May 7, 2025
NA: Hi Ron, thank you again for doing this. It’s been a long time since we’ve talked—I think it was ’87 or ’88—and I really appreciate you taking the time. You’ve been an intricate part of NA World Services for a long time, both as a special worker and a trusted servant. We want to hear your words. I could ask questions or talk all day about the things you’ve done, but it’d be better to hear from you. Probably the best place to start would be when you met Bob Stone or when you applied for the job at the WSO. How about that?
Ron: All right, I’ll start there. I never applied for a job at the WSO. What happened was, I was in graduate school and I had five years clean. I was living in Fargo, North Dakota. I was working nights at a halfway house for ex-offenders. My job was really simple: I sat at the front desk and made sure nobody ran away in the middle of the night. It was a sit-there-all-night-and-do-nothing job, which was perfect for graduate school—I could do my homework there. I was also really engaged with the people who wrote the Basic Text. I’d been following the process the whole time they were writing the book and even after. When they started the NA Way magazine, I subscribed. Before that, I subscribed to “The Voice of NA,” which was the precursor. I read everything I could get my hands on. We had just started a region in the Upper Midwest—Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Manitoba. We were doing everything we could to get NA going. I was just one of those young, on-fire-for-NA kind of guys. I was writing regularly for the NA Way in response to their calls for articles—usually at night on my typewriter. One day I was sitting at home and got a call. The guy on the phone was Greg Ranlett who I’m sure Danette remembers well. I didn’t know Greg yet. He just had a couple of questions: “How long have you been clean?” I said, “Five years.” Then, “Do you have a degree?” I said, “Yes, English degree. I’m also in grad school for guidance and counseling.” That was pretty much it—then he said, “Can I put you on hold?” So, Greg puts me on hold, and next thing I hear is, “Hello, I’m Bob Stone.” I knew who Bob Stone was because he was writing a Monday Morning Report every week, and I was devouring every word of it. So, when I say I “knew” him, I mean I followed his work closely. I knew what challenges he faced and how he approached leadership. Bob started asking me questions—feeling me out, seeing if I had a clue about what was going on. I was able to go toe-to-toe with him on everything he brought up. I was voracious when it came to reading anything NA World Services put out. He also asked questions to see where I stood philosophically. It didn’t take long before he asked, “Would you be interested in coming to work for the World Service Office?” And honestly, I wasn’t sure. At that time, I was interviewing for a position at the college where I got my undergrad. I was excited about that. I grew up in Northern Minnesota and wasn’t exactly looking to move to California. But Bob said, “Would you at least come out and interview—let us show you what we’re doing?” At that time, Danette was the only other management-level employee at the WSO besides Bob. She was the Public Information Coordinator. So, I agreed to come out for a visit. They flew me out, and Bob started working on me immediately—showing me around, getting me excited. It wasn’t hard. I was already passionate about NA and what the WSO was doing. He wanted me to interview for a full week—Monday through Friday. He had a plan: he was going to wear me down and get me to say yes. And he did. By Wednesday, I signed on. I called my job in Fargo and resigned. That’s how I met Bob Stone and Danette, and how I got started at the World Service Office. At that time, Bob Stewart wasn’t working there yet. It was just Danette and me in those early management roles. I think I was the first person who relocated from what I called “fellowship land” to come work at the WSO in California. That was July 1984.
Danette: I’m glad you mentioned the date. My memory’s always a bit fuzzy on timeframes. I thought Bob Stewart had been brought in as another Project Coordinator before you.
Ron: There’s a good reason for that. Even though I signed on and started working, I went back to Fargo. Bob shipped me an IBM Selectric typewriter so I could begin editing the NA Way from there. He wanted me to complete my master’s degree. He told me, “If you don’t finish your degree, I’m not going to hire you permanently.” He was really looking out for me. In the end, though, I derailed it. I got completely immersed in the work at WSO. I finished all my coursework, but never completed my paper, comps, or orals. I was just on a new adventure.
NA: So, from 1984 to 1989, you were editing the NA Way?
Ron: Correct. I started in July 1984 and resigned in July 1989.
NA: Did the magazine stop when you left?
Ron: No, we hired someone to replace me—Andy something, I believe. He became the new editor. I stayed on as an IT consultant. During my five years there, I had gone from never having touched a computer to writing databases for the NA Way, managing all the office’s tech systems. When I left, I wanted to make that my new career. Bob agreed to be my first client at a reduced rate so I could work half-time for him and half-time building my consulting business.
Danette: (Laughs) I have to share a memory here. I wasn’t an early adopter of tech. One of my first memories of you, Ron, was when we got those computers. I had switched from the old IBM Selectric word processor that Bob Stewart and I shared. You came in one day while I was typing and said, “You know, Danette, there’s all kinds of other things you can do with that document.” And I was like, “Ron, all I want to do is type it and print it!” Oh, and a quick question—was I still working there when you left?
Ron: I think so. My memory isn’t great on that detail, but I believe you were still there when I left—or you left shortly after. That feels about right.
NA: So, during those five years at WSO, you must have seen firsthand the fellowship grow dramatically.
Ron: Absolutely. It was explosive. The growth was immense.
NA: Do you remember the approval process the WSO used for selling audio tapes back then?
Ron: Yes. It was pretty similar to what we did for the NA Way magazine. It wasn’t a formal “approval process” like you’d imagine today. Bob had put together what we’d now call a “work group”—a tape review committee made up of RDs and conference members. They’d review tapes, giving them a thumbs up or down. The bar wasn’t super high, but the tapes had to represent an NA message, not violate the traditions, and not come from outside philosophies or other fellowships.
NA: And the NA Way—was that approved by a work group too?
Ron: We had two work groups: the review panel and the editorial board. The editorial board included one or more trustees. James Drinkwater was assigned to it the entire time I was there. That board was a bit higher-level, but I don’t remember exactly how people got chosen—maybe it was similar to how office board members were selected. The conference would offer candidates to a pool, and then the board picked from that pool. The actual office board of directors had a lot of power—even more than the conference trustees in some ways. They were selected much more easily, too. But the real vetting process happened at the board level, and Bob Stone had the biggest say in who got picked. So, for the NA Way, we’d get raw manuscripts and send them untouched to the review panel. Their job was to give quick feedback. Then, I’d edit the articles and submit my versions to the editorial board for final review. They’d compare my edits with the original manuscripts. Sometimes they’d say, “You went too far here,” or “This needs more clarity.” We edited pretty heavily. We told contributors, “You don’t have to be a writer—we want your heart, your message.” Some submissions were rough, so we worked hard to shape them.
NA: I always thought you did all the editing yourself!
Ron: (Laughs) It was actually more work to collaborate. I had to coordinate with the review panel, edit carefully, and revise based on feedback.
Danette: Once I was asked, “What did project coordinators really do?” And honestly, since most volunteers had jobs, it was the office staff and coordinators who did the heavy lifting—preparing for quarterly meetings, organizing committees, and making sure everything moved forward. Just getting a group of people to agree and be in the same place at the same time is a job in itself.
NA: Somewhere during your time at the office, the idea of the “staff team approach” came up. Do you remember how that originated? Was it what NA needed?
Ron: Yes, and I was right at the center of it. So, I might be a little biased—but yes, it was absolutely what we needed. It helped break a logjam that had lasted almost 10 years. From the moment the Basic Text was approved in 1982, it had been nothing but chaos around producing additional literature. There were big philosophical questions:
Was it consistent with the Eighth Tradition to employ writers and editors?
Could we recreate the magic of the Basic Text?
Should literature only come from local literature committees?
For nearly a decade, we couldn’t figure out how to produce publishable works. The volunteers did what they could, and the staff handled logistics like mailing and compiling, but we didn’t have a coherent editorial structure. At one point in the mid-80s, we hired a professional writer—not a member—to try and bring a coherent voice to a draft. It was a disaster. The manuscript didn’t sound like NA at all. It was rejected by the fellowship and failed at the conference. That was a wake-up call. The failure wasn’t because we used a writer—it was because we used someone outside the fellowship who didn’t embody the NA voice. That’s what we had to fix.
Fast forward to 1989, we began work on the 12 Concepts. George Holahan came into my office and said we needed something like AA’s 12 Concepts. He explained the rationale, and I was assigned as the primary writer. Lee Manchester was the editor. He and I worked closely: I’d write, he’d edit; he’d write, I’d edit. We saw that this two-person creative partnership got better results than either of us alone. We also pulled in a work group—committee chairs, trustees, staff—to review drafts and give feedback. Then, we expanded to a third concentric circle of input: the entire Board of Trustees, Office Board of Directors, and the Joint Administrative Committee (conference leadership). Each round of feedback led to deeper refinement. We’d gather insights, revise, and resubmit drafts until we had something everyone could stand behind. That was the real birth of the staff team approach. We had staff apply their writing and editing skills to compile the fellowship’s input—without trying to be the “authors.” That’s what cracked the nut. It balanced grassroots authenticity with editorial coherence. Later, that process evolved further. For It Works: How and Why and Just for Today, the roles of writer and editor were intentionally rotated between steps and traditions to bring depth and balance. They kept using diverse workgroups and distributed drafts widely—even across languages—to get global fellowship input. So, yeah. The staff team approach solved the problems that had plagued us throughout the 1980s. Once we implemented it, the logjam broke, and major literature projects finally moved forward.
NA: Thank you, Ron. That really clarifies the origins of the staff team approach. If I understand correctly, it kind of started by accident—especially with the steps portion of It Works: How and Why, which was voted down in 1987?
Ron: Yes, that’s a good way to put it. The idea of using a writer started with that project—but it failed. The fellowship overwhelmingly rejected the draft because the writer was a non-member. Once the rumor got out that a paid outsider had written it, people didn’t even bother reading it. It just didn’t reflect NA’s voice. The failure wasn’t because we used a writer—it was because we used the wrong writer. A non-member can’t authentically convey our message. The “cowboy poetry” that showed up in that manuscript didn’t speak to our experience. What we learned through the process of writing the 12 Concepts is that using skilled NA members—longtime, experienced members—as writers and editors works. These people weren’t “authors.” They were vessels, shaping input from the fellowship. That’s how we retained the magic of grassroots literature while producing something coherent and professional.
NA: So, the Concepts experience helped NA realize, “Maybe this is what we’ve been needing all along”?
Ron: Exactly. The 12 Concepts showed us that a staff-supported, collaborative process could actually work—and work well. And yes, It Works: How and Why came next. We learned from past failures, improved the model, and implemented it in a way that stayed true to the fellowship. The shift was this: The writer and editor weren’t working in isolation. They were embedded in a feedback loop—with work groups and the broader fellowship. That’s what made the difference.
NA: Do you think the process is still called the staff team approach today?
Ron: Yes, it is. It’s still called that.
NA: You brought up the 12 Concepts. Why didn’t George Holahan just adopt AA’s 12 Concepts?
Ron: Good question. There’s definitely a reason. Let’s take the Second Tradition:
“For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.”
Over time, NA developed two major interpretations of that tradition. One group believed that yes, we have leaders—but they’re trusted servants. Elected committee members, GSRs, staff—they’re leaders within that framework. The other side focused more on “they do not govern,” meaning any decision made must be directly tied to group conscience. In their view, no one should act independently—not boards, not staff, not trustees—unless they had explicit direction from the groups. As the fellowship grew, so did the complexity of service. But we didn’t have a good model for delegation. The AA Concepts were created to address that same challenge in their structure: how to delegate authority while still honoring group conscience. We looked at AA’s 12 Concepts as a potential model—but there were problems. Their concepts were tailored to AA’s specific structure. They included terminology, procedures, and organizational relationships that didn’t apply to NA. So instead of copying them outright, we extracted the principles behind their concepts—things like the right of decision, the right of participation, the concept of delegation—and rewrote them in language that fit NA’s structure and voice. For example, AA has a concept called the “Right of Participation,” which includes giving GSO employees a vote at their conference. That was a non-starter for NA. Our culture just isn’t ready to go there. Still, we believed in the spirit of that concept. Everyone should have a voice. So, we adapted the principle. In NA, employees and staff may not vote—but their voices are protected and welcomed in discussions.
Danette: Wow. I wish I had been in the room for that conversation with George Holahan. I’ve never thought they were needed and would have loved to have debated that with George. He’s the reason the 12 Concepts exist, right?
Ron: Yes, he really is.
NA: You mentioned the Fellowship Development Plan earlier. Were you still at the office when that began?
Ron: No, I wasn’t. That came later—after Danette and I worked on the Resolution Group. Our group laid some of the groundwork for a more strategic approach. The Fellowship Development Plan was published in 1999 by the first World Board after the service structure changes. It was their first attempt at a strategic framework for doing NA’s work globally. Today, it’s been largely replaced by the evolving Strategic Plan that’s updated every conference cycle.
NA: I thought it started in 1991, maybe under a different name—something like the International Development Plan. Then it shifted to being called the Fellowship Development Plan?
Ron: That’s probably right. It evolved in concept and terminology over time.
NA: So, whose responsibility is it to manage this kind of planning—World Services or the Conference?
Ron: It absolutely should be a function of NA World Services, in partnership with the WSO staff. Why? Because the staff are the only ones truly positioned to do that work. They interact with the fellowship daily. No RD or committee member has that level of continuous, global engagement. That doesn’t mean it should be done in isolation. The conference should still have a role—reviewing, discussing, and influencing the direction—but the groundwork, the structure, and the day-to-day implementation belong with the WSO staff. They have the perspective and the resources. I attend every World Service Conference. I’ve been to every one since 1997, always sitting in the gallery. When they ask, “How many of you are at your first conference?” half the room raises their hands. Even among RDs, a significant number are brand new each cycle. That turnover makes it hard to establish continuity or strategic thinking at the conference level. The staff provide the stability and long-term perspective needed for that.
That was part of our original point too—when we talked about the function of project coordinators and staff. Volunteers rotate. Staff have to carry the institutional memory and workload.
Danette: Ron, going back to the Resolution Group – You and I served with Jeff Baker, Walter, Spence, and a few others?
Ron: Absolutely. I think there were seven of us. One of them leaned a little toward the “Both Sides” faction, but he was still a good-faith participant.
Danette: That group was amazing—like divinely inspired. I remember we had some pretty deep discussions, especially about the idea that one office in the U.S. couldn’t realistically manage an entire global fellowship. Didn’t we talk about creating a system of national or zonal service bodies?
Ron: Yes, we did. We referred to them as “geographic entities” rather than using terms like “national” or “continental.” That gave flexibility to accommodate different realities. For example, is Germany more like California or like the whole U.S.? Is Europe a zone? Those are tough questions. But yes, the vision we laid out involved eventually shifting toward something like zonal representation. We even saw early versions of what’s now happening—collaboration between zones, continental-level interactions, etc. Resolution A was foundational. It included three elements:
A move toward consensus-based decision making.
The idea that representation should be based on geography, not population—more like the Senate model than the House of Representatives.
Downsizing the conference.
We didn’t think NA could sustain its growth if the conference structure stayed the same. Too many delegates, too much cost, and not enough strategic focus. We agreed not to present any of the other resolutions unless Resolution A passed. Once it did, we handed implementation off to the Transition Group. We saw ourselves as the architects. The Transition Group would be the builders. Unfortunately, the Transition Group didn’t carry forward all of our vision—especially around structural reform. They didn’t fully implement Resolution A. They offered soft, non-committal options instead. It felt like some of our work got shot in the foot. But later, I realized they may have had a point. When the Service System Workgroup came around years later and proposed major change, the fellowship chewed it up and spit it out. Maybe the Transition Group sensed that forcing big structural changes too quickly would cause backlash. So yes, it was disappointing. But there might have been some wisdom in their caution.
Danette: This isn’t quite a segue, but I’ve been thinking about that letter from Joe Gossett—the man who came in after Bob Stone. I thought his suggestion and guidance was great but obviously ignored.. Joe had been CEO of multiple international nonprofits. He wrote that a single office in the U.S. could not be the best for managing the affairs of a global fellowship. But then he was gone—fired in less than a year.
Ron: Yeah, I wasn’t there during Joe’s time, but I’ve heard a lot. Maybe what impressed you was his ability to frame issues. That’s probably what got him hired. But from what I understand, once he was in the role, working with him was extremely difficult. People universally describe it as one of the worst periods for staff morale and functionality. Whether that was due to personality issues or him pushing the organization too far too fast—I don’t know. What I do know is that some of his ideas probably had merit, but he couldn’t implement them in a way that people could accept. And in our environment, how you do something often matters as much as what you’re trying to do.
NA: That reminds me of the broader discussion about consultants. What’s your opinion about using consultants like Jim Deluca?
Ron: I’m a strong advocate for using consultants—when it’s done right. Jim Delizia is brilliant. I’d say he’s the second-best friend the fellowship ever had—after Bob Stone. He understands what’s his role and what isn’t. His job is to help us improve processes—not write our literature or direct our policies. Consultants have helped us grow up as an organization. Think about it—we’re a nonprofit with 50+ employees, international operations, a board of directors, and a global service structure. That’s a huge leap from the days of Jimmy K. running things from his house. When Danette and I were in the Resolution Group, one of our core recommendations was to adopt strategic planning. But how do you do that when nobody knows what it means? That’s where consultants came in. Jim and others showed us how planning works in complex organizations. And importantly, they did it without taking over. They facilitated, educated, and supported. That’s what you want from a consultant.
NA: I love that you once used the phrase “flying blind” to describe the early days. AA used that too, before publishing the Big Book.
Ron: Yes—but with one big difference. Our flying blind period happened after we already had the Steps, Traditions, and a basic structure. We had tools. AA didn’t have those yet. Also, AA had Bill Wilson. We had Jimmy K., and thank God for him—but he wasn’t Bill Wilson. We had to figure things out in a very different way.
NA: One of the things closest to my heart is the Guide to Service. I was very involved—reading, submitting input, mailing stuff back and forth. But after they proposed a service inventory, everything just went dark. What happened?
Ron: The Guide to Service ran into the same conflict we’ve been talking about: a deep rift over what service should look like and who gets to decide that. Let me go back. In the early 1980s, the Basic Text had that phrase, “all else is not NA.” It implied that service structures like WSO and WSC weren’t really NA. That created major tension. If those structures aren’t NA, then they don’t fall under the Traditions—so we don’t fund them, endorse them, or even recognize them formally. That led to factions, one side believed service bodies were NA and deserved legitimacy and support. The other believed these bodies were becoming too corporate taking control away from the groups and God. Now fast forward to the green-covered Guide to Service from 1983. It tried to define how service worked—what regions do, what areas do, what WSO does. But the fellowship couldn’t agree on it. They approved half the content and left the rest in limbo. As a result, we ended up with the “Temporary Working Guide to Our Service Structure”—a stopgap. That “temporary” guide lasted 15 years. During that time, we kept trying to get agreement on a real service manual. We made progress at the local level—producing the Guide to Local Service—but everything to do with world services remained unsettled. So eventually we had two documents:
The Guide to Local Service, focused on groups, areas, and regions.
The Guide to World Services, which evolved with each conference cycle.
But the unified service manual—the dream of one consistent guide—never came together. The deeper disagreements just never got resolved.
NA: It seemed like the group conscience discussion was getting close to a breakthrough. There were even drafts of chapters focused on that.
Ron: Yeah, but those ideas likely ended up embedded in the Concepts—especially the one we added about group conscience. That was missing from AA’s set, so we created it specifically to address how group conscience operates at every level—not just in the home group.
NA: And remember, our committee didn’t want the guide to be prescriptive. We wanted to present service models, examples that groups could adapt. No “one size fits all.”
Ron: Exactly. The goal wasn’t to dictate—it was to inspire informed decision-making, rooted in the principles.
NA: Back in 1987, when It Works: How and Why was rejected, part of the reason seemed to be the backlash against using paid editors and consultants. Once the rumor got out that a paid person had worked on the book, the fellowship seemed to reject it wholesale—even if they hadn’t read it. What’s your take?
Ron: You’re absolutely right. The rejection wasn’t about the content—it was about the process. As soon as people learned that a paid person—especially a non-member—was involved, it cast a shadow over the whole project. It’s important to remember that the issue wasn’t paying someone. The real issue was whether they were carrying the NA message authentically. The fellowship needs to hear its own voice. When we learned from that and made sure writers and editors were NA members deeply rooted in the program, everything changed.
NA: And today, we have consultants everywhere—at WSO, at WSC. What’s your feeling on that?
Ron: Used properly, consultants have helped us tremendously. Look at someone like Jim Delizia. His job was to help us understand complex processes—strategic planning, facilitation, consensus—but never to tell us what to believe or write. Jim didn’t write literature or direct policy. He helped us ask better questions, structure our dialogue, and move forward more effectively. That’s the right way to use consultants.
NA: It makes me think of the 480 helplines across the country. Each region or area has their own number. Wouldn’t it be more effective to have one national number, like 1-800-GET-HELP?
Ron: Funny you mention that. There’s a group working on something like that now—called the “Collaboration of Zones” in the U.S.. Their idea is to create centralized resources—like a national phone number and a unified website—but not to replace local services. Instead, they’d act as a funnel. Calls and requests would be routed to the appropriate zones, and from there to the regions or areas. The technology is there now to make that possible. It wouldn’t take much manpower either—just coordination and clarity.
NA: That’s promising. It shows that the ideas we had decades ago are still alive—they’re just taking a long time to come to fruition.
Ron: Absolutely. Some of the seeds we planted back then are only just now beginning to sprout.
NA: You mentioned the Concepts again. Didn’t AA let their office employees vote at their conference?
Ron: Yes, they do. Not all of them, but some GSO staff in AA have full voting rights at their conference. When Lee and I saw that during our visit to New York, we were ready to advocate for it in NA. But culturally, NA just wasn’t going to go for that—especially not at the world level. Still, the principle behind it—the “Right of Participation”—was important. We had to ask: How do we honor that principle in NA’s structure? The compromise was to ensure that everyone—staff, trustees, board members—had a voice in the process, even if they didn’t have a vote. That’s how the fellowship ended up interpreting “participation.” But it wasn’t without conflict. At various times, there were heated debates about whether committee chairs, trustees, or even senior staff should be allowed to vote at the conference. Eventually, we landed on something like this: Everyone gets a voice. Voting is reserved for RDs and designated conference participants. But key participants like trustees, World Board members, and committee chairs still get to participate in discussions fully.
Danette: In some local areas, subcommittee chairs do vote. Like in my area—Gold Coast, California—they’ve kept that in their guidelines for years, through multiple revisions. They’ve repeatedly affirmed that their subcommittee chairs get a vote and a voice. I think it may have changed very recently.
Ron: And that’s perfectly valid at the local level. It’s a more straightforward application of the Concepts in a smaller environment. But even at the world level, we eventually found a workable model. The World Board, for example, used to vote on everything. Now, they only vote on matters that were not included in the CAR (Conference Agenda Report). That way, they don’t overstep the input that’s already been processed by the fellowship.
Danette: I thought the trustees had come to the conclusion that everyone should have a voice, but not everyone needs a vote.
Ron: That was the theory—but it didn’t come easily. It was a long battle with lots of compromise.
NA: Were you still involved with World Services during the creation of the Fellowship Development Plan?
Ron: No, I wasn’t at the office anymore. But I went back and read the 1999 Fellowship Development Plan in preparation for this conversation. It was published by the first iteration of the newly formed World Board and was their attempt at strategic thinking—trying to act more like a modern organization.
NA: My impression was that something similar started in 1991, but it was called the International Development Plan at first.
Ron: That sounds accurate. The concepts evolved over time, but the core idea was the same: move from reactive to proactive service, based on actual needs in the fellowship.
NA: Do you think this kind of global planning should come from the WSO staff or from the Conference?
Ron: The WSO staff absolutely should lead that, in partnership with World Services as a whole. They’re the ones engaging with the global fellowship every day. They hear what’s needed firsthand. The Conference should be part of the dialogue, of course—but it’s the staff who are best positioned to track global trends, respond to inquiries, and identify service gaps.
Danette: Right. Volunteers rotate out. Staff carry institutional memory and continuity.
Ron: Exactly. And with technology improving—webinars, online collaboration—regional delegates are better informed than ever. But back in your day, Danette, there was very little communication between cycles. That’s changed now.
NA: We’ve just barely scratched the surface, and we’re already 90 minutes in. Ron, are you okay going further?
Ron: I’m good to go for a little longer, maybe another 30 minutes.
NA: That works. So looking ahead, what’s the best way to keep these conversations going?
Ron: Here’s the thing—I’ll be traveling in an RV starting next Wednesday for six or seven weeks. We’ll be on the road and stopping along the West Coast.
Danette, I’ll be in your time zone the whole time—Pacific. Maybe we could do something around May 26th? That’s Memorial Day. I’ll be in the Redwoods, but it’s a quieter travel day.
Danette: That works for me. We could do 9:00 AM?
Ron: That should work. Let’s pencil that in for now and I’ll confirm as it gets closer.
Danette: I’ll send reminders a couple days before—just like I did for this one.
Ron: Perfect. Thanks again for putting this together. This was great.
NA: Thanks again, Ron. We’ll talk soon.