May 26, 2025
Danette: Okay, we’re recording. Hi Ron. Thom and I were trying to remember exactly where we left off last time—what we covered, and what new things came up since then. Before we jump in, is there anything you recall from last time or anything you’d like to make sure we get recorded?
Ron: Not really. I haven’t had time to reflect much. But as I looked over the list you sent, there are a few items that could be interesting to discuss.
Tom: Great—thanks, Ron. I think of these as conversation starters more than formal questions. It’s about opening the door and letting your piece of history come through. One topic that keeps coming up is the direction NA service has taken. Your long experience might shed light on things I don’t fully understand—like court-mandated meeting attendance. Do you think that’s been a benefit to NA?
There was a former AA trustee near me—Sabrina Carpenter, I believe—who was also a judge. She’s retired now and has publicly said she regrets using the fellowship that way. Her concern is that we’ve essentially become agents of the state by verifying attendance for people in the system. Since you were involved back when that started, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Ron: That kind of thing actually began before I was involved. The “nudge from the judge” has been around for a long time. When I was on the Board, we did talk about it—not to come up with a directive, because we can’t really issue enforceable policies—but to understand our posture.
From our view, it wasn’t something we were doing, it was something we were responding to. A broader part of our strategic planning every cycle was to ask two main questions: (1) What’s happening inside the fellowship that requires strategic attention? And (2) What’s happening outside the fellowship that might affect us?
For example, internally, we might deal with something like the Baby Blue situation. Externally, it could be a shift in treatment approaches, like Suboxone. We’d ask: “How do we position ourselves while staying true to the principle of total abstinence?” Not because we’re going to change it—but because we have to respond to external pressure in a clear, principled way.
The court slip issue falls into that second category: something coming from outside the fellowship. People walk into a meeting with a paper and ask, “Will you sign this to prove I was here?” It’s not something NA created—it’s something we’ve had to figure out how to navigate.
Danette: That makes sense.
Ron: My stance has always been this: If someone in a meeting asks you to sign a paper, you’re doing it for them. You’re not entering into a relationship with the court, parole office, or treatment center that gave them that paper. You’re just verifying their presence. The moment we initiate collaboration with those outside entities—like accepting phone calls or confirming attendance—we’ve crossed the line. Then it becomes affiliation, not cooperation.
Tom: Yeah, we found a workaround. We got self-inking stamps at Staples that just say “NA Meeting” with a blank line and date. We stamp it—no signatures, no names. That’s it.
Ron: I love that. It keeps things simple. No personal involvement, no affiliation. It’s just a form of cooperation with the individual, not the system they’re entangled in.
Ron: It reminds me of a moment back in the ’80s at a trustee meeting. Someone asked if we should formally adopt AA’s “cooperation, not affiliation” stance. The trustees said our policy is simply non-affiliation. We didn’t adopt the “cooperation” part—but over time, we started using that phrase informally. It became a guiding principle, even if it was never officially adopted.
So yeah—stamping papers? Sure. Taking phone calls from probation officers? That’s where we step out of bounds.
Tom: You mentioned the inverted triangle—that even the World Services and boards can’t enforce anything. Bulletins are just responses to fellowship inquiries. But is it really realistic to believe that what comes out of World Services doesn’t carry an effect? Doesn’t it trickle down as if it’s mandatory?
Ron: That’s such a great question—and really central to how we understand the role of World Services. According to the Concepts, authority flows from the fellowship through delegation. When you delegate a responsibility, you also delegate the authority necessary to carry it out—but not more, and not less.
Leadership is a responsibility that’s been delegated to the World Board and the World Service Conference. Think of writing a bulletin as one expression of that leadership. There’s a process now—board-approved literature goes through a 90-day fellowship review period. It’s guidance, not policy. The fellowship isn’t bound to it.
But do people still take it as directive? Yes. And in a way, that’s not entirely bad. Leadership exists in NA, even if we’re uncomfortable with the concept. People look to the board for direction—and that’s natural. But it still requires balance. The literature should be influential, but not binding.
Tom: What do you think we gained—or lost—when we merged the Board of Trustees and Board of Directors? The Trustees were seen as spiritual elders, and the Directors handled the business. Now it’s all one board. Did that consolidation serve us?
Ron: Great question. And we can’t forget the third element—conference committees and leadership, like PI and H&I, which were connected directly to service efforts at the regional level.
Back in the day, Bob Stone was adamant: “Don’t do it. Don’t have a single board.” He believed consolidating all power into one board was risky—that we don’t do well with concentrated power, and that separation of powers helped balance things.
So now, having lived with it for almost 20 years… I still think those concerns are valid. The board can become too insulated, especially during times of conflict. But the saving grace is the World Service Conference. It’s still the fellowship’s voice.
What’s changed is where the conflict lies. In the 1980s, it was World Services vs. the RSRs. Now, the board and delegates are more unified, and the tension is often between delegates and their own regions. The local fellowship doesn’t always agree with its own delegate anymore.
So yeah, things are more harmonious between the board and the conference. But that harmony can also mask the fact that some voices—especially at the grassroots level—still feel unheard.
Danette: That’s an important shift.
Ron: Back in 1993, things got so bad that we actually suspended business at the conference to take stock. That led to the whole inventory process. The old structure—the “three-headed monster” of Trustees, Directors, and the Conference Admin Committee—each with its own priorities and budgets—was grossly inefficient.
So the resolution group came in and said: here are some principles for restructuring. And consolidation brought more unity. It eliminated turf wars. But did it create a new problem? Maybe.
I think we’re still okay. The World Board can’t steamroll the conference. The relationship is still balanced. But yes—it requires vigilance.
Danette: You brought up the inventory process. I don’t know if you remember, but I was so disappointed by how it turned out. It felt like a waste of time and was part of why I chose not to serve another term as a trustee. It just didn’t accomplish what we’d hoped. What do you remember about that?
Ron: That actually happened during my hiatus from service. I walked away around 1989 because I saw problems starting to form. We were becoming too cautious, too guarded. There was a kind of secrecy—not malicious, just a tendency to close ranks. Like, “Let’s have these private conversations and not let the rest of the fellowship in.”
That didn’t sit well with me. I’ve always believed that our authority lies in the hearts and minds of the grassroots fellowship. That’s where the higher power flows through. If we’re truly living by the Second Tradition, we have to trust that.
When I heard the inventory was happening—and when I was later invited to return and help redirect it—I was thrilled. But during the actual process, I wasn’t involved.
Tom: That kind of leads into a broader issue. I’ve heard a World Board directive say that a “real NA meeting” must use only NA-approved literature. If it doesn’t, it can’t be listed. So in some areas, Gray Book studies are excluded from directories because they’re using older or alternative literature. Is that the kind of authority we’re supposed to be exercising?
Ron: That’s a deep question. I think we have to go back to the idea of the inverted pyramid. The boss is at the top—that’s the collective fellowship. Those doing the work are at the bottom, carrying out the will of the groups.
The Second Tradition says our ultimate authority is a loving God, as expressed through our group conscience. It’s a lofty ideal, but we have to take it seriously. The concepts reinforce this through delegation. Just like in any organization, authority must be delegated if the structure is going to function.
But that doesn’t mean micromanagement. If every action needs to be approved by the groups directly, we’re paralyzed. Delegation is supposed to create trust and efficiency—not chaos and mistrust.
Danette: As someone who’s worked in education and communication, I’ve always been frustrated with how poor the communication has been between World Services and the members. Most people don’t care, don’t understand, and don’t want to get involved beyond staying clean. They just want to know where their next meeting is.
Ron: And that’s okay to a degree. Most members care about the atmosphere in their meetings, about sponsorship, about helping newcomers. That’s what matters most at the group level.
But when the service structure tries to communicate about big-picture issues—literature, policy, structure—it often fails. The truth is, most of those documents never reach the groups. And when they do, they’re often ignored. That gap has always been there.
Tom: And it feels like that gap has grown. It’s hard for people at the group level to feel like they’re really part of the broader conversation.
Ron: Absolutely. And I’ve been on the other side—writing the materials, trying to get people to engage. It’s heartbreaking when you realize your best efforts don’t make it past the area service committee, if they even get there.
Danette: I’ve focused my energy on group-level stuff for years—sponsorship, welcoming newcomers—because that’s where the heart of the fellowship really is. I don’t know how we close the gap between that and world-level service, or if we even can.
Tom: I wanted to bring up something I noticed at the World Service Conference. When a motion came up from the Conference Agenda Report, I couldn’t tell how our delegate voted. He just pushed a button, and that was it. It felt like secret voting. Like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain—we only saw the results.
Ron: I get what you’re saying. Back in the days of Robert’s Rules, there were different levels of voting. First was a voice vote. If it was clearly one-sided, that was the end of it. If it wasn’t, someone could call for a standing vote, and occasionally, we’d have a roll call vote—where every vote was recorded. That was rare, but it gave full accountability.
The current system is similar. The new consensus-based decision-making model has evolved into something that, frankly, doesn’t exist anywhere else. And it works. It’s still evolving, but it works well.
That said, you can still request a standing vote. And when needed, votes can be recorded in the minutes. But you’re right—the general process doesn’t make it easy for an outsider to know how their delegate voted. It requires trust.
Danette: And trust can be hard, especially when communication is weak.
Ron: That brings me to another toxic myth in NA: the idea that groups directly control decisions made at World Services. That’s never been the case. There’s never been a mechanism where groups collectively make decisions at the conference level. It’s not realistic.
Instead, we elect delegates. They do the work: read the material, study the issues, have conversations with groups. Then they go to the conference and vote. Sometimes they vote the way their region instructed. Other times, they hear new information and adjust.
Ron: I had that experience as a delegate. My region didn’t like the idea of the Step Working Guides. Personally, I didn’t either. I felt it took away some of the creativity and uniqueness of NA step work. But the region supported it.
When I got to the conference, I didn’t hear anything new that changed my mind, so I voted with my region. But if something had shifted—if I’d seen something they couldn’t have seen—I would have voted differently and explained why.
That’s delegation. That’s trust. And that’s how the system is supposed to work.
Danette: It’s nuanced. People expect black-and-white answers, but service is filled with gray areas and judgment calls.
Ron: Exactly. Delegates aren’t robots. They’re trusted servants, not instructed machines. And like I said earlier, we’ve always struggled with communication—getting meaningful information from the boardroom to the group room.
When we did the worldwide workshops, we made huge progress. We traveled, sat down with members face to face, and listened. That made a difference. But those efforts fade unless they’re ongoing.
Tom: And a lot of the tension comes from finances. People think their $5 in the basket is going to World Services. It’s not.
Ron: Right. Another myth. That money almost always stays local—at the group, area, or maybe region. Rarely does it make its way to World Services. And when it does, it’s often from conventions or merchandise, not baskets.
We’ve been trying for decades to shift NA to a contribution-based model. But most people still believe literature sales should fund everything.
The pandemic proved how flawed that is. Literature sales dropped, and World Services had to lay people off. Even with our largest reserve ever, it wasn’t enough. Had we relied more on member contributions, we would’ve been more stable.
Now, World Services is making a stronger push to fundraise directly from the fellowship. Some won’t like it. Others will say: “Finally.”
Danette: But some people are still thinking: “If I put in more money locally, it will help world.”
Ron: Not true. Never has been. And we have to keep repeating that. If you want to support World Services, donate directly. That’s the only way to be sure it gets there.
Tom: One of the reasons I brought this up is that I remember seeing a line item from 1988—$50,000 for coffee at the World Convention. You don’t see that kind of detail in reports anymore. I’d like to, especially if part of the registration fee goes toward that. I don’t even drink coffee! [laughs]
Ron: Fair point. But that level of granularity—while interesting—may not always be practical. The treasurer role on the World Board, for example, doesn’t really manage finances in the way people might think. It’s largely symbolic—a requirement for nonprofit status. The real work is done by staff: the CFO, the controller, the finance department.
When I was on the executive committee, we weren’t deeply involved in the daily financial decisions. Instead, it was about reviewing reports and understanding trends. For example, the budget categories—fixed costs, capital, variable costs—are standard accounting structures in corporations, not NA-specific jargon. They serve a purpose in managing a $10 million-a-year international nonprofit.
Danette: That’s part of the frustration. You look at the annual report, and you can’t really tell where the money actually goes. You see big buckets, but not how it’s broken down. And it feels like we lost that line-by-line clarity.
Ron: You’re right that the reports are designed to strike a balance between clarity for the average member and depth for the “bean counters.” We try to provide enough information to satisfy both audiences, but it’s not easy.
Remember, NAWS is required to undergo an external audit every year to maintain its 501(c)(3) status. Those audits are public, and any member can request them. If there were signs of incompetence, mismanagement, or unethical practices, that would come out—and members would absolutely speak up.
Tom: One thing I noticed: in the footnotes, NAWS has more money in checking accounts than is covered by FDIC insurance. Like, they might have a million dollars in an account that’s only insured up to $250,000. Isn’t that a concern?
Ron: It’s a valid question. And it could be asked by any board member, delegate, or even a regular member via email. If it’s a serious risk, someone will raise it. That said, many nonprofits operate with uninsured balances. It’s not ideal, but it’s also not inherently negligent. Sometimes it’s just about timing or managing multiple revenue streams.
Tom: I’ve always wanted to understand the budget better, but it just seems so fragmented now. I miss when we had a clearer sense of what money was for.
Danette: I think part of what’s missing is a values-based approach to spending. During the pandemic, it was heartbreaking to see so many staff laid off. Couldn’t some of that travel budget have been reduced earlier?
Ron: That’s a fair critique. There are two big issues at play here:
1. Strategic Reserves – Are we putting enough money aside for emergencies?
2. Revenue Streams – Right now, NA is overly reliant on literature sales.
When the pandemic hit, literature sales plummeted. That’s what caused the layoffs—not mismanagement, just vulnerability. If we had stronger direct contributions, we might have weathered the storm better.
There’s been a long-running push to encourage the fellowship to donate directly. But toxic myths persist. Like the idea that putting extra money in the basket helps fund NA World Services. It doesn’t.
Danette: And the same folks who criticize merchandising at the convention don’t realize that that’s one of the only reliable revenue streams.
Ron: Exactly. Conventions, merchandise, and literature are how we’ve survived. But that model is fragile. We need a culture shift toward self-support through direct donations.
Tom: I hear you. But my point stands: no matter how big the budget gets, we need to live within our means. We can’t just hope things change. We need to spend wisely now.
Danette: Maybe we should sell coffee at the World Convention. [laughs]
Ron: [laughs] Or at least charge extra for it!
Danette: The pandemic made it painfully clear that we have to live within our means. It’s been the same issue since the beginning. We can’t just keep hoping things will change—we have to plan around what’s real.
Tom: Right. You don’t keep spending money just because you have it. You have to think long-term.
Danette: And the way the budget is set up doesn’t always reflect that. It felt off to me when so many staff were laid off. It’s not about transparency—I don’t think anyone was doing anything malicious—but I wish our budgeting better reflected our values.
Ron: I think there are two major areas where NA World Services still needs to grow:
1. Strategic Planning — including putting aside reserves so we’re not caught off-guard by another crisis.
2. Stable Revenue — we can’t continue to depend primarily on product sales. Literature, merchandise, and conventions are not sustainable as our only sources.
We’ve been saying this for decades, but it hasn’t shifted. And that’s largely because the fellowship still doesn’t see direct giving as their responsibility.
Danette: That’s cultural—and deeply ingrained.
Ron: Exactly. And the pandemic showed the consequences of that mindset. If we’d had broader support through direct member contributions, we wouldn’t have had to rely on sales that suddenly vanished.
Tom: So, we’ve got to change the culture—but also be realistic. Live within our means, budget conservatively, and stop assuming things will turn around without a plan.
Danette: Sell coffee! [laughs]
Ron: [laughs] Absolutely. Serve it with a Seventh Tradition sticker on the cup.
Danette: Or start charging double for it! [laughs]
Tom: Or offer premium mugs—“NA World Services Blend.” [laughs]
Ron: Merchandising with purpose! [laughs] But in all seriousness, these are conversations we have to keep having. Balancing principle with practicality, structure with spirit.
Danette: We’ve hit the hour and a half mark. Ron, thank you so much for your time today. Would you be willing to continue the conversation after your vacation?
Ron: Absolutely. I’d be happy to.
Danette: Great. I’ll send you the transcript, like last time. It takes a few days—my sponsor helps get it cleaned up through someone she knows.
Ron: Perfect. That works for me.
Tom: And Ron—just for the record—I didn’t take offense at the “bean counter” comment. My dad was a CPA. His motto was: “It’s not how much you make, it’s how much you spend.” That stuck with me.
Ron: [laughs] A great philosophy.
Tom: I’ll probably send a letter to the World Board about some of these financial concerns, rather than bringing it up at the group level. That seems like a better path.
Ron: I agree. You may not always get the answer you want—but you will get an answer. And sometimes that’s all it takes to start a better conversation.
Danette: Thanks again, Ron. Enjoy your vacation.
Ron: Thank you. See you soon.