2GIAM

Hello, my name is Ishmael M and I am a Grateful recovering addict. I am a member of the policy subcommittee of my area which is the First Coast Area of Narcotics Anonymous. We need some clarity on an issue and was hoping that I could get some experince and suggestions that could possibly help us in this area. The issues are as follows: Our convention subcommittee is responsible for choosing our main speakers for our area. There are some in our area that feel that they violated our policy and others that don’t. The problem is in the interpretation of our policy. Here is a copy from our convention policy for programming. I will place in bold the area in which the problem lies.

When choosing our speakers we must keep in mind that diversity is our strength. We suggest that the
Committee remembers this to keep the workshops and speaker meetings as diverse as possible. When considering
the four (4) main speakers: one (1) should be from our area, one (1) from our region, one (1) from a three hundred
mile radius, and one (1) from the world wide fellowship. The Programming Committee is responsible for arranging transportation for all speakers; upon submitting three written bids for transportation.
Whenever funds are available, a speaker’s travel expenses may be paid. Sometimes complimentary rooms are
provided to Main-Meeting Speakers as a way of deferring the additional expenses.


Our programming committee chose 4 speakers, one (1) from our area, one (1) form the world wide fellowship, one (1) from California and one (1) from New York. This means we do not have a Regional speaker or a speaker from a three hundred mile radius. The speaker they are using for the world is also from New York and a plane ticket has been bought for this particular speaker; which our policy call for. This gives us a total of 3 speakers from outside our area; two from New York and one from California.

Our programming committee feels they have not violated our policy because they feel the consideration of the speakers is a suggestion. They say that the word “suggest” in the beginning of the second sentence is referring to the 3rd sentence and therefore stating that it is suggested who the speakers should be. Which means they can chose speakers from anywhere. It should be noted that all speaker were chosen by committee and a sign up list. They further state that no regional or three hundred mile radius speakers signed the list to speak.
There are other members that feel that the committee violated our policy and that of the conscience of our ASC, therefore violating traditions and concepts. They feel that the policy clearly illustrates to the programming committee where they wanted the speakers chosen from. They contend that the word suggest is stating that the committee remember to keep in mind that diversity is our strength. Also a pool of tapes and CD’s were available to them from our archives; which they chose not to use.

I am asking for experience and some clarity on this matter.I am also asking specifically

1 Does the programming committee not choosing speakers from where the policy states violate our policy, traditions and concepts. If so, which and if not, why not?
2 Does the word suggest imply that choosing our speaker is a suggestion or not? If so, how and if not, why?

Thank You in advance for your time and service in helping us out.

A Grateful Recovering Addict
Ishmael M

FT

Hey, Ishmael:

For that paragraph to have "teeth", the word "should" MUST read "shall" in order for it to have the "force" of a requirement.

The "suggest" piece is just a preamble. The rest is what tells them what to do.

FT

2GIAM

Thanks, someone else shared with me that the word "should: was ambiguous and therefore made the the consideration of the speakers a suggestion. Although, when I looked up the word "should", I got
1. simple past tense of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.

A little more resesrch and I found that I agree that the word is ambigious. I will suggest that if our conscience wants to change this; that we do so in order to give it more "teeth" or allow "soft gums". Thank you for your imput.

Gmoney

Hi Ishmael,

Let me start by saying that I've served on numerous subcommittees on the ASC level and totally understand how some members can get their drawers in a bunch over trivial matters. IMO, it usually is a matter of strong personalities trying to dictate their interpretation while overlooking the spirit and intent of the language. Although I saw no bold print indicating the issue, I will try to answer your questions.

To state that there is a "violation" of policy, traditions or concepts is to imply that these things were disregarded. From what you've shared, it appears that the speakers that were chosen were chosen from a "current" sign-up list - which indicates willingness and availability - as opposed to a possibly outdated "pool" of potential speakers that may or may not be alive, clean, willing or available. If I'm not mistaken, programming committees offer plenty of time for those willing to speak to submit tapes or CD's and are not required to reconsider the (often) vast amount of submissions in archives. As far as I can see, if nobody from your region or the 300 mile radius submitted anything, the programming committee cannot be held responsible for their lack of interest.

Although the language suggests (by using the word "should") an effort be made in that regard, it does not state a speaker "must" be chosen according to that criterion. The most common usage of the word "should" is conditional like the word "ought" - which implies an obligation to move in that direction. Yet, "should" is not an absolute, a command or demand. Yes...should is only a suggestion. Those who have a problem with it may consider getting on the Steering Committee and changing the Bylaws.

And as far as traditions or concepts go...I believe it's a HUGE stretch to say such a thing. I wouldn't even begin guessing which they'd claim was violated. I'd let them cut their own throat by telling me their fantasy. LOL!

G

Missybuns

This is exactly why our Region calls ours "Guidelines" and not "policy"

I was our ASC's convention service rep for two years recently. This part stands out to me: This "they" might be in a better light if, for the sake of a better perspective, be looked at as our predecesors hard won experience. Having said that, "they" likely a different group of people doing their best to suggest this diversity approach as a guideline. All we really have is now. I see enough "they's" in the original post to get a pretty good sense of the differences rather than the similarities that bind us together.

Spiritual principles never conflict. If someone (or even more than one) are not happy with the committees service work then "they" need to consider being a committee member. If committee members don't agree...well then ok...it's ok to disagree.

Any of us can have our opinion and it not be taken seriously or even be ignored. It may take some learning the hard way before the one quiet voice gets heard....and respected.

Let's just say the committee is in "violation" of the policy, then what? Un-invite the speaker? hmmmm

I don't see how a fellowship of spiritually-minded members can take any adverse action against anyone for any reason unless it's a violent crime.

Your policy committee could take this as an oppotunity to consider what exactly determines a "violation"...but more importantly what might be done as a solution to such an unidentifyable offense.

If that sounds crazy, well it should!

We review the wording when stuff like this happens ( I will call them invisible violations from now on LOL) then ultimately we move on and take into consideration to do it differently next time.

I say let the committee do their service. The policy committee simply clarifies the conscience of what has been passed along and written down by our predecessors...they don't "enforce" it. The entire committee makes decisions on whether or not to change it as a service to the ASC (or RSC) as it comes to light.

welcome Ishmael

Peace,
Missy

Gmoney

I was thinking the same thing, Missy...who are these "they" people?

amen!

FT

Ishmael:

The bottom line is: if you want your guidelines to have the force of a requirement, you "should" perhaps have a lawyer write them up! Then, of course, "try" to get the consensus of the group to approve them. Ha!

2GIAM

I would like to thank everyone for their comments and experience on this matter. The word "they" was only used as a way to clarify one school of thought from the other. I agree that by debating this point, we had indeed moved away from the spirt of our 5th tradition. I got a lot out of everyones comments and even enjoyed your attempts at humor...lol....as I hope you did mine "soft gums". I have shared your wisdom with fellow members and I am confident that the God of our understanding will lead us to a decision based on doing the right thing for the right reason. .............. Thanks Missy on the heads up, I will defintely use as a resource.