LIT TALK TAPES

APRIL, 1991

GD - Grateful Dave  BS - Bo Sewell

BA - Billy Allen   BM - Becky Meyer

RD - Roy Drum   ST - Stu Tooredman

JM - Jim Miller   U - Unknown

GH - George Hallohan

ST: I'm putting you all on speaker phone. First, there's George, Danette, Lee, and Joe, the new Executive Director.

GD: Hi, Joe, welcome to Hell.

ST: First of all, I'd like to apologize to you guys. It took a long time to get this done. It's been kind of a mess of late. Has everybody received the draft? Anybody not received the draft? Okay.

GD: Who's got a TV going?

JM: Not us. This is Jim. Is somebody taping this? Do you have a tape recorder going?

U: We've got a secretary, Jim.

JM: Good, that's even better.

GD: Well, I don't know about that?

JM: Would it be possible to tape it while she's writing?

U: Actually, I don't have the equipment for a phone tape.

GD: Yeah you do. You've got a speaker phone, microphone, tape deck and tapes. That's all you need.

D: Are you guys serious?

GD: Absolutely.

D: It'll take a while.

GD: That's all right. We'll chit chat first.

BS: I have one here. I can tape it if you all want me to.

GD: Fine, I don't care who does it.

ST: Does anybody have any opening comments they'd like to make?

GD: Yeah.

ST: Go for it.

GD: You're not going to like it, but I don't have anything positive to say about this or the WSO report or the state of affairs in Narcotics Anonymous today, so prefaced with that, that's my opening comment.

ST: Okay.

BS: I've got a recorder on.

JM: I feel betrayed.

U: Why?

JM: I think that what we talked about in Harrisburg was trying to heal something in the fellowship that's become a rift. This document, particularly the operational rules part of it widens the rift. It doesn't do any healing that I see.

GD: Absolutely. It's completely one-sided.

JM: Essentially, the trustor is in the place where the beneficiary should be consistently.

GD: Absolutely.

JM: I see that if this, from the nature of things that I understand in my region and people that I've visited with, this comes on the floor of the conference, it's going to solidify some people that already want to create an alternative structure.

U: Okay.

JM: That's what I'd really hoped to avoid with this, is getting everybody pulling together instead of pulling separately, and I really feel this shows that somebody who was responsible for the writing this doesn't understand the traditions of Narcotics Anonymous.

U: Okay. How's that?

U: Could you articulate that, Jim?

JM: Sure. Let me look first specifically to one thing that I think is the most indicative of that, and that's page 19 of the operational rules, under **** of inspection. Item #1, referring to this region that might want to inspect the records of the trust. The region's motion to conduct an inspection of the trust must be approved by two thirds or more of regional service committee's voting participants. In this way, the literature trust which is supposed to be part of that scheme of things, which is a service board or committee directly responsible to those it serves, has dictated to those they serve. That's number one.

Number two, which is referent to the ability of this region. Let's refer back to the beginning on page 18, Section 3, "Inspection of Trustee Activities conceptual notes," it says that all records will be available to the inspecting region, except personnel records, and then parenthetically, U.S. federal employment codes require that employers keep these records completely confidential. Somebody doesn't understand that the fellowship is the employer of the employees at the World Service Office.

U: That's correct. But the fellowship elected a board that deals with the personnel aspect. So, in essence, they have a body that inspects personnel records.

GD: Let me interject something here. Is there someone who has background conversations going on that are not related to this conference call, cause I'm having real difficulty separating. I don't know where it is, but it's hard.

BA: Let me go to the other room. That's my house. I'll just go to another phone and hang this one up.

U: To answer your question. How would you have this particular activity take place?

JM: I was really just using this as an illustration. It's not really a major thing, it's just really illustrative.

U: I think the intent was to create an inspection procedure that will allow inspection to take place under a responsible framework.

GD: I've got a comment here at this time. "Responsible framework" is that since the fellowship is the employer of all at the office, really, that the fellowship has been in this inspection procedure, and I'm with Jim all the way on it. It places an unfair burden financially and otherwise on the region itself. This stuff should be a matter of accounting records that, if proper accounting procedures are used, that should be able to be printed out on a monthly basis, and presented to anyone who asks.

U: Print out what?

GD: Print out the financial status of all the accounts and the other things. If you're using a proper accounting program, which may be a little expensive to institute in the beginning...

U: We do that right now.

GD: Okay, then why are you setting up barriers for the fellowship?

U: We're talking about an inspection that's beyond that particular scope. That's something that we would freely distribute. We're talking about physical inspection.

JM: I'm interrupting, and I apologize for interrupting. I really believe that we're off on one of the smaller issues here and not on some really major things that we might be able to discuss beneficially, and we're really off on one of the minor issues.

BS: I agree.

JM: I apologize for trying to use this as an illustration, but not one of the major things that I have contention with the document. The major thing I have a contention with the document is that I believe in order for this rift to be healed, the fellowship needs to be specified, the fellowship of N.A. as owner or if legally it can only be co-owner, that would be okay, too. There needs to be some direct chain between the fellowship and the administrator of this trust, WSO, and it needs to be somehow defined in here that WSC is going to be included in discussion, but the WSC is the definition of collective conscience of the fellowship. What I have the biggest trouble with is that the WSC is indicated as the approver of literature, primarily, the rift has started because the fellowship to a great extent considers themselves as the approver of literature, and the WSC as an entity that has approved literature (or disapproved literature), changed literature without the consent of the fellowship.

BS: That's the problem.

JM: WSO has acted primarily upon the directives of WSC, which has not defined the group conscience of the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous. If we're going to do something functionally healing, we're going to have to correct for those procedural errors that have developed in the last eight years at the world service level. We're going to have to do this in this document. If it's going to be of a healing nature.

U: Unfortunately, Jim, I'm trying to figure out here. There are two things: One is the rules by which WSC would deal with WSO, being that WSC is trustor and has the ability to revoke the trust, control it, dictate to it, and all those factors. The problem is, and some of the stuff that I think you're talking about, deals with the conference itself and it's kind of operational rules that doesn't make it as responsive as it should be to the groups or its conscience in that aspect.

GD: I'd like to interject here and drop a bomb. The bomb is, that all throughout this document and the WSO Report, and several of the public situations that we've all been involved in, you've talked about the mistakes made or the convenience factor of a work made for hire. I will tell you that work made for hire is all through here, and it's prettied up. It's like, "Okay, don't look too close at it, because if you look too close, you're gonna know." Some of the, in fact early, and even a lot of the later stuff shifts some of the criteria for work made for hire. However, upon closer scrutiny and challenge, maybe first time out, but certainly upon appeal, that would never stand up. So your fundamental premise for development of this document as it stands with the work made for hire as its basis, renders this document useless for your purposes. I'm just telling you this for your purposes. The other thing is that you've got, and I shared this with George the other day, you may have 18 months from now and after this conference and people get as disgusted as they are, because I don't see any thing. I looked at the end game three years ago and here we are. It's all unified board, unified this, unified, bring in all the power, bring in all the finance, just reel it all in and put it down. You have 300 people in the fellowship that are manipulating 750,000 that don't have a clue to what's going on.

So you're going to have a few people that have clues that say, "Hey, man, to hell with this." It's going to take them a little while. But what we're going to be, is doing an alternate thing, maybe four regions, maybe five, maybe ten. In 18 months from now, you're going to get a wise idea to take us to court and try to do whatever for work made for hire, and you'll lose. So, Jim is absolutely right in the healing.

I feel really chumped out. I feel that I've been put on a spit and turned over a fire and laughed at, and "Gosh, we got Dave, didn't we? Well, nobody's going to give him a ticket to the conference so he won't be a threat to us." You know what I mean? I told George this. We had an agreement, it was witnessed in front of officers of the court, and others, and that agreement was that these intellectual properties would be taken care of, and he's nodding his head yes, I'm sure. I don't perceive him to have any reason not to stretch it, and I'm quoting exactly, that "If you don't get these things registered properly and factually, I will be back on you like stink on shit."

I will crawl up 95 and put myself in a rescue mission, and we will be right back to square one, and let me tell you again if you have not figured it out, that if I was doing something that was so radically against the law that a 40-year federal court veteran thought that I was out of line, you would have walked into court, and thirty minutes later you would have had your restraining order, and that would have been that. You had better take a big, hard, long look at what it is that this is all about. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same shit, different day. I have absolutely no hope in this document. There was nothing positive that was said about a reduced price Basic Text, $3.00 is no bargain. You've failed, in my mind, completely failed.

BS: What is the origin of this document? It's like a first draft or something?

U: It's going to go out for review, and it can be changed dramatically, it can be altered dramatically. But, it is an attempt.

BS: What is its origin, though?

GD: It's origin is just like when you to a law firm, Bo.

BS: I want to hear that from them, though, Dave, not from you. I want to hear that from them.

ST: The origin of the document is to articulate in writing the nature of the fiduciary trust between the World Service Office and the World Service Conference and the membership. The purpose of it is to define these things so that the membership and the trustors/ trustees, everything, know exactly what the operating rules are and what the parameters of the trust is.

If it's not in the best interest and it lies in these areas, or it needs to change, or the rules need to change, then we need to articulate the way it should be so we don't sit on the phone and argue back and forth and end up in court while wasting our fellowship's money about who has rights and who doesn't have rights.

GD: Let's go for it. This is a very poor starting point.

ST: That's fine, Dave. You're not really lending a whole lot to this whole God damn thing anyway. Except saying everything sucks. Come on, man.

GD: If you want my whole point by point feedback, I can go point by point. I thought we were just having a general chat to begin with. This is the chat. Yeah, I think it sucks, Stu, I think you're absolutely correct.

BS: Who wrote this document, Stu? Was it written by someone in the office or the law firm?

ST: Parts of it were written by Lee here at the office, parts of it were written by me. Parts of it was written, or taken out of the WSO by-laws. So everything falls in synch with one another. I've tried to define it as best responsibly as possible. I'm hoping that whatever kind of conceptual notes you guys put to this, that you pick a contrary viewpoint of what's written here.

BS: Okay, Stu. I read the WSO report and I'm glad that you have several more years on the board, but we still regard you people that work at the office as temporary. Our longevity and our position, and our trust bond to the people that wrote the Basic Text are still as much in force today as they were in 1983 when it was approved in 1982 when the last work was done. Probably, Jim Miller's concern, and my concern is that we engage those forces, that we get away from this "Let's write a studio screenplay" approach to N.A. literature and get back to the only fellowship process that ever really worked. Effectively produced the major portions of our literature, we have strayed very, very far away from that. The people that wrote the Basic Text know that they wrote it. What the judge perceived is that the people that wrote it, own it, and that the fellowship still owns the Basic Text. They are not beneficiaries, they are owners. Their position has been relegated as if they were small children, taken care of under parental authority. They are not small children. It's like a live steam effect, it's been capped off, there's a lot of energy there, it's very explosive.

In our opinion, for instance, to dramatize this, it's easier for us to write another basic text than it is for us to deal with these interminable conflicts of viewpoint. I know that it's hard for an office worker to see that they're a tiny player in an enormous game, but we're as committed to recovery and the expansion of our way of life planet-wide in our lifetime as we ever were.

We were doers when everybody else was talking when everybody else was saying addicts can't write. We can still write. We're still clean. We're still alive. We're still in the game. The fellowship owns the literature, and this document would reduce them to the status of beneficiary. I know that they have to work through organizational approaches to have effective ownership and control of their property, but we did it for them. We didn't do it for a current crop of hirelings at the office. You'll only be at the office for a few years.

U: The office only serves the people that it serves.

BS: But it runs a severe danger of thinking that it's the positional center that is the spiritual center, and the best in position to make key positions, and that's often misleading. A person near the center...The president of the United States reacts to forces around him.

U: That's correct.

BS: I've said enough on this, but I wanted to jump in. I hope we hear from Becky and Bill Allen some. I'd like to hear from the new Executive Director, please. I've heard more from George than the others. Let's have a round robin here.

BA: I'm going to listen for awhile. You know my positions already, George. I've been through this. I called you today because I was upset that I hadn't received this thing, it had to be faxed to me. I wasn't given the opportunity to really fine tooth comb it. I'm not interested in moving fast on anything. I'm not in interest of moving fast on anything. I'm a slow paced worker, I fine tooth comb everything, which Danette can probably confirm from being involved on World P.I. with me. I think we've got all the time in the world. What I'm hearing, when I just heard that the office serves basically those who it is responsible to, I have a real conflict with that as everyone knows. I believe they're supposed to serve my home group, and every other home group in the world. The home groups are basically not given the opportunity to participate in the communication network. Until that process starts to be included in this whole structural matter, I don't feel that we're going to get anywhere. I don't see any healing, especially since the court case. I've been attacked physically, I've been slandered, I've been threatened. I get the office report and I see something telling why "we" can't lower the cost of the book, in a pretty general way.

This thing, which I've just scanned over does not include the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous. It even creates a Board of Directors as a trustee body, instead. We do have a trustee body and it does not include that whole missing link, the fellowship in the World Service Office. It's like Jim is saying, and Bo confirmed, that the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous, that ownership is to be held in trust for us, and they (WSC) are the link that establishes that for us. That's all I have right now.

D: Billy, would you see that link could or should happen?

BA: What I'm saying, Danette, is that I haven't had the opportunity. I just got that out of a fax machine today, and I didn't get to really go through it yet. I know it has to be in there. I didn't see it because I haven't been able to fine tooth comb it yet. I need time to study.

D: I just thought you might already have some idea of how you would like to see that set up.

BA: I haven't got to go through this to see what this document might have.

D: I'm not talking about what's in the document. I'm talking about that you're saying that link should be there.

BA: Yeah, it should be. I don't know what type of set up you have here. I believe in a whole reorganization of the World Service Conference, the way the conference becomes responsible to the fellowship to start with. If the conference is not responsible, there's no way the World Service Office going to be.

GD: Correct.

BA: So we do have some structural matters that have to be worked toward change for that to happen.

JM: Except, perhaps, if regions could elect a portion of the directors, perhaps a majority, directly.

GD: Directors of what, Jim?

JM: Of the office. Of the Board of Directors of the Office. Directly.

GD: I've got some specific stuff, but there are problems with that specifically. I would like to see the recognized RSC's themselves be the trustors. If that is a compromise situation. However, what we are going to see with the subdivision of the fellowship in the national and international conferences and licensing and printing and all of that different stuff that's going to go on, is we're going to have probably five years from now, ten years from now, when we get some of the literature translated, if that ever happens, we'll have other structural issues pertaining to this trust that we'll have to deal with that haven't been recognized.

Stu, I want to just say right now. I'm interested in seeing that the fellowship's property is enured, and the benefit enured to the benefit of the fellowship. Maybe philosophically, knowing where I'm at with this may help you see into my head a little bit. If you take 330,000 Basic Texts and multiply that by whatever cost you do, and then you subdivide that by 30 cents that you could pay to get them, you're talking about over a million books that could be used to carry the message to addicts who still suffer.

Now, you take the money out of it, you take the personality out of it, you take the control out of it, you take the plane flights away, you take all those things away from it. You have to understand that a person like me, and maybe other addicts are not like me, but I walked in here dead. If something stands in the way of our ability to carry the message to the addict who still suffers, then my whole philosophy is that that's got to go. Whatever barriers there are to saving lives, like mine, has to go. That's why our home group did what we did.

We are basically here today, over the question of the ethic of what it is we are doing to carry the message to the addict that still suffers and the proper use of the money. One faction says we need a dollar Basic Text, it's peppered all over the CAR. Another faction says we need a 30 cent Basic Text that costs $3.00, which is even more profit that you guys are making now. Are you the same kind of addicts that perhaps the people that worked on the text believing, trying like Joshua in the battle of Jericho, march around and blow the horns. One day it will all fall down.

U: It's been a lot of years since then. I have a question. I understand where you come from, Dave. I don't not believe in a lot of the things that you're talking about. That remains to be seen. I have some questions about something that you said. You mentioned that the RSC's could be the trustor.

GD: Right.

JM: The trustor, instead of specifying the conference, we're saying the RSC's, the fellowship.

ST: Then, if that's the case, are you saying that the RSC's as a whole? Specifically not the conference, which would then exclude all the non-RSC participants, correct? Is that what you're saying?

GD: I got this just so recently that I haven't really had a chance to fine tooth comb it and then turn around and write what it would be that I would like to see in place. First of all, the definition of a trustor, I don't see it. Then, the trustee, I don't see that. But hypothetically, I would see the RSC's acting as the agent of the beneficiary. So, addicts in whatever region that they are in, would have that kind of access to the system. I see a two-fold set up here.

I talked to George about this the other day. The conference is incredibly influenced by the office, and we have got plenty of evidence that for instance, in Florida and the published report from Northern California, it doesn't matter what the areas vote, because their RSR's have stood up and said that they're going to vote exactly what they want to vote and if you don't like it, tough shit.

We have problems with spiritual principles in our fellowship. I see the office and the conference as a symbiosis that needs to be corrected in some fashion. I never supported giving the Trustees the copyrights, because of the move toward the single board concept. But I would see a two-tiered system here where the office would be the office, and the trust would be administered by the RSC's. The beneficiaries would be, this is regardless of the office, the Board of Directors, the WSC, the committee chairs, the trustees, everybody. As far as I can tell, I don't feel...

BS: The beneficiary, properly, would be the newcomer.

GD: Absolutely. And, if we ever get around to writing a step guide, people who have been here a little while. I'd like to see us do something. In 1982, we started writing a step book.

U: Let me ask a question.

GD: Let me tie this up if I can. In 1986, Bob Stone proposed that we license RSO's to print literature. Oops. He went home to California. I was on the committee, me and Charlie Coocher and a bunch of other people. We went home and the committee was canceled. Why? Because if the RSC's or the RSO's could produce their own literature, there would be no need or income for the World Service Office.

That is something that we may need to look at, is that the trust sets up a way for the necessary functions of the office to be continued, which would have to be done in a fellowship wide referendum. It would be a rather complex and protracted process. It says here on the front of this thing that the fellowship will be given a year to review, and we're not going to approve the final version until before the '92 conference. Even for something as simple as, for some people, as simple as this, it's going to take a lot longer to even approve something like this, or even to get input in a way that's going to satisfy all those philosophical concerns that we've discussed previously here and in other places.

I appreciate the work that has gone in on this. But in being less than hostile and a little bit more fair, it seems to be particularly one sided. Even quoting from the WSO annual report, there's a line in here. It's neat, it's slick, but it definitely favors the status quo. No one that I know that's awake yet, is going to be taken in by it.

U: There's two things that I think are important to note at this point. Number one, I believe a lot of discussion that we've heard from you guys is really something that really needs to take place in a document, that for lack of a better explanation, would be a conference charter. That would display the relationship of this thing called the WSC to the regions, to the areas, to the groups, and to the members. We felt as we were writing this, that we were somehow constrained by what currently exists in our fellowship today, what we know as the service structure, right or wrong.

GD: I'm going to interject one small, quick thing. Here is the fundamental thing that maybe it makes it difficult, but I will label the "traditionalists" in this fellowship, assume that all creative and spiritual, quasi legal spiritual documents in Narcotics Anonymous are an expression of the fellowship and group conscience. And that as employees in the office, staff team writers, special workers, lawyers, and that type, that there's a rub in there. We are forever non-professional, aren't we? Doesn't the fellowship do the work and the service bodies assist? I think we've approached this process backwards.

U: We could probably spend a few weeks discussing those things to find some commonalities between us. The current way that the service structure makes decisions, right or wrong, and I think that we all agree that we all have problems with it, that we were somehow confined by that. The issues that you bring up, are the issues that need to be brought to the fellowship. Not necessarily in this type of document, because we are somewhat constrained about what exists today.

The other thing is, one of the difficult things in trying to put this thing together, is really defining the beneficiary of the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous. A fellowship whose only requirement for membership is the desire to stop using. That is not stated in any other way than by the individuals themselves. That presents us with a major difficulty legally. For the fact that by identifying those beneficiaries in a way that they can benefit from the trust, there's also the principle of anonymity. To name all of our members in this type of document may cause us some conflict with that tradition as well. Those are the types of things that as we developed this document, we felt somewhat constrained by. The law does require us to name in a way that can be identified as a beneficiary and a trustor. Unfortunately, the RSC's coming together as a group is not something that we've done in the fellowship. Do you understand some of the confines that we felt constrained by?

JM: Yes.

U: We've basically articulated a document reflective of the current service structure. Who or how a region, or say an area or home group, could pursue a conflict that they have with the administration of the trust.

JM: Please repeat that. I didn't catch that at all.

ST: We tried to articulate something that say a home group or area somewhere has a problem with the way the trust is administered, and they need some way of approaching a question they have to get some reasonable answers. If their questions are answered and it becomes an issue that needs to be addressed. Currently, nothing exists. Currently, you have the World Service Office who has the trust in a fiduciary capacity, and they're connected to the conference somehow. It's not in any writing, or not in anything, but they're connected because we are who we are.

The ideal was to make a formal connection and allow sufficient concern for a problem or issue to surface that could be addressed. This may need to be widened and expanded, but it's going to take **** outside of us. We could only reflect the current system. Maybe the current system needs to change. I kind of think it does, but...

GD: The beneficiaries of the trust ultimately are the addicts that aren't even born yet. Yes, it's a very weighty issue, and I understand anybody's difficulty wrestling with it. But to some degree, we're going to have to find some way to trust somebody, trust the RSC's to be together and administer this properly, and not...

ST: You know what, Dave? My tying into the WSC is what my way of tying into the region. That's what my conception is. The interpretation of tying into the fellowship through the WSC, because I believe that's the collective conscience of the region, the region are the conscience of the areas, and etc.

GD: I don't think you'll find any agreement on that amongst any of us.

ST: All I'm saying is, if there's a different way to articulate that. That's the intent. Okay?

BA: That's the agreed intent, Stu, but we all know that that's not how the conference operates. We know that. If it worked that way it would be great. We know that what happens there is when the issue of the 3rd Edition Revised and 4th Edition came up, and the RSR only voting participants, we had RSR's marching to the floor and rejecting their regional consciences that they had to carry there. We know that the conference had a world literature conference right in a forum violated our literature guidelines and we know that trustees get to the conference mikes and use their position to manipulate, and others. We know how that operates. We know that it's a political forum there. It is not speaking of the fellowship coming through, and that's where our philosophical differences come in.

BS: Philosophy is one thing, but when the guy from Philadelphia called me and told me about the six guys marching into the home group that used to be Grateful Dave's home group and taking over the group conscience setting, pushing through some votes of their choosing, never having been to the group before, except one of them once. They just walked in like gangsters and pulled this off and called that group conscience. Well, that's not group conscience.

U: I agree.

BS: And I don't think Stu and some of the people realize that those people who did that thought that they were doing a good thing for Narcotics Anonymous. The members of the home group that are left there to carry the message later that night and next week, are just mortified. Who were those guys? They don't belong here. We've never seen them in this meeting. Who were those people coming in here telling us what to do? It was very dispiriting. It hurt the spiritual condition of our primary unit, our group.

BA: But Bo, that was done by a former world level trusted servant, and one who's connected with world service today that manipulated that whole thing.

BS: That's gangsterism, Billy. We can't have it in a spiritual fellowship.

BA: The World Service Conference is the same type of gangsterism that existed there for years so far.

BS: We fail our definition as a spiritual fellowship if we tolerate that.

U: That works across the board, you guys. I watched them in Modesto walk into a group of guys who don't even know anything about what goes on in world services and totally turn around a whole group. It works two ways.

I also was part of the situation in Southern California, where I saw people going into groups, my group in particular, and try to swing their votes because they didn't like the way the 3rd Edition Revised was done. I know all about that. I'm on your side. You know that it works both ways. We're articulating that. That's the way that it happens.

BS: Well, if you're on our side, we'd better get it together soon.

BA: The Chairperson's report from the conference this year and see how it's being done already.

U: Personally, I can't speak for the chairperson.

BA: He's the one who's going to be presiding over the conference this year. He's already taken pot shots and myself and Dave, by bringing up 1985 WSC in this conference report.

U: Oh, was that you?

BA: Look through the minutes and you'll see.

JM: I guess where I come from in looking at all this, is that I think if we, together, want to do something to help solve the problems, that we need to do more homework before we present something to any other group of people than ourselves. It would be really unfortunate if this document were to leave our nurturing until it was a whole lot more acceptable to a wider group of the fellow-ship. I understand what you, Stu and George, about feeling the need to work within the existing structural situation, but I really kind of trusted that you would look back to when it was working, to find some leadership there. I'd like to share with you just a bit on page 9, section 5, regarding where I'm coming from. One thing I do want to commend you on, is that somebody talked to the lawyers and toned down the "legalese" in the first part.

"Operational rules, page 9. Nature of ownership of the trust copyrighted literature. Creation of all new or revised trust literary properties will be initiated by the beneficiary, either directly or subordinate board or committee. The process used to create these properties from commencement to conclusion will be under constant control of the beneficiary, exercised directly, or by a subordinate board or committee, e.g., the trustor. Individuals who take part in the creation of these properties will do so as giftors, and as such, may be called employees of either the trustor or the trustee, whether or not they receive compensation, with full knowledge..."

You see my thrust? Everybody knows that what we're calling beneficiary and trustor, etc., language like that, an alteration philosophically, would make this document more nearly acceptable and more nearly distributable. If we're interested in having a healing, causative impact on the fellowship and the conference. Without that kind of a thrust, we don't even have a place to start.

GD: Absolutely.

U: You want to...What I'd like to do...Do you want to take 30 days to put your stuff in writing? And then, what we'll do is try to include conceptual differences in here so we can have a more thorough review. So you have a variety of sides reflected in the document.

JM: The question's kind of dumb. Of course we do.

U: We're in a position where we've put it out and started a dialogue on it. I'm trying to get to that point. I had a feeling that because we were rushed getting into this thing, that you guys really haven't had the time to really work on this, and I really want to give you the time before this goes out to the fellow... for review.

GD: How about giving us a budget for telephone calls to each other? All of us are busted flat in Baton Rouge.

U: How much of a budget?

GD: I don't know.

BS: I know my phone bill has doubled lately. Meaning $200 instead of $100.

GD: I don't have a dime. Everybody knows that.

JM: Tell you what Dave. I just went to the bank and got another $25,000 grand, the banks are full of money.

BA: That's how I retain my lawyer at $10,000 a year for when they take me to court. I mean that, Stu. I keep my lawyer on retainer now.

ST: Is that right?

BA: You got it, partner.

GD: It means you're moving up in the world.

ST: You guys want to start with $500?

BA: Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

U: Take the next 30 days, get your bills together, and we'll take it from there. On the next conference call. Then we'll talk about where we stand.

BS: Let me suggest a little bit of an alternative. We would not even be having this talk if the federal court thing had not, as it were, put us back in the game.

ST: Wait a minute, Bo, this really has nothing to do with the federal court.

BS: No, not exactly, but we are talking about this, and what's important is the experience based on our terms in world services can be brought in as a resource to the N.A. fellowship. We need to meet and have the eye contact, just like any other serious thing that gets done.

GD: We haven't all been part of the world service structure.

BS: I think the avoiding of that eventuality is just going to waste time and head off a solution. I would rather to keep struggling to pay my own phone bill if we could look forward to a get together. That's what it's going to take.

U: I kind of believe that we can have a get-together, but it will be after we release the document.

GD: Here I go again. I look at having attended a few conferences, I know the possibility for anything to happen.

BS: So why push the end game now? It ain't going to happen that quick.

GD: I feel that based on all of us will probably want to review the tapes of the conference, review the actions of the conference, we'll want to see the roll calls, we'll want to have an opportunity to talk to other people about this. I don't understand what this March 28 for distribution thing is, a report on the 3rd Edition Basic Text changes, I thought we were not commenting on anything. I gotta tell you. I really don't want to be a thorn in your side, or somebody that has look at two years ago to see what was happening today. I don't like it.

To me, it's all bullshit. If we can get back to the traditions and do what the fuck we're supposed to do, then we won't have these problems. I can only share with you that we had this guy come back from the Florida Region, who has been one of the most staunch supporters of everything that world services has done, and another person same way. They came back going, "This is completely bullshit. The people that I loved and trusted and emulated and desired to be just finished giving me the fast shuffle." This is not an uncommon experience. When people start to come back from the conferences and from the regions and tell the story. They are well known, well liked, well respected people who have not been labeled and branded radicals and ostracized like the four of us. You're going to see a snowball effect.

BS: I don't feel ostracized. I don't see why not.

GD: I'm telling you that these people are coming back now. Gosh, things are like Dave and Bill and others have said. That's where you're going to get your problems. And they're going come soon.

BS: They're already enormous. They're so bad that I don't even want to bring them into this discussion.

GD: If we don't get it right soon...

ST: I'll tell you something, guys. Maybe I don't understand what you said. I might be really...I understand a lot of your philosophy and I understand where you're coming from. There's also responsibilities, and responsible ways to approach that. You're trying to get the best of both worlds. I currently don't genuinely know what you expect. Maybe we'll find the time in the months to come, and maybe we can sit down and I can hear what you've guys have said. I don't really know.

BS: When the Basic Text was done, Stu, we envisioned it going to an office that would hold it in trust, print and distribute the literature, and perform other services under the direction of the conference. We didn't expect it to the perfect, but we didn't expect professional writers to be put under contract for $100,000 two weeks before the conference, when that was an item listed on the agenda to be discussed at the conference.

I did not expect when I served my five-year term on the Board of Trustees to have thousands of tiny changes made to the Basic Text down the hall, and find out only by getting a copy driven in by car several hundred miles that was bought from an institution who bought it from Hazelden, who bought it from the WSO before a member of the Board of Trustees even got to study or look at it. If you follow what I'm saying. Those things really happened. We really don't want those things happening again. That's what makes this serious. That's what we want to get a solution about, and that's the importance of this document, and possibly the conference charter like George was saying. Make the rules of the game clear and posted so everybody can subscribe to them. They confine their actions to a coherent structure.

The structure, as it stands, if the new executive director turns out to be a good and honorable man, then hopefully bring some useful experience to serve our needs, then great. Or he could be out in six months. We really tired of upset. It hurts our people. People come in waves and they leave in waves. Service disorders is our primary problem as a fellowship. We really seriously want a remedy.

GD: We are coming up on 1992, and if you look back ten years ago, there are a lot of ten year cycles in this fellowship. Ten years ago they completely, the fellowship rose up and cleaned house.

ST: You guys can have my job any god damn time.

BS: Had we wanted it, we might.

BA: You might not like it if I had it, Stu.

ST: Hey, you can have it.

BA: I guess that would be decided by group conscience.

GD: ...with integrity, resolve these issues, which created a very strange alliance, one that at this point is the only positive thing I've seen come out of it, is the restoration of George's and my friendship. I would say that it appears that there is something afoot, that it's the same stuff...

BS: Why don't you be a little clearer about that, Dave. In other words, you're saying we're having one reality when we're on the conference call like this, and we have a separate reality going on that's supposed to be out of sight from us.

GD: I'm not going to characterize it as a conspiracy, I'm just going to say I think it was a very poor judgment to have ordered the lawyer to amplify something that is already in such questionable state. That's probably a bad business decision on the part of the office to have done so. The reason I say that is because if it ever comes up and becomes a question, it will look strange.

ST: Wait a minute. The amplification simply explains a work for hire as being the world lit committee is the writer or the author. So I don't know what you mean like this is some big conspiracy...

GD: We don't know what the amplification is or says, or what its legal implications are either, Stu. I'm just bringing this up.

BS: The point is, we're finding out about it now.

ST: Then you want me to mail them to you?

GD: Yeah.

BS: I think that should have happened back when it occurred. We don't know about these things, and I think we're doing pretty good to stay cool in the situation where there's a change. We're supposed to be informed.

GD: Yeah, you guys spent $96,000 in legal fees this year. I feel very offended that, maybe unrightfully, that the most important thing in the discussions, the agreements, the arrangements, all the conversations that we had was this: I think that this is probably was qualified to be either number 1 or number 2 most serious problem in the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous today, is getting this stuff straight.

BS: And the basic problem is non-communication.

GD: ...five days before the conference, and all the trustees and everybody, I begged you to tell the truth. Hey, we have problems with the registering. If you trust the world service community and you ask us to trust the world service community to resolve problems and act in the behalf of the fellowship and the beneficiary, and you as a business entity does not have enough trust in that same world service community to accurately reflect the problems that we have in the document that has been put out to the people that are going to make the decisions prior to the time that they come together to make the decisions, I see that as really irresponsible. I see that as very poor judgment. You're going to have people coming to the conference with absolutely no more understanding or information with which to make a decision than they did before. It'll be raw emotion. It'll be committee as a whole. It'll be arguing. It'll be another 5th Edition quick fix.

You may come out of there with the conference going, "Yeah, you guys have it all. By God, you do anything you have to do to whatever." That's what you were initially asking for in your first Board of Directors report. It's hard for me, from afar, being fair, it's very hard for me to see any change or philosophical shift or understanding of the delicacies of the positions of the various factions.

BS: Again, it's easier to write another book than go through all this.

ST: Wait a minute, wait a minute. First of all, Dave, I'm not sure what all particular things that you're talking about. If you don't understand something, the registration is a simple responsibility and basically was in response to you guys. Because it's a responsible way when you deal with something as a work for hire, it needed to be depicted, the truth needed to be depicted.

BS: Dave's not referencing the content, he's referencing the context.

GD: Hold it, hold it. One at a time, cause you're all cutting up.

ST: Second of all, I don't know that what was written that you feel so ripped off about that's so irresponsible.

GD: Nothing was written, that's what I feel ripped off about. You spent nearly $70,000 taking me to federal court. Is that not a high priority for you to resolve and make me feel good, considering the fact.

ST: You feel good?

GD: All right, fuck the way I feel. Considering the fact that the court case is still wide open.

ST: Whatever. That's fine, Dave.

BA: When do you propose that we get together, Stu? And where?

ST: We're going to have to tie it in with a meeting that takes place back there sometime this year.

BA: How about 4th of July, we've got a history conference going on.

ST: You got a what?

BA: A history conference going on that we're all going to be at. Lehigh University.

GD: July 4th through the 7th.

ST: Let me think about it.

BA: I'm the program chair, so I can arrange the room availability for it.

ST: This document has to be in the review state. We can't waste a whole year.

BA: You're right.

ST: I'd like to take 30 days and have you guys go through it line by line, come up with your ideas and your conceptions, and see if we can articulate different processes in a document to where people can look at the different issues and sides, so we can get it out for review. That way I'll tell the conference that this document is coming, okay? And then, once it's out there, we'll come together in a place like you're talking about and discuss it, thoroughly.

JM: And sit on the conference, Stu. Sit on the conference, because the book is probably better in its current state of "we don't know where the hell it is" than it is in the public domain.

ST: Well, we'll...we'll...we'll just *** the book, we'll...we'll... we'll keep things status quo until we get finished, you know what I mean?

JM: Another suggestion.

ST: What?

JM: If you really want to diffuse everything...Well I don't know, maybe it won't diffuse as much as I think. Sell the book at cost until everything's settled.

ST: Jim, you got...you got...you got an operation that functions...it operates on the revenues from the trust.

BS: We sort of understand that.

ST: ...out of operation, send everybody home. I can't do it. It's just not responsible. And you know, I don't think the fellowship at large would accept that as being a responsible action. I'm sorry.

GD: I have to look at the Board of Directors report. I have to shake my head. There isn't a single positive statement about a reduced price Basic Text. It's just not there.

BS: In other words, it's left out. A sizeable group conscience factor is left out. So it's an incomplete document, so the live steam continues to build.

ST: You're talking about the report on a low cost text that's in the report, right?

GD: Right. All it is I've seen is a synthesis of Stone's report in 1987 with a few little...

ST: You are way off, Dave. I'm sorry, I gotta tell you that. I ain't even going to fucking go for that. It's not even close, man.

GD: All right, don't.

ST: That report has more in it and more information than this fellowship has seen in the last ten God damn years.

GD: I'm talking about that section specifically. You are pushing in that report, a compilation. You have steered everybody in that report, that particular section of the report, you have steered everyone away from a reduced price Basic Text and onto this compilation deal.

ST: I don't think so.

BA: Excuse everyone for a minute, I've got to go to my home group.

GD: Billy, do you have my number where I'm at?

BA: Yeah. I don't want to be left out in this communication. I'm going to hold and respect that Bo, Jim, and Dave will take care of this real well for us. I just want to leave a few words with it. I never reviewed anything in 90 days and got some real good work onto it to be sent out for input/review.

I prefer more than 90 days. I'm going into final exams in the next couple of weeks. I'm taking five courses at school. My time is going to be reviewing the books, so I can get some good grades so I can be out there in the business world. I just hope that we would not rush things, take 90 days would be more like it. We could meet and do some good thorough work and be responsible to the fellowship and not rush things. I think it would be real irresponsible for us to rush things that's not really fully acceptable and causes more of a rift in the fellowship than we have already.

BS: Can I suggest a quick plan while you're still on the line, Billy. Everybody participating in this group write out what their primary concerns are and that a set of documents be compiled and distributed to every member of this group so we can all see what's important to one another, and then we move toward a mutually agreeable solution.

ST: Good idea. How about...

GD: I think that's a good idea too, and I would also like to say that I think Bill's idea is good too, because it will allow us more time to put in input, get together and meet, and the intent is a conscience session...

ST: After we study this report.

GD: And then go back to it. Maybe we can hammer out something between now and 90 days.

ST: Why don't we set up a conference call for three weeks. We'll talk about our status at that point, talk about some of the outcomes of the conference. In the meantime, I suggest you put together the thing that Bo talked about, so you can all see what everybody else feels.

BA: Sounds good to me, partner.

JM: I agree, but instead of three weeks, let's set it one week from the time that you get all this written input. Let's all make a promise that that's going to be at least three weeks.

ST: Okay, then at three weeks we'll be looking for the input.

BA: Okay.

GD: Is there some way to leave me and Jim and Bo on the phone.

BA: I just hope you come up with an agreement cause I've got to get out of here as soon as possible. I hope to see all you people on better grounds. I hope to be able to fellowship with Danette like we used to. God bless.

U: I can hook you guys up and unhook us. I can't unhook you completely, but I can take you off the line. Let me understand what we just agreed to: That by May 15, our comments will be finished. If you want, you can send them here and I'll collect them and send them out to everybody. Then a conference call will be scheduled for the 22nd of May.

BA: Correct. Sounds good to me. And this won't be released at the conference.

U: No.

BA: Okay.

GD: I would make a suggestion that you say there is a document, we're trying to work it up, and we're probably 90 days off from having a draft to go out to people.

BS: I would at least like to hear the Executive Director's comments on some of this, or questions.

JG: Hi, I'm Joe Gossett, I'm the new executive director. I've been here two weeks. I want to make an observation on what I've just heard. I think there are about half a dozen men here that are all very committed to the same goals. We've got some administrative details to work out. We're going to work on them, we're committed to do that. But I think we're all headed in the same direction, and that encourages me.

GD: Sounds good so far.

JM: If you could be encouraged after what you just heard, I guess you're our man.

BA: We're looking forward to meeting you.

U: We'll see you guys later, all right? I'll put you guys on hold from here.

GD: Wait a minute. Are we done? Because we were face to face in all of the things going on surrounding the courtroom and by all these other things that were going on, brought us together in a way that I don't feel we're as together as we were in Harrisburg in our discussion. It seemed to me in Harrisburg that there was...

BS: Well, hellfire. This involves the whole WSC, man. It takes a lot out of you.

GD: Well, shit. It is kind of like taking a bath in shit for eight days. All I go is on feelings, folks, most of the time. My feeling is here that Jim, Bo, Bill and I. George has been stoic. Danette's been silent, and Becky's a sweetheart. We're not together with what the ultimate thing is here. As ridiculous as the whole thing may sound, the only thing I know about is the twelve traditions.

I know that our primary purpose is to carry the message to addicts who still suffer. As I shared with George before, we used to do that by any means possible. If it causes some belt tightening or some minor adjustments, or even major adjustments, I believe that we are missing the boat when we consider these things that we do in any other context.I know that areas that raise money and raise money and raise money and never have enough money to pay their bills. But areas that rely on carrying the message and going out and doing it and volunteering, they seem to have all the money they need to take care of the responsibilities that they have.

There's something fundamental that is being missed. It's very difficult for me to be tactful and diplomatic and articulate. I'm trying to communicate to you that it's kind of a spirit thing that all of us are trying to communicate, and we're trying to interface that with your world, which is a structural world, in dealing with dollars and cents. Joe's comment made me think of this, made me think that perhaps we're headed in the same direction. Our intractability on both sides of our approaches and the unwilling- ness to interface our philosophies and come up with a compromise which I have really haven't seen the compromise, maybe I'm missing it. I think we all need to take a look at that, all of us.

BS: I'd like to hear something from some of the other persons on this call.

B: This is Becky. The reason I was asking Billy those questions earlier only because I'm trying to understand what it is you're looking for in this document, and I don't know that I'm still clear on this. I have a little bit better idea after this phone call, but I guess I still need to see what you guys are going to come up with in 30 days, because I'm not clear. That's why I've been sitting on this phone call and listening.

JM: I'd like to quickly share with you with what I'm thrusting for. What I think a whole lot of people out here in the world of N.A. are interested in seeing. Number 1, some specification somewhere that the fellowship, who in reality is owner of our intellectual properties, is defined somewhere as owner. The structure, which stands in the stead of or acts as fiduciary for that fellowship is subordinated to its role in reality. That's number 1. Number two, that the fellowship has, as a fellowship, direct controlling powers over these intellectual properties, and that process, exclusive of the process that's now in place, is specified in this document. Number three, referring again to the word "process," that the process that created the usable intellectual properties that we have, which is basically the 2nd Edition Basic Text, is in place for now and ever more. That's my thrust.

Additionally, of course, as an overview to that, that it fits whatever necessary legal things that are required. However, what we need to recognize is that the legal world is there to define itself according to our needs. We're not here to fit our reality to some sort of legal definition, but rather the legal definition needs to be modified, if that is the necessity, to our needs.

BS: The judge, for instance, understood us very quickly and very well. I think he was very impressed by Narcotics Anonymous as a whole. He was very sad and dismayed by our difficulties. He perceived it very rapidly.

JM: That's the whole of my thrust in being involved here.

U: I can certainly understand that. I don't think that our thrust in being involved here is any different. However, I think, Jim, that we don't have an ideal situation in which to deal with. As a fellowship, we cannot even recognize our own groups as exerting their beneficiary rights. These are some real fundamental problems that we've had for a long time. How do you identify a group who's to exhibit direct control over a trust that it has? You don't know that they're even there.

U: Exactly.

GD: Well, I think we made great strides in resolving that thing in our discussions about how we would conduct a group tally. If there are questions of autonomy and the additional question of an invisibility, I think we resolved that.

BS: You send out a piece of paper to every group in the world, and ask them to please respond by a certain date, and you read it, tally it.

GD: I don't see what the resistance is across the board about this. There's a strong personality in every group. Yeah, but with 20,000 strong personalities, you're gonna get a conscience out of it.

GH: It has nothing to do with resistance. It has everything to do with the reality of Narcotics Anonymous as exists today, as un-wholly and as wrong as that can be at times. That's how we are trying to approach this. If I was going to draw up an ideal situation, it would not be within this document. Do you understand?

JM: No. I guess that's something that I don't understand, George.

GH: Well, to me, the first thing is a member of Narcotics Anonymous is a beneficiary, how are you going to identify him?

JM: Why need you?

GH: Along with being a beneficiary, there is a responsibility you have as a beneficiary, and also certain rights that you can exhibit.

JM: I don't see the necessity of identification, other than through labeling.

GD: What you're saying, basically is the same thing I've heard lots of other people say, is that our groups, a) don't give a shit; b) they're not responsible; c) they can't make a decision.

I don't think you will find some agreement, but with qualifications from us, that I don't know any addict that don't have an opinion on something if they've been given some information. If they were given correct, broad-based information, I would say that a lot of them would welcome the opportunity to participate in that way. We have created an atmosphere, maybe unintentionally, where "let's let the service junkies do it." I think it's more of a matter of education, where we encourage participation, where we coax people along, where we tell them the things that we were told when we got here, like "You matter."

BS: You know what would be a strong structural solution in this tableau, would be to institute the world directory. I'm in the Rotary, and we have a world directory with the mailing address of every club in the world. There's a lot of them. Re-institute the N.A. World Directory, and better than the CAR approach, send a piece of paper to every group in the world and ask them how they feel about the things they've been hearing about all year. It's not like they don't hear about it. That would be functionally much more real, and they could say yes, no, maybe, comments.

GD: We need a media that is responsive to all points of view.

BS: And not biased. It doesn't take sides. They're just so tired of all this game playing and what they perceive is just disorder. It's like noise. The only way they can do it is shut it out and tend to their newcomers, and take care of their home group.

GD: When asked, they say that's all political bullshit and I don't want to get involved.

BS: It needs to be simplified and some positive new directions taken.

GD: I think that attitude has been cultivated. I think that attitude is very well understood.

BS: Which attitude?

GD: You tell somebody that their behavior is unspiritual and they're going to relapse, they're going to stop. They're going to stop quick and look because they don't want to die. We've been playing on fundamental insecurities here.

We've been saying that this one is going to destroy Narcotics Anonymous, that one, and we've been saying a lot of these things. I was in the media business for years, so I understand a little bit about mass psychological things.

JM: And respect a good one when you see it.

GD: Yeah, absolutely. What's gone, in my opinion, forth from world services in the past five years has been a masterful job. I will say that these addicts, because they're insecure, and we all want to know it all, would just say "That don't mean anything. I'll do my H&I."

When really what they're saying is, "I don't have enough information, I feel inadequate, I feel stupid. Every time I go to a service forum and because of my personal recovery, my understanding of the traditions, and I stand up and say, "Well, it seems to me, that because of our 5th, 9th, and 12th traditions, that this is so..." And some service structure sharpie jumps up and goes, "Well, you don't understand. We have this policy and that policy..." and cuts him into fishbait. Everybody goes, "Oh shit, well I'm never going to ask another question."

BS: Well, their feelings get hurt.

GD: Of dealing from a moral or sensitivity position, there's very few people that can stand that kind of shit like I can.

JM: So what do you think, Becky, does that answer your question?

B: I don't know that it answers my question, but it gives me a lot more information.

JM: Is Danette still there?

U: No, she had to leave. Some time ago.

GD: We have an educational process to embark upon, if we are really serious about healing the spiritual sickness in our fellowship. We're now moving onto concepts.

BS: Look, I want to dig away at Becky a little more, cause I hope she's more than just a sweetheart. Becky, has your perception of this issue shifted in the last three months? You must have been exposed to some new information. Hello?

B: I'm trying to think if I can say that my perception has shifted.

BS: I heard you on the tape that was recorded in October of last year, and it seemed like you were pretty adamant about the court case, if I got your voice right. I know that there's a re-evaluation going on, that Stu referenced that we made in Harrisburg.

GD: That was Danette, Bo. And Kim.

BS: Becky wasn't there?

GD: Becky was there, but she was very quiet.

BS: Well, I thought she said something once or twice. At any rate, is there a shift. Lack of information got us into this hole, and maybe a certain class of information can initiate some reproachment.

B: The only thing that's been really encouraging to me is from Harrisburg on, at least, it seems that there's an open dialogue. The fact that all of us are on this phone call together, I don't believe would have happened a year ago.

I don't know that I've had a shift in perception, but I'm at least encouraged by the fact that we're trying to talk to each other and find a solution agreeable to everybody. I don't question anybody's motives. Sometimes I get a little bit defensive, because it sounds like that anybody involved in world services has just lost their membership in any attempt at spirituality.

BS: One thing that hasn't been defined properly or referenced much, probably because it's sort of a tender spot, is the person who is elected in a world service position or employed by WSO, is caught a little bit in a conflict on interest. We heard a lot about that eight or ten years ago, but it seems to have slipped out of usage, because a lot of times it looks to the fellowship like somebody at world level is either jockeying for a job at the office, or they've just gotten a job at the office and there's an immediate shift in their personality. In other words, if you call up an old buddy on the phone, they're a little more high strung and less talkative.

GD: It's like musical chairs, too.

B: Well, hopefully, at least in my case and in the case of most people I know, if there's been any change, it's been in the way people treat me, the way I react to people around me. I don't feel any different because I hold this service than when I did when I held lots of others the whole time I've been clean. I feel like I'm close to a lot more information and I get a lot of advantages of getting exposure to the fellowship all over the world, but I don't feel that I have a conflict of interest.

BS: I'm not personalizing it and saying that you do. I'm referencing some of the terms that I think have lead to what Bob Stone used to call, the "us and them phenomenon."

B: I really have appreciated the efforts that have happened in the last 90 days or so to bring all that together. Like I said, I don't believe that this phone call would have happened a year ago.

BS: Yeah, there's been some improvement. I always held out hope. It's hard to give up hope on everybody. If we were going to die, we would have died in the 60s.

GD: Another thing I guess I've got to comment on. I support movement for alternatives, viable alternatives, be they within the context of the current service structure or without. I see these various approaches and attempts as more of an act of desperation by a whole bunch of people that don't really know what to do. They've been shut out. I would say that if we trust a loving God and if we allow parallel tracks to exist, that maybe we'll all be better off, because we can all learn from these different tracks. We have enforced an approval-seeking. We've indoctrinated our members, "You do this, you talk this way, this is how you do meetings, and this is how you do service. If you don't follow guidelines to the letter, then we have your head."

BS: Or a goon squad walks into your home group.

GD: Absolutely. Our little statement of unity seems to have been lost on those who were most in need. Here you sit here talking to the radicals of the fellowship, and we're really not radicals. We haven't done anything wrong. But your rampant world supporters are still running around ripping books out of people's hands.

B: I don't think there's anybody on this phone call who would behave any differently.

BS: Than what?

B: Stu already said he didn't support that kind of behavior by anybody, and I don't think there's anybody on this phone call who falls into the stereotypes that we kind of toss back and forth.

JM: You're right. We need to model so that sort of thing comes to a conclusion, that era in our history ends as rapidly as possible. We need to model. As trusted servants, we need to start being question askers rather than answer-givers.

B: Well, you're talking to the wrong person, cause I have lots of questions.

JM: I'm not saying that to you, I'm saying that to me. I feel that our modeling needs to change. What's happening is a result of our modeling, whether we choose to accept it or not. I'm accusing me, I'm not accusing you.

GD: Is there anyone here besides me that knows exactly what the last sentence in the 12th tradition says? "Anonymity in action renders personalities and their differences powerless." If that is true, then we all have a ways to go. I'm hopeful, yes there's a dialogue. Yes, this conversation could have, but wouldn't have taken place five months, six months ago.

BS: The point is, we were willing a year ago.

GD: Years ago.

BS: Lest that's completely unnoticed.

GD: I need to share this because I shared it with George. I struggle to get eight hours a day awake anymore. I have a sense of urgency that may not be falling on anyone else. I would like to go to my rest with a good feeling that there has actually been an observable change, observable by anyone who chose to look. I've dedicated my entire life since walking in the door here to serving and bettering this fellowship. Some of you may not believe that. I sat and read literature to coffee pots. I don't know how long I'll be alive. That's a fact, that's just reality. My disease is running me down quick.

BS: Yeah, you could die wining and dining, whooping it up, instead of dealing with these tedious matters. Wonder why you do it, Dave? You must be nuts. Either that or in love.

GD: AIDS dementia, I guess. No, it's just that it's the same thing. I would like to get a little personal peace and feel good in my gut about what's going on. I had a glimmer of hope a few months ago. I want to continue to have that, even if it's small. It's very, very depressing for me. Whatever my motives may have been, I know there's been a lot of discussion of what they were. It had nothing to do with world service or a vendetta or anything. It was we've got to carry the message to the addict who still suffers. George was in my home group, and he can tell you. He can communicate to you, seeing all those detoxing and toothless wonders on welfare with $3.00 in the basket, but they all had a blue book and their eyes were bright. That's what counts to me.

Philosophically, I applaud the ideals of the WSO, and I applaud the ideals of the WSC, and I think it's a wonderful experiment that we've become far too rigid about. I think that we have worked to the point where a lot of the things that we do are kind of unnecessary. We need to be able to trust developing fellowships with the literature that we currently have. Let them translate it and then come back to us and work out the little bugs. We'd be saving a hell of a lot of money, and we'd be getting a lot more literature translated.

JM: A hell of a lot more recovery there.

GD: Absolutely. This gift of recovery and our literature, it was given to all of us, and to those to come, freely by a loving God. We are standing in the way of God's gift to humanity. Some people accept barriers and limitations. Jim Miller wrote in my book when I had 45 days clean, "Argue for your limitations and they will be yours forever." I have refused, because there is the power of a loving God, I have refused to accept those limitations in my own personal life, which has set me outside the norm or status quo. What my home group did in group conscience, I am completely okay with on the level of spiritual and what was the right thing to do. It may have interfered with somebody's plans. It may have rocked somebody's boat. It may have pissed somebody off. If there wasn't a WSO or WSC, that's what would be happening today. It's not unrealistic to imagine that those people who might perceive our world structure as being a barrier to carrying the message, might arrive at basically the same moral conclusion.

That's a very powerful motivation to walk into a prison and have a hard back book or two stuck in a counselor's office because they've caused fistfights, or because somebody ripped the pages out. I have watched those blue books going into prison, and they're having step and book study meetings now. They weren't having them before. Yeah, there was a certain amount of it going on, but I've watched this whole thing very carefully. The people who are not involved in the politics of it, love it. The people that we're trying to reach, ostensibly, are benefiting from it.

Maybe we have to look at the whole enchilada. There will be people who will refuse to allow any barriers between them and the thing that keeps them alive. That's what keeps me alive. I have a sponsee with four days clean. That's what keeps me alive. That's what keeps our fellowship alive. God, let's hope that we stop turning them off. Service, yeah, come on, let's go. "Fuck that, I went there once."

BS: You kind of lost me on that last one.

GD: I'm going to take my new sponsee to the area service. Tell him that he counts, that he matters. Service is where we need to be. I'd be talking out the side of my neck, and it didn't used to be that way. It really didn't.

BS: Well, we're still young, there's still hope.

GD: They let me write do's and don't's with 40 days clean, man. It's approved. There's newcomers all in that Basic Text. I think Bo was right earlier in saying that we had a process. Nobody could understand it, but damn it worked, and we tried to fuck around with it and we've got paid people and this and that. That's a brand new idea. It didn't work before, and I don't think anybody can say that it's working now. Maybe we have to back up a little bit. Maybe all this progress is not what we need to be in. Maybe we need to back up a little. Emotional sap and drivel. That's where I'm at. I have to bare my soul. I guess I have been for a long time. I don't know how long I've got, and I want to see it right. If it comes to me that there's something I have to do, then I have to do it. I don't mean to really leave it dangling there, but...

BS: Don't leave it dangling. You've done your part. You haven't put out anymore Baby Blues, right?

GD: I have honored my agreement to the letter.

BS: Has World Service Office honored their agreement?

GD: Yeah.

U: Yes.

BS: Well, that's wonderful to hear both of you say that. That's something to ponder.

GD: I am a man of honor, whether anybody believes it or not. All I have is my word. That's all I can take to my maker. I've given my word, and I've kept my word.

U: Okay.

BS: What else do we need to deal with in this phone call?

ST: I think you guys wanted to talk some more, right? George knows how to exclude us, I want to say goodbye to you guys, and we'll talk after the conference.

BS: Well, we'll continue the tape and send you a copy of it.

ST: Okay.

JM: Stu, you've got my number.

ST: Okay, we'll talk.

BS: We'll pray for the spirit of the fellowship to come out of this year's annual world service conference. God be with you.

GD: One last closing comment to you guys. I'm not going to be there. I tried every way I could to be there, but I want to ask you Stu, remember when I said please don't send any letters out until we get a chance to talk? I want to ask you to please try to, all of you who have the ability to address the conference, try to prevent the conference from reeling off. We have a problem. That problem cannot be resolved by a vote of the conference. If you can get the conference maybe to even hold off. I think George knows what I'm talking about. I think Stu knows what I'm talking about. Let's downplay all this stuff, in terms of exclusive property and all that stuff, cause I know it's going to be very...I'm almost sorry I'm not going to be there.

BS: Jim and I were going to come, but we just felt like it was going to muddy the waters.

ST: I'm going to do everything I can to have the issue addressed, guarantee that. I'm usually pretty good at that.

BS: To have the issues addressed like...

ST: Well, I'm not...We're going to talk about everything that's in the agenda. We're going to discuss some of the difficulties in the fellowship with the intellectual properties. It's not going to be washed under the rug.

GD: Well, if you create a separate account for Blue Book sales at $1.50, and limit the distribution, like we talked about before, and dedicate all that money to assisting other fellowships in other parts of the world to translate their literature.

U: There are a lot of things that will be discussed about that, Dave. I really think you're jumping to a conclusion, and really should be patient. Let's see what the conference does.

BS: Also, let's add one thing.

GD: The conference will do what it's told.

BS: The compilation of what we consider to be important be put in one package. There may be some written input in the regional reports this year. If you come across stuff that we may need to be cognizant of, that's important in terms of fellowship respect, that should be included in the overall package.

ST: Okay.

BS: Our chance of doing a good job on this is very dependent on us having a 52 card deck.

ST: Okay.

BS: It's our duty to make sure we put in writing what our concerns and issues are, and trust that you all do the same. I just think there's going to be some discussion. Some of it is going to be written, group conscience type stuff. Sometimes key phrases can be found in that kind of material.

GD: Also, I'm still waiting on the communications registered on the Basic Text and the other things that were supposed to be forth-coming. I know you guys are busy out there, but if you have it, send it. And the amplifications.

ST: Okay, we'll send that out to you then, okay?

JM: Okay, good. (whole round of good-byes)

LIT TRUST TALKS

MAY, 1991

U: I'm not sure about on the list, I just have a rough draft.

GH: The first point that, there appears to be a question regarding the accuracy, or inaccuracy of the background statement, or the style in which it is written. What needs to be stated in this section?

U: I got some of that from Bo's input and some from Jim's input. Maybe they can elaborate on that.

JM: I've gone on from these questions. I thought that was an excellent job, Stu. I appreciate it. I've gone on from these questions, and I have some simple responses. I think that this background statement, very simply needs to be focused on the fellowship rather than services, and most particularly, that portion of the fellowship exemplified by the 1981, before the literature conferences. The composition of the literature committee, the process that was happening then, and the four conferences that occurred then. I believe that it needs a simple description of the bond of trust that does exist between the spiritual fellowship of N.A., and its services, including ASCs, RSCs, WSC, WSB and their agents, primary service center, WSO. To the statement, "our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern." That's kind of what the background statement needs to be focused on in my opinion.

The '81 literature committee and those four conferences were something that happened in the fellowship, was a phenomenon that didn't have a precedent and hasn't happened since. The members that worked there, and the fellowship that they were representative of developed a trust bond with the service structure that the results of their work would be used in the same spirit and manner that the work was developed. This must be, in my opinion, the foundation and the basis of this literature trust document.

BS: Roughly, I agree.

GD: I agree. The fellowship and the people who wrote and participated are actually the authors and the owners. I think you've got it switched around. I didn't send any input because I've got some minutes of the conference here, it says to me that the things that we had discussed in Harrisburg and other times, and the promises that were made to Jim and Kathleen and Bo and myself and others that were present at the time, were ignored. It's like you've got the exclusive rights to do whatever you want to do as far as I'm concerned, it seems like that is "your" trust. The trust that I had that you wouldn't ask for these things and you wouldn't do the things that you have done, you violated that trust.

ST: I never said that we wouldn't ask for it. I put it in the Conference Agenda Report. That's not true, Dave. I told you I was going to ask for it.

JM: What I understand, Stu, what I remember was that in those documents that you gave us your assurance that you would share that something was in process, and that after the process was completed, that you would ask for this, and mention that in any requests for it. I felt you made yourself very clear and agree substantially with Dave.

ST: No. What I agreed to was the fact that I would ask for this in lieu of producing any other document. I agreed that this document was premature to distribute at the conference at that time. It needed some work. I instructed the conference that we would be working on this document and would send it out.***

BS: In the interest of time, can we be send the relevant documents on this. I'm blind to it. I don't have copies of it.

U: What don't you have?

GD: I didn't get anything.

BS: I don't have any WSC minutes from '91.

GD: Did anybody get the amplifications and the other materials that were supposed to be send, because I received nothing.

U: They were just done. They'll be coming in the next package.

BS: Let's clear one thing here. I talked with Dave last night, and he's gained some admirable strength, but he felt very offended and betrayed in whatever he found in the WSC motion in the minutes. Stu, you're saying you don't think you betrayed anything, that you kept perfect faith and trust. I was never real clear what it was that Dave was asking assurance that you not do. Now he says you've done it. Can I get some paperwork on this, so I don't have to do that addict thing of "make it up and pretend it's so"? It's a little facetious. It takes a marvelous amount of time and attention to participate in something like this, and the idea that some of the participants would be withheld information or events would be very shaky to me. I'm not going to waste my time, whatever happens.

GD: I feel like it's kind of a waste of time. I do so because of my own personal intimate knowledge and understanding of the promises that were made. The last conference call, I said that I had fulfilled my end of the bargain 100%, Stu, you said yes, and everyone was amazed that you had said yes. The fact of the matter is, from what I understood in the court, you were supposed to go from the court to the vote, without any comment.

ST: No, no, no, no, no. The only comment that wasn't supposed to be taken, was I wasn't supposed to put a prelude to the motions that went out to the fellowship. That's what was indicated by the court.

***REFERENCE PAGE #19 FROM APRIL LIT TALK TAPE

GD: Was there not a three-hour discussion before the votes were taken at the conference? Was there not papers sent out four or five days before the conference to RSRs about...I have it, it's dated March 28 "For distribution. An essay on the fourth and ninth tradition changes."

ST: The only thing that was sent out that had anything to do with those three motions was the issue of the low cost text, and that was ordered by the court that it was done. That was it. We said nothing, we publicized nothing, we did nothing.

GD: There wasn't three hours were of discussion before the votes were taken at the conference?

ST: At the conference, I gave my report.

GD: And then Terry Middlebrook gave her report, and all that information in which I saw nothing positive, not even in the WSO Report, nothing positive at all...

ST: Dave, those RSRs came there with the vote. There's no votes after the discussion. Those votes were taken by their respective fellowships. Those votes were taken back in their fellowships. They went out in the agenda report. They all came with a vote from their fellowship.

GD: Then why was there a need for three hours of discussion?

ST: Because I give a report every year. There was no cross discussion. There were questions and answers after the report, which they cut short and forced the end of discussion. We went into session, I asked for a committee of the whole, and they refused it and wanted to vote. They voted and then they went into a committe