conference was still asking, “Where’s the book we approved?” Do you recall if you were on the board at that point?
Jack B. – If it was the mid-’80s, then yes, I must have been. But here’s something that just occurred to me — if $10,000 was fronted, it couldn’t have come from Jimmy. He didn’t have access to that kind of money. That makes me question the whole story.
Danette – Exactly. That’s what I’ve always thought too. Jimmy didn’t have that kind of money. And the whole “he got ripped off” story started around the same time he was being removed.
Jack B. – Yeah, it just doesn’t add up.
Tom M. – This is why conversations like this matter. We’re piecing together actual history — not myth.
Jack B. – Do we have a date for when the Basic Text was officially approved?
Tom M. – It was approved at the World Service Conference in 1982.
Tom M. – Right. And by 1983, there still wasn’t a printed book. That’s when the conference started holding the office accountable — and I believe Jimmy had already been removed by then.
Jack B. – Yeah, I think that all happened at the first conference I attended as a trustee. That was the year we introduced term limits — before that, trustees were elected for life. And that was also when Jimmy’s involvement was officially ended. And I’ll say it — my theory has always been that someone close to Jimmy advised him to stay out of the limelight. So by the time that conference happened, most people there didn’t really know who he was. If he’d still been active, I think things would’ve gone very differently.
Tom M. – We spoke with Lynn last week, and she said she was with Jimmy when he tried to go to the office — and his key didn’t work. Do you remember anything about that?
Jack B. – I didn’t know about that until years later. But I’ve heard a lot of wild stories. One was that Chuck Gates and I were responsible for locking Jimmy out. That was completely false. Back in 2015, I had major surgery. I was hospitalized for three weeks and wasn’t sure I was going to make it. When I finally got home, I had a mountain of mail. One letter stood out — it was from someone we all know. It started off as an amends letter, about six or eight pages long. The writer admitted they had gone out of their way to badmouth me and Chuck every chance they got. Honestly, I didn’t feel like an amends was needed — not for me. Maybe the people they lied to deserved an apology. And besides, I don’t think a letter alone constitutes a true amends.
What baffled me most was that this person continued spreading those stories for so long — even though Chuck had gone out of his way to help them. I mean, Chuck and I admitted their son to Cri Help multiple times, never once asking for money, even though they could have paid. And let’s not forget — Jimmy was Chuck’s sponsor. Chuck wouldn’t have done anything to harm him.
Danette – There’s a letter from Chuck Gates that was shared with me — where he reflected on that time. It wasn’t quite an amends, but it was heartfelt. He basically said, “I thought I understood what we were doing by bringing in someone with a business background. But if I’d known how it would play out — that Jimmy wouldn’t even be part of the conversation — I never would’ve gone along with it.” Just thinking about it gives me chills.
Jack B. – Yeah, I’d say the same thing. I knew nothing about how that whole process unfolded. But now, when I look back and ask who might’ve orchestrated it behind the scenes, there’s one obvious answer.
Danette – Bob Stone. It was Bob Stone and his influence on Ramar and that entire crew. I’ve said it in the very first recording I did.
Jack B. – Absolutely. That was his background — Bob was a politician.
Tom M. – We’re getting close to the hour and a half mark, but you’ve just opened a whole new topic: the hiring of Bob Stone. Can you tell us a little about how that happened?
Jack B. – Sure. It started with Bill Beck. He was the one who introduced Bob Stone to Cri Help. Bob joined the Cri Help Board of Directors before he was ever introduced to the NA Fellowship. Now, this is where things get interesting. Bill was under consideration for termination from Cri Help. The night before the board meeting where his fate was going to be decided, he showed up at my apartment. He asked me to come to the meeting and lie — to tell them everything between us had been worked out and was fine. A couple of years earlier, I probably would have done it. Bill was my first sponsor. He was the first recovering person I ever met. I felt like I owed him. I stood in the doorway for what felt like a long time, considering it. But then I realized — if I did that, I’d have to resign my position. I couldn’t go on working there with that lie hanging over me. So I told Bill, “No, I can’t do that.” That was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made in recovery — though there’ve been plenty since. So Bill was terminated. But before that happened, Bob Stone and another politically connected board member, along with an attorney loyal to Bill, tried to disrupt the meeting. They claimed some board members were no longer eligible due to expired terms. They’d combed through old meeting minutes and put together a plan to challenge the board’s composition. In the end, the only people removed were Bob Stone, his political ally, and the attorney. And yet, not long after, Bob was introduced to the NA Fellowship. He served as parliamentarian for a couple of years before being hired full-time.
Tom M. – So, Bob was elected — or hired — by the World Service Office Board of Directors?
Jack B. – Yes. I think Bill Beck was terminated in either ’75 or ’76. Bob Stone was introduced to NA around the 1977 World Convention. That might’ve been the first time. There may not have even been an official World Service Conference that year — or maybe just a few people showed up. But whoever showed up was part of the conference back then.
Danette – Yeah, everyone who attended was basically considered a conference participant.
Tom M. – This conversation has been amazing. Danette and I are thinking we’d love to do another one if you’re open to it, Jack. There are a few more things we’d love to talk about — maybe not as long as today’s session.
Jack B. – Sure, of course.
Danette – How’s next Wednesday look?
Jack B. – Wednesdays are usually open for me. Looks clear.
Tom M. – Perfect. We’ll send you another Zoom invite a couple of days beforehand — same time.
Danette – Thanks again, Jack. This has been so valuable.
Jack B. – I’ve enjoyed it immensely. Looking forward to the next one.
All: Thanks, Jack! Bye! Take care!