The following extract is placed here not to embarrass anyone but simply because most members of our Fellowship don't know this happened. Since they cannot find a specific time and place where 'everything' changed, they believe the fun loving, caring Fellowship we had in the late seventies and early nineties is still in existence somewhere. Adjustments that have been made by people like me have been a positive reaction to these changes. But if the Fellowship has no way of knowing, they will think some of what we do is unnecessary. The NA Way of Life project for instance is far too loving and caring to survive in this kind of power politics atmosphere. It would be like choosing to go to a dumpster to have a baby. Still, I respect the friends I have who have stood the strain of all the years in world service. We need a strong structure and a stable World Service Office. It is up to us to provide the spirit, the fun and the good humor that brings life to our Program and Fellowship. They take care of their stuff: the corporate work, the reports, the printing, distribution and all the other work they do for the Fellowship in trust. Like us, if they fail they can pay a high penalty. None of this recovery stuff is anything but a God given miracle! If we are grateful, we can wish them well and get back to what we do the best: stay clean and carry the message.
Bob Stone was a great man in our history and we will be fortunate to attract others of his caliber. I have long suspected that while he was not an addict, he held back more insanity within our world service system then we will ever know. If we don't show gratitude and respect to our trusted servants and special workers, who will? - Bo S.
Bob Stone
and the NA fellowship
by Bo Sewell
Bob Stone was the manager of the NA World Service office from 1983 to 1990. He was not an addict which made for peculiar problems in his management of the Office. Our approved and carefully thoughtout service structure of the time did not make provision to prohibit the WSO from making NA policy or manipulating information in Fellowship publications entrusted to their care. The expansion of WSO from less than $10,000 in the 1978-1979 fiscal year to a million dollars in the 1984-1985 fiscal year (figures approximate) increased the staff of the Office from none to over forty. The dynamics of this change included a range of new strains and pressures. It was hard for the workers at WSO to know exactly what pains had been taken by the Fellowship leadership. They had to answer to their boss on a daily basis and that which their boss did not know, did not reach the light of day. Heavy on the business side and hazy on the spiritual Fellowship side, it is not surprising that many mishaps miscommunications happened. Add to this all the personal interpretations that Bob was given by addicts who surrounded him at the WSO in Southern California or else on the road traveling 'for the Fellowship.' It has to have been confusing.
Several years before the end of his managing the WSO, I advised him to write a book about his experience. Our members need to know what you are learning and it may help others understand what goes on at WSO and thereby make improvements that would be impossible if they were kept in the dark. At the time, I thought no more about it. Then I heard his contract was not renewed. Greg P. who I trusted in these things told me that there were many little things towards the end of Bob's work for us that would be unimportant but taken as a whole, they were enough to get him 'non-renewed.' I now think there are other explanations. I have just finished reading his book, "My Years with Narcotics Anonymous" and may have stumbled on an unexpected explanation.
Before going into that, I want to point out that during my assignment to the WSC Literature Committee in the 1986-1987 Conference year, we were going through a document that contained a large excerpt from a letter Bob Stone wrote to the Chairperson of the Literature Committee. He advised that the work of the Committee be suspended for a few years during which time the Chairpersons should go around a talk with members about what they would like to see written about recovery. In the course of reviewing the material, the excerpt proved to be problematic. It made good points but just didn't fit in with the piece we were working on. Sorry, I can't recall which piece. It may been concerning the Committees guidelines. Someone finally snapped to the fact that Bob's letter was not meant to be input but only contained some thoughtful and relevant observations. Bob's comments left no doubt that he believed as we did that the writing should be tuned to the reality of NA recovery and not the member coerced into doing it the way a writer thought they should. This experience based approach is what saved us with the Basic Text. State someone's experience and no one in the world can deny it. Present the same information as a suggestion or opinion, anyone can argue with you. There were other things but after that, I began to suspect that Bob was holding back plenty of insanity instead of making problems.
Reading Bob Stone's book, he refers to a 'vocal minority.' This would be funny if it were not so sad. The members who had studied and been apart of World Services the longest, whether as a Fellowship supporter or as an active participant became outraged when certain breeches of trust and written policy were violated. Hell, no one knew it all and it took a sizable group of well informed members to keep up with events and the written material in Quarterly Reports, the Annual Conference Agenda Report and any other documents to come out of the WSO, WSC (World Service Conference) or WSB (World Service Board). These few members who cared and dared enough to complain or express concern were dubbed as a group: the vocal minority. So, if something upset the 'vocal minority', he would wave it off as if the concern came from people who just liked to find fault or complain. This is what proved to be his undoing. While there may be no direct relationship between to two events, it is not lost on me that the non-renewal came after the 4th Edition debacle.
By not listening to the informed, studied and experienced members, he was left to listen to whom? His employees? Currently elected WSC Officers and Chairpersons? So, would you expect he got a well rounded viewpoint or might his view point be restricted by the limited group of persons he let advise him. After all, he wasn't going to listen to a bunch of sick addicts who were vocal and lacking in numbers, was he? Only the 'vocal minority' could have or would have helped him, if he had asked. But a manger runs on information and any corporation places a high value on information. Once you think you have enough, you just go for it and hope for the best. Corporation go out of business because they can't read the writing on the wall. They become insensitive to customer complaints and they go out of business. If instead of fearing, dismissing or ignoring the vocal minority - who is still around, let me tell ya! - he could have brought them into the picture and heard them out. Their feelings were probably on track and it would have been easy enough for him in particular to please them. To me, this is, or should be the difference between a spiritual fellowship and a corporation. A corporation has no soul. It responds to lobbying. A spiritual fellowship takes the long view and looks out for all its members, not just a few who seem to be in power. God's really in power in NA.
As his story moves towards the last two chapters, Bob is literally globe trotting at Fellowship expense. He goes everywhere from Tokyo for two weeks to South America and Europe. Of course he travels extensively around the United States. He was paid a good salary as WSO manager and worked very hard to achieve the directives of the Fellowship. After around ten years of involvement with us, he did know a few things about what we wanted and how we worked towards our goals within the Twelve Traditions. He describes a group of people who decide not to renew his contract. He says he was told that they wanted to change Executive Directors because they were planning some changes in the Service Structure that he might not be able to go along with because of his well known basic beliefs. Apparently, these members succeeded because right after he was kicked out, there were some dramatic changes in our Structure. Representatives at the WSC no longer represented, now they are delegates. This means that while the tokens of representation are still there at the Regional level, they can vote their own conscience at the WSC. They don't have to vote the way their regions tell them to on issues announced in the Conference Agenda Report (CAR). Since they no longer have to follow the specific directions of their members in the region that has delegated them to vote at the WSC, the Fellowship no longer has a real vote. The linkage that used to exist between Group Member whose vote at the Group level was tallied with other groups at their area, then the area votes tallied at the region, and finally the regional votes tallied at the annual WSC. Without specific language, this linkage is destroyed. There were other sweeping changes. A big move to efficiency resulted in drying up the Board of Trustees (WSB) and the WSC sub-committee system. During the years I attended the WSC there was only one thing the Fellowship did not want: the super board composed of a few people who run everything. Today, we have a super board. No doubt, Bob Stone would not have gone along with that plan.
To pull off this exhausting and radical change, a decade long charade called 'The Inventory' was utilized. It had the effect of freezing most WSC activity while WSO continued to function 'business as usual.' The most striking thing about the implementation of the super board is that they had two years to write their own guidelines. So, they had all the money under their control, all publications under their control, and all world service functions under their control. The only way for a member to get in is called the 'pool.' So members who want to serve at the World Level, have to sign up for a pool, fill out forms - the first in our history, and wait to be called. Presumably, if they do a good job, they are retained and even giving other assignments. A perfect management system.
I am grateful to Mr. Stone for all his work on our behalf. The man was not perfect but his position as Executive Director would have driven anyone insane. It is a wonder he did as well as he did and to credit the 1983 WSC voting group conscience, no one could have done as well. You and surely couldn't unless you're one hell of a manager! When he got sick with inoperable cancer, he wrote his truth probably as much to help him process what had happened as anything.
So that you members reading this will have some idea of what is contained in Bob's book, I am going to present the last chapter or two of the book. The early chapters have some excellent detailed writings on the history of NA. There is also an amazing blow by blow description of some of the service politics from the 1980's. This is the stuff we will have to master if we are to do better service in the future. To spare anyone at all the feeling that I am up to something, let me say that I am telling anyone I can reach that they should pray and step out on faith to meet any perceived need the NA Fellowship may have at present or in the future. Since these people in World Services wanted the super board, let them have it. If they get in trouble, we may have to save them. After all, it is our service work they are selling.
It is the love and understanding along with useful survival information in the Basic Text that called most of them to recovery in the first place. The Basic Text was written by over a thousand members in the late 1970's and early 1980's. It is the combined experience, strength and hope of addicts in recovery from all over the Fellowship with members from one day clean to over thirty years. Their input was put in a big pot and set to boil until it became condensed into writing and met the approval of members and groups all over the world who voted through a group conscience system in days when we had representative voting. My role in all this has always been basically the same: I hate to see big guys beating the shit out of little guys. I enjoy supplying the little guys so they at least have a chance. It gives me a thrill and makes my Higher Power happy. And that is just fine with me.
Since so much of this is coming to light for many members today, my suggestion is to leave the structure alone, especially at the world level. Just surrender. They will ask for help from the only people who can give it to them, or they will drain away power hungry members from the more important tasks at the group and area level. For instance, we need to get Basic Texts into every library in our state - how about yours? We need to routinely visit young doctors just when they are graduating from medical school and do this on a regular basis to get help for addicts and help doctors better understand addiction and recovery when they are young and growing. How about visiting local police departments and letting the new policemen and women know about recovery from addiction. Maybe then they can jump out of the Hollywood stereotyping and into reality. We can do these things through existing H&I and P.I. committees. Did you know some large groups used to sponsor a hospital meeting so when the person got out of treatment, they had existing friends in a regular NA recovery meeting? Dreaming works - when you are clean!
In Loving Service,
Bo S.
My Years with Narcotics Anonymous
by Bob Stone
Chapter Twenty
I Was Stunned
The Board of Trustees had been in their closed meeting for over four hours when they sent for me. Upon entering the room, I noticed that the smiling faces and jovial attitude normally present at breaks in their meetings were totally absent, and concluded this was indeed not going to be a pleasant discussion. This was the first time the trustees had excluded me from any discussion in the entire time I served with NA, so my heart was pounding quite fast.
Jack was at the head of the table, and the only empty seat was at the opposite end. As I sat down, the door was closed, and after a moment Jack began.
"There is no way to make this easy or pleasant, Bob, but the board has been discussing your tenure as Executive Director. No one has ignored the invaluable contribution you have made to Narcotics Anonymous and all the things you have done for the fellowship. No one can take those things away from your service to NA.
"But the board is of the opinion that NA is going in new directions, and that you would probably not be able to adjust to the kinds of changes that are necessary. It is not that you have done something wrong. The board just feels that you will be unable to cope with the changes that will come about. Because of this, we feel that a change in management of the office is in the best interests of the fellowship. The trustees are therefore recommending to the Board of Directors that your contract not be renewed.
"Is there anything you would like to say about this?"
I was stunned! Waves of heat flushed through me as I tried to comprehend and organize my thoughts. Dozens of ideas whizzed by, but I was too numb to catch them or even make sense of the images they carried. I was fighting against this electrical storm in my mind as I tried to fathom why they had decided this --- what should I say, what words could I use? In just a few seconds my world had been turned upside down. Without hint or warning, the Board of Trustees had decided to boot me out. Through the shock, I began to feel like I was inside a roaring fire, racing in circles. I needed to say something but what, and will the words come out?
page 521
What could I say? Having had no warning that day or any day previously that the trustees felt a change was necessary, or that I could not adapt to the changes taking place, my mind could not come up with a rational defense.
The World Service Conference had ended only thirty day before, during which I had been lauded by the trustees and the conference for another year of excellent performance. In the weeks leading up to this meeting, not one member of the board had suggested to me or to the office directors that I should not be retained another year.
Yes, there were three trustees who considered me their enemy because I frequently opposed their power grabs, needless junkets at NA expense, and self-promotion, but I never suspected they would convince the others that I should be disposed of. Nor would I have suspected that those among the trustees who had been my close friends for many years would have, in four hours, turned against me in such a callous manner. Frankly I was unable to comprehend what Jack meant, or really why they had reached the conclusion that a new Executive Director was essential immediately.
Throwing out an Executive Director with no notice is simply a stupid idea unless the individual is guilty of some negligence of misconduct. And if those were the issues, every such charge requires an open and fair hearing. But I was not being charged with negligence, incompetence, dereliction or commission of some crime, or even of some mistake! I was not being given an opportunity to rebut their contention. They had already made up their minds. I was guilty of some supposed vague inability to adjust, and the trial was over. End of discussion.
Suggesting I was unable to adjust to changes in the fellowship seemed then, and seems now, simply ludicrous. No one had been closer than I, or involved so directly with the tumultuous changes in NA for the previous fifteen years. Not only was I at the center of those changes, but many of them rested on my ability to foresee their need, convince others of their value, and then later implement them. Many important changes were simply put in my hands by the conference, the trustees of the directors, and I was charged with the duty of getting them done. If there was any quality or characteristic I possessed, it was the ability to adjust.
Despite my disagreement with the trustees' assessment, and my demonstrated ability to adjust to changes, I didn't have many options for a response. From the very beginning of my tenure as an employee of NA, I had warned against allowing the Executive Director to become entrenched. I had even forced the issue by writing in my contract in 1983, that to remove the Office Manager (later changed to Executive Director) required only a phone call or letter of notice from
page 522
the Board of Directors. I had even set up that my contract was for a year only and renewal was at the pleasure of the board.
In some ways I was guilty of having prepared the hemlock the trustees were now serving me. The black humor of having built my foundation as Executive Director on such thin ice escaped me then, but later I would shake my head in disbelief. Equally unfortunate for me at that moment was the fact that I had trained nearly all the trustees over the years and made sure they knew how easy it was to remove me.
Perhaps I had done it all wrong, and should have taken the more traditional approach. The more traditional approach used by Executive Directors was to write multi-year contracts that are hard or expensive for boards to break.
Most of the trustees knew about that tactic. Jack, for example, had become Executive Director of his treatment center twelve years earlier, in part, because of my efforts to remove his predecessor. He and Chuck L. were subordinate staff members when their Executive Director grossly violated good management and even misappropriated resources of the treatment center for his own benefit. But the guy was smart, and had a lifetime contract as Executive Director. I had helped their Board of Directors remove him, despite that contract. Jack became his replacement, and Chuck had later become his assistant. Greg P. had been a trustee at that time and was a friend of the Executive Director who was removed.
More recently, all but a few of the trustees had been active in the fellowship when Jimmy K. had fought to the very last to remain as office manager, and they knew how that conflict had rocked the fellowship to its foundation. Having gone through that had surely imbued the trustees with determination to act swiftly to remove me.
All of the trustees knew the language in my contract that allowed for nonrenewal. that factor had been openly announced at the conference several years running, and I had discussed it with each trustee personally over the years. Two were even more directly familiar with my contract as they had served as chairperson of the Board of Directors while I was Executive Director. Additionally, Stu, then the chairperson of the directors, had participated in the four hours of their discussion. I certainly had the deck stacked against me.
But all was not lost. Trustee recommendation, even if strongly argued, might not be sufficient to sway the Board of Directors when they had to decide the issue. I had worked with most of the office directors for years, and most professed strong friendship and support for continuing my management. Most also felt the trustees were more than a little out in the ozone when it came to practical
page 523
decisions about fellowship matters. It was still possible, I knew, that the directors might reject the Trustee recommendation and renew my contract for another year or more. And I knew that many Executive Directors would have argued for a delay, and then used the time to marshal member support in opposition to such a removal.
Unfortunately, these were not options for me.
In the education I had given to this room full of trustees about organizational management, I had stressed that internal fights over the Executive Director had to be avoided at all costs. I had lectured them at business meetings that a board that engaged in a bloody fight with its Executive Director over tenure is dumb, and that such battles are dangerous to the interests of the organization. And the way to do that was to have the Executive Director on one-year contracts. Furthermore I had educated them on the notion that such easily -ended agreements served to protect the interests of the organization, and the interests of the organization were paramount. Employees could come and go, but the volunteer management had to always have the upper hand and be in control. Yes, I had indeed planted and cultivated the seeds of my own removal.
Several trustees who participated in the discussion guessed correctly that I would not fight against their decision. I had shared openly over the years with all of them that I loved Narcotics Anonymous too much to cause a fight over my tenure. I was never told what was discussed at the meeting, so I don't know how much of my vulnerability was disclosed, but if some were as smart as they pretended to be, they should have made sure everyone knew.
But this complex analysis really came later. At the moment I sat there with Jack's words still ringing in my ears, I was trying to formulate some kind of response. I had a decision to make and no time in which to make it. They were waiting for me to respond, and my response would set the stage for a destructive fight or my capitulation.
Still in the trustee meeting, my head felt like it would explode and my heart was now racing so fast I could feel the blood rushing through by body. I was still trying to come up with some response. I had a faint sensation that I could see myself from outside my body and I was looking at me from the right side of the room and everything seemed to be moving in slow motion. the few second of Jack's statement and the moments before I responded seemed like a long, long time. I knew I had to say something, and I wanted the words to be right and clear. I was afraid, however, that my voice would be so quiet and low that no one would hear me. My vision had so constricted that I could not see anyone except Jack. I don't even remember who was sitting where.
page 524
Finally, I was able to muster a response. I don't remember precisely what I said, but this was my message.
"I don't agree with your recommendation. I think it is wrong. But I will not fight your recommendation. I believe NA should not have to fight between the Executive Director and other service boards. To do so would be harmful to the fellowship. As you know my contract is at the pleasure of the directors so there should not be a bloody fight over my removal.
"It is a matter of confidence. If the service boards cannot have the confidence of working well with the Executive Director, the Executive Director must go. As it is obvious that your confidence in my has gone, then I must go."
I may have said more, but I don't remember. The trustees did not record their meeting, nor did they have minuets or a written report made of their discussion of my few minutes with them.
Jack must have said something, because the meeting then broke up and I rose to leave. My head was spinning so much that I don't recall if anyone said anything to me in any way. My first recollection was that outside the meeting room Stu T., office chairperson, suggested we have dinner together and figure out what to say to the Board of Directors when their meeting started in slightly less than an hour. So off he and I went to discuss a quick termination from what had been the center of my life for seven years.
Some trustees, whom I had considered friends, even close friends, had evidently not stood in the way or fought to retain my services. Heavens! They didn't even fight to have the removal handled with grace and loving care. As I walked away from that meeting, and later that weekend from the joint meeting of the two boards, these "old friends" avoided me, wanting, I believe, to hide their guilt and shame at have been so callous and insensitive. In the years since that night, only two of the trustees have made any effort to communicate. With those trustees I had felt were my friends, I was disappointed that I have never initiated further contact either. The rest still avoid me, although I have been easy for them to call or visit. It is almost like I had died, and they did not have any further need to recognize their insensitivity or that I had ever existed. Yes, I was hurt by this experience, and it took a long time for me to recover from such a heartless removal. But time had washed away most of the sting of that hurt.
For those who truly considered me their enemy, I am sure there was jubilation. Their victory was easy for me to reconcile. They knew that I believed their motives and actions were based on their own pride, ambition, and quest for power, and that their actions were harmful to the fellowship.
page 525
For the few with whom I had a more neutral relationship, I was quite disappointed that they failed to consider the damage such a sudden and ill-conceived change would have upon the office and the fellowship at large.Their willingness to approve the removal of an Executive Director so suddenly and without cause is testament to their lack of qualification for service on such an important board.
The disappointment of that day and the sadness of the last month at the office were not representative of my experience with Narcotics Anonymous. There was a time, even when controversy swirled around me or the office, that the support and affection from the boards, committees, and the fellowship at large, was strong and sustaining.
Even in departing, I knew the vast majority of the members who were aware of world service matters would be stunned and saddened by my leaving. They would not understand my removal any more than I did. Unfortunately it was my task to permit the last month to proceed with as little notice as possible and allow no further controversy. A wave of opposition to my removal now would not have served the interests of the office or NA, and had to be avoided. My career at the World Service Office had to be sort of like the adage about the month of March: "In like a lion and out like a lamb."
And I truly had come into the position of office executive with the force of a lion. But is was not I that was the lion: it was the conference and the group conscience driving it. On that day in 1983 when the conference voted to suggest I become the office manager, there were whoops, hollers and a standing ovation. Practically everyone in the room was showing their favor and support for the decision. By that vote, the conference had, for the first time, demonstrated its authority and control over its service boards.
At each conference since then, I had received standing ovations for the year's work and overwhelming support for continuing as the Executive Director. At the conference just a month before, the participants had again loudly demonstrated their support.
But now the conference was over, and there was no one to effectively combat the closed-door kangaroo court session that had engineered my removal. Only if I fought against their decision and remained as Executive Director until the next conference was there a possibility I could win against such odds. That would likely paralyze the office and the relationships among the world service boards. The only choice was to pack my bags and leave. I went without a fight. "Out like a lamb:" As the full time paid Executive Director that tens of thousands of members knew about, I had an obligation to set a proper pattern for my successors.
page 526
As I left with Stu, I pulled Anthony and George aside to tell them the trustees had voted to recommend that my contract not be renewed. They were stunned, and in total disbelief. I asked that they not tell the others, as I felt I should do that when I returned from dinner with Stu.
At dinner I didn't ask what had been said in the meeting of how he had argued against the idea. Deep inside I felt he had probably been mostly silent or provided encouragement for my removal. We talked about practical matters.
I proposed a separation payment equal to seven months salary. As I mentioned in previous chapters, in the previous three contract renewals, at my suggestion, the board had not given me a raise. Instead the board had agreed to provide an additional month to my severance payment. In this way I had earned three months severance, which was in fact earned compensation, but the payment was deferred until I ceased being an employee. The contract renewal Stu and I had discussed only days before, was to extend my earned severance to four months. I had five weeks unused vacation time and was due more than twenty working days in compensatory time for working extra days and overtime without pay.
By suggesting seven months, I was including the already-earned compensation, including vacation, and comp-time and that the board pay me two months salary, unearned, for the sudden and unwarranted termination. I also suggested I was not willing to leave immediately, but would expect and require to remain on my job for an additional thirty days. Stu agreed to these, and promised to get the directors to agree when their meeting convened.
I don't know what was going through his mind about how the office was going to be run or get through a period without an Executive Director, but we did talk about it. He was aware of my opinion, but I restated it during dinner.
We had on staff two capable and skilled assistant administrators in George and Anthony. Both were fully able to run their departments without supervision. This had been proven over and again because of the long trips I was often forced to take. If the Board of Directors could provide the buffer between them and the power grab that would take place in my absence, the office would continue to run efficiently. the most critical matters would be to keep the trustees from taking direct control of office staff or their work assignments, and from getting control of office spending decisions that I customarily made in conjunction with the WSO board chairperson and the conference chairperson.
page 527
We finished dinner quickly and returned to the office. The trustees had ended their business for the night and departed while the directors were just getting there. I had George assemble all office staff members who were still at work. I told them what the trustees had decided, and that I was not going to fight to stay on. Everyone was shocked; several were soon in tears.
Stu called the board meeting to order shortly after six, and although we were still missing a few members, we proceeded with the agenda. There were about three hours of work to be done before we got to the item marked as Personnel. Stu and I moved forward on all of these matters without having first informed the board of what the trustees had decided.
About nine o'clock we finally got to personnel matters. At that time Stu explained what had taken place, and about our dinner conversation. The board was totally shocked. Martin C. quickly said that he didn't care what they wanted. "We need Bob." he argued. "He is an excellent Executive Director and there would be chaos without him. their idea is just nuts!" He was in truth voicing the feelings of nearly all the directors. Martin and several others were willing to go against the trustee recommendations, even though it would cause considerable controversy. Randy J., at his first meeting since becoming a director was incensed. Always quick to raise his temper, this afforded him a new opportunity. Others were just as heated, and had some of the directors from the early eighties been on the board -- such as Kevin F. or Mac M. -- they would have simply told the trustees to shove their idea where the sun don't shine.
After the shock had set in for a few minutes, I quietly explained, that I was hurt by the trustee action, but that NA could not afford to have a fight over the Executive Director. We had been through that once, and by having a one-year contract for me, we had set it up to avoid fights like that again. "Essentially," I told the board, "the Executive Director is an expendable person. the volunteer leadership needs to have someone they can work with, and Trustee confidence in my ability to work with them has vanished. I believe it is best for the fellowship that the directors follow the trustee recommendation." After a little more discussion, I left the room so the board could discuss the matter in private and make decisions on the conditions of my termination. After about forty minutes, I was called back to the meeting, told of the board concurrence to the trustee recommendation, and we proceeded to finish the evening's agenda.
I don't remember sleeping that night, but periodically took aspirin to relieve the pain and swirling in my head. The following morning the board continued with its agenda matters until just before lunch when we finished. the directors each spent some time with me
page 528
sharing their dismay and disbelief. They also expressed their appreciation and that of a grateful fellowship for my years of service. Each expressed their continuing affection and concern for my well-being. On Sunday afternoon I returned to the office and, as usual, took two separate carloads of departing directors to the airport. I didn't cry until the last had left.
There were four visiting members to the weekend's events that had a ring-side seat. Present this weekend were representatives from Hawaii and Ohio. They were also shocked when told of what had happened. I remember telling them that I was stunned by the decision but the system in place protected the fellowship against a fight over tenure of the Executive Director. I have often wondered what they thought and what they told the folks back home.
On Monday morning Stu and Jack came to the office to preside over a staff meeting at which they explained what had taken place. It was an undignified way to treat a delicate situation. The impression given was that I was being removed for some unspeakable and unannounced cause and that Stu was going to take immediate control of the office. "Yes, Bob was going to remain on the payroll, the staff were told, but without any authority. Supervisory staff members were to meet with Stu at the end of each day and he would make all necessary decisions." From the way Stu and Jack presented the matter, they conveyed to the staff that all trust in my decision-making ability had been withdrawn.
The staff were in complete shock. For most it was hard to comprehend. I had hired most of them, trained them, organized them and made the whole team work. Many felt a loyalty to me that was stronger than their loyalty to the impersonal office that was to emerge from the weekend meeting. there was disbelief, and this time, lots of tears.
It was a tough day. One after another the staff visited my office for moments of personal grief and expressions of affection. Several cried nearly all day. Around five o'clock that afternoon, Stu arrived and commandeered George's office. He proceeded to take full and direct control of the office. I wasn't even invited into the meetings he had with the staff.
I spend the next few days comforting the staff and taking phone calls from people who were just beginning to get calls about what had happened. I tried to work as much as I could, as there were a lot of projects on my desk that had to be finished or ready to turn over to someone else.
Stu came each evening after working at his own job to meet with George, Anthony and other staff members. This caused a lot of friction within the staff and some lasting resentments. I took Friday off
page 529
and drove to southern Utah, where I owned some property, and escaped thinking about anything but the beauty of the red hills and blue sky.
I was sad that my service to NA was having a sudden and unhappy end. But I was also confident that the office was being left in good hands, if they would let George and Anthony do their jobs. George, Anthony and the staff were well-organized, knowledgeable and capable of doing their jobs regardless of who was Executive Director (or even without one). We had assembled a talented team of members and local non-members who worked hard for NA. There was very little friction at the time, and the level of commitment to the fellowship was extremely high. The office had been organized into a fellowship services department and a support services department, responsible for internal operations. George ran fellowship services and Anthony managed support services.
George had been the RSR from Florida in the 1981 conference. He served as vice-chairperson for two years under Bob R., and then served two years as chairperson. Shortly after his second term expired, we hired him as my assistant in the overall management of the office. We needed his vast fellowship knowledge and experience. NA had invested thousands of dollars in him when he was an officer of the conference, by sending him to many places around the fellowship to gather information and serve the fellowship. No one at that time was as well prepared to do the job he was given. George is a quiet person with tremendous restraint and tact. Yes, he does have opinions -- strong ones at times -- but he is a professional, dedicated to the service of NA.
Anthony had been a member of the host committee of the 1986 World Convention in Washington, DC. Later, when the Convention Corporation was formed, he became a member of that board and served with considerable distinction. His knowledge of conventions was unparalleled and he was organized, assertive and straightforward. He was just the man you would want as the captain of your team, for any venture. In 1988 the position of H&I coordinator became vacant, and I called Anthony about the job. I wanted Anthony because I knew he had the skills, temperament, background and recovery that we needed in management employees. He was surprised at the call, and more surprised at the job offer. It took some time and persuasion, but he accepted, and brought his family to Los Angeles.
Later, when the support services division was to be created along with the administrator positions to manage it, Anthony was chosen for the job from among eleven qualified candidates. He organized the department, trained and supervised the staff, and managed it with
page 530
excellence. Anthony demonstrated that same ability when he managed the World Conventions from 1988 to 1990. Without his knowledge, experience and hard work they would not have been nearly as successful.
George and Anthony made a good team for NA, and since I left the office they proved that confidence in them was well placed. The rest of the staff were also steady and dependable. Several, like Bob S., Lois G. and Vida M., had been with the office for many years, and remained the rock upon which the office rested.
These and others were very close friends, and the sudden decision was as tough on them as it was on me. But their dedication to the office was strong enough that they continued to work just as hard during that last month and after I left as they had when I was there. Throughout the staff there existed a spirited sense of purpose that was not dependent on who the Executive Director was. Even so, there were strong bonds of affection, and over teh last weeks, I spent time privately with each member to talk about their beginning with the office, our special relationships and our hopes for the future.
The fellowship at large didn't learn of the removal for a week or more. A joint letter from Stu, Jack and Ed D., conference chairperson, was sent to the fellowship announcing the decision. I felt sorry for Ed at having to apply his name to such a muddled and ambiguous communication on such an important decision. The closest they came to announcing a reason for the change was "it became clear to those present that there needed to be a change in the way the office functioned within world services." The unwillingness of the trustees to tell bluntly that I stood in the way of their power grab was a measure of their duplicity.
After fifteen years of adjusting to the changing factors and forces within the fellowship, it was strange to be told I was unable to adjust to the changes that loomed on the indefinite horizon. Looking back after these years, the only functional or organizational change that followed my termination was the attempt by the trustees to take complete control of world services. And yes, I would have continued to oppose that centralization of power.
Reaction from the fellowship was mostly shock and disbelief. Members, groups adn committees discussed what little they were told. Many wrote letters to the board, and many wrote directly to me. I received letters and messages of affection and support from places as distant as Australia, Canada and Germany along with many from within the US.
In the final weeks I wrote a closing report for the board, about a hundred and fifty pages including attachments, in which I outlined many of the concerns I felt they could not afford to neglect. I gave
page 531
considerable emphasis to international fellowship needs, resisting the power grab taking place, and expressing my appreciation to the fellowship at large for their affection and support.
I also wrote a farewell letter to the fellowship at large, hoping the board would permit it to be published in the Newsline. I was pleased that it was. I reminded the fellowship of the disastrous fight over my predecessor, and implied my unwillingness to engage in that kind of battle. I expressed my regret at leaving , and my appreciation for the support and affection that had been shown me during my service with NA. I was not terribly vague in offering several warnings about personality cults and power grabs.
During my last days with the office, we had two going-away parties. The first was the official departure party, but the second was the personal farewell to friends. Both were filled with tears and sadness. But I was leaving a strong World Service Office. It was far different from the one I started working for in June of 1983. I was proud of the changes and the success we had achieved.
The gross income of the office for the year that ended a few months before I became and employee had been $87,000. There was one full-time employee, a part-time employee and a typewriter that didn't work. In seven years, NA and I had built a service office with forty-three employees, a five-million dollar budget, and branch offices in Canada and England.
When I began my first day on the job, there were probably two thousand meetings worldwide and perhaps six thousand members of NA. On the day I left, there were over fifteen thousand meetings and more than a quarter million active members. It was both pleasure and privilege to have been part of that growth and to have had a significant role in its success. There had been some problems along the way, but the fellowship got from me the ultimate in hard work, dedication and fidelity to the interests of the fellowship.
Narcotics Anonymous had become a strong, viable solution in the worldwide war against addiction. Although our Public Information philosophy kept NA out of the headlines, NA is the only entity that is truly solving the problem. Others may fight the war on drugs, but only NA is fighting the war on addiction -- and winning.
It was impossible in 1976, when I first served NA, to have guessed that it would grow to the magnitude it had. but looking back, there was a steady course of exp[ansion. But looking back even further to the very beginning, it seemed even less probable that NA would have become the dynamic, worldwide lifesaver it is.
There is no doubt that I was terribly angry and resentful over my removal. For seven years I had given the fellowship my unreserved effort and determination. I had been faithful to my responsibilities
page 532
and had been summarily removed without an adequate explanation. My leaving was poorly explained to the fellowship, and they were left with the impression that I had been removed for some hidden and nefarious reason.
Frankly I'm over that now, and writing this chapter was the start of getting over it. I spent nearly a month writing the previous pages of this chapter. As I wrote, I got through some of the anger and I rewrote it and felt better. And I rewrote it again, and again until it finally reads the way it does. The rest of this book was written two years later.
page 533
Epilogue
People have often asked me why I was fired. And until I was halfway through writing the previous chapter, I really didn't know. I was never to learn what was said at the trustee meeting about why it was necessary to terminate me so immediately -- a decision I still feel was a poor and ill-considered one. While researching and writing this book, thorugh, and in particular the final chapter, I began to gain some insight into how this happened. I seems during my last year of service, I was oblivious to the signs I now see in the record. And it seems Jack was right to tell me the trustees didn't feel I could adjust to the chages that were going to take place in NA. I didn't understand it that day, but I was the obstacle in the way of the trustees taking control of the fellowship by implementing the one board concept in practice, without actually changing the service sturcture. Had I understood that, as I do now, yes, I would have fought againt it until I was removed.
The problem the trustees had with me was that I had not changed. I was still doing the job the way I had started out: listening to what I heard from the fellowship at large, listening to what the trusted servants were saying, adn examining my own heart to determine what was right and wrong. When my heart said something was wrong, I didn't rush forward and support it. When my heart said somethign was right, it got my full support. But in all cases, since I worked for the fellowship through the authority of the directors, I did whatever the directors wanted.
From my first day the directors were the boss. Between meetings, I consulted with them and went by what the chairperson of the board said. And there were times when I disagreed with what they said. The removal of Ginni is undoubtedly the most notable example. The directors were steady and didn't change. Even when board members left and others took their places over the years, they were basically the same. They examined everything I or the staff gave them, and asked questions about everything -- and then asked questiosns about things we might not have remembered.
There was a kind of unofficial division of labor within the board. Each member concentrated on one or two areas and became a specialist. Martin C. and Kevin F. were always particular about the budget, finance reports and accounting. And when Robert McD. came along he took that role too. Stu, Bill W. and Martin knew personnel practices, policy and management, so every time something came up on these subjects, others listened and often used their judgement as the basis for decisions. Bob R. from Missouri and Bob K. from Tennessee
page 535
became the resource on legal matters, contracts and precise wording of letters, motions and reports. Chuck G., Steve B., Jim W., and Donna M. were always on top of productions matters, whether it was the Basic Text or pamphlets. Jamie S-H and Oliver S. were both very determined that non-US matters were clearly thought out and dealt with fairly. Sally E., Randy J., Bob R. from California, Mark D. from North Dakota and Mark D. from Maryland were always watching our relationship with the fellowship to be sure we were open and responsible without being in the way or controlling. Chuck G., Don D., Kevin F., Gerrie D., George K. and Mac M. were very basic in their analysis of what was right and wrong -- everything was measured against basic principles. In their eyes, we did things because it was right and not simply because we could do it, and if something was wrong in principle, then we couldn't do it.
The board evolved a collective vision of what the office should be doing in a growing fellowship. They wanted us to be responsive to the conference, since they were the body that represented the fellowship and were truly the boss of the office. They wanted the office to be efficient and responsible for keeping the fellowship supplied with literature and information. They demanded, and got, open and complete reports on finances, inventory, and whatever else they wanted. they felt the office should be, "out there" with the fellowship, searching for solutions to fellowship problems or concerns within the scope of the duties we were assigned. Additionally, the board knew the office was the central point in the fellowship for the exchange of information and problem-solving. They wanted the staff to be helpful to all groups, committees and boards, without being commanding of domineering.
At the same time, the board gave me and the office a lot of freedom and latitude. They didn't demand to read every letter or get a report on every phone call. They took their job to be a board rather than quasi-staff who wanted to be in the chair of Executive Director. They didn't take opportunities to exercise more and more power or authority. And they remained consistent in their interpretation of what the office staff was supposed to do.
But what did happen was a major power shift outside the office. While Bob R., George, Leah, Chuck and Bob H. were successively chairperson of the conference, the office took them to be the representative of the fellowship at large. And I believe each exercised that duty with determination, objectivity and devotion. They each looked at the WSO board and the trustees as companion agencies of the fellowship, but that each was subordinate to the will of the conference. Yet each of them felt they did not, as chairperson of the conference, have authority to dictate to the trustees of WSO. Each, I believe, felt
page 536
their duty was to find consensus with the trustees and WSO on matters that came up between the annual meetings of the conference. And the trustees under Sally E., Jack B. (during his 1985-87 terms), and Bob R. acted in the same manner.
But as the record shows, a change started at the beginning of Bob R's second term as trustee chairperson. But his plans suffered a major blow when three experienced trustees (Sydney R., Dutch H., and Bo S.) were not re-elected and Mike B., the only non-addict trustee, decided not to run for re-election. These were replaced by three others, most with less maturity and wisdom. But Bob moved forward to take an ineffective group of trustees and attempt to make them a productive working unit. And he was successful in starting the board on that track.
At the end of his second year as trustee chairperson, he was not re-elected nor was John F., his vice-chairperson. And equally important, Sally E., and Bob B. left the board without seeking re-election. So from April 1988 to April of 1989, eight of eleven trustees were replaced -- a seventy-five percent turnover in membership. The board lost members who had each served five or more years and got as replacements people much younger in recovery and maturity.
They new crop of trustees, on average, were ambitious, assertive, and interested in changing the trustees into the power-house that some imagined the fellowship considered them to be. The change was dramatic. Gone were the days when consensus was a watchword of trustee leadership. Gone were the days when the office board and conference chairperson were equal partners in service. Gone was the balance of power that had existed and was built into the Service Manual. It was their determination that the trustees were to supervise the staff, have first priority over spending, establish the agenda for world services and have authority over nearly everything.
While gathering information from the written record to write Chapter Nineteen, I was struck by realizing that the conference leadership, the office board, the staff, and myself were each working under the old assumptions and trying to adjust to the change going on, but not understanding it. As the year progressed, the record shows the trustees became more aggressive and expansionist, and this put me out of step with the new order.
In 1994, I was told through a second party that some of the trustees didn't understand why I hadn't understood why they had removed me, "as I surely had seen the signs along the way in my last six months there!" No, I didn't see the signs, nor would I have wanted to change to serve this new type of master, when I believed the group conscience of the fellowship was already in place. I opposed the one board concept when it was being drafted into the Guide to Local Service
page 537
and had I realized that it was being put into place, in practice, through changes by the trustees, I would have opposed it. Apparently some of the trustees had better vision than I had and were surprised I couldn't see.
If NA abides by the spiritual foundation embodied within the Steps and Traditions, such ruthless actions should be unthinkable, much less actually take place. But over the years I say this same sudden termination of relationship among many world-level trusted servants over and over again. And frankly I should not have been surprised by it.
Looking back, there were obvious examples to have been guided by. The rift between Jimmy and Greg was almost unfathomable based on their close and lengthy personal relationship. Yet it happened and had not been healed when Jimmy died. And Jimmy had been close to many others who turned their backs on him during those tumultuous years before the conference in 1983. Chuck S. had even been friends with Jimmy but in the end had very little good to say about him except for his determination.
Many times sponsors would cut loose their favorite sponsees (and vice versa) and become implacable adversaries. I remember sitting for hours with friends like Chuck S., Hank M., Kevin F., Bob R., and Steve B., and pondering this, never finding an answer. Greg P. came as close as any, I guess, to understanding why this happens. In 1994 he told me that there is likely a recess in the personality of most addicts where they quickly jump to when they are faced with having to terminate a long-standing, close personal relationship. And rather than ending teh relationship with a show of affection, esteem or honor, this recess takes them back to their using personality, and it's like "kissing off a using buddy who took your dope and turned you in." This recess seems to require an immediate suspension of feeling and an almost complete repudiation that there ever was a close relationship. This, he said, appears to happen regardless of how close they were or how long they have worked a program or how spiritual they are in other matters. I tend to think he is pretty near right.
An interesting yet unfortunate truth is that nearly all world-level trusted servants are cast aside when their last day in office ends. Trustees, office directors and conference leadership have all had their day in service and then seemingly fell off the face of the earth. There is no provision in the system to acknowledge their participation and sacrifices. Truly I understand the application of the Twelfth Tradition in such matters -- that spiritual anonymity is the basis upon which we work -- yet there is a difference between spiritual anonymity and "kissing off" the departed.
page 538
There is much to learn from all of this. The important lessons are that we do need to treat people with loving respect, even when we have to part company. And the principles of the program should be lived in such a way that people who have given faithful and dedicated service to the fellowship are awarded comfort and affection when they leave service.
I believe it is appropriate for the fellowship to acknowledge, in an appropriate manner, the service that others have provided. Without those who came along before us and had the strength and wisdom to keep NA on the right track, NA would have died. It is important to keep the welcome mat at the door of every meeting for those who carried the burden, in their early days of recovery, the duty of making NA successful. I would like to express my admiration for a number of people who, I believe, made it possible for those just coming through the doors today, to find recovery in NA. But truly there are not enough pages to list even their names, much less write about what they did.
I have attempted on these pages to give a factually-based account of what I have discovered about NA and the people who were part of it along the way. Although this book seems long, it would be twice its volume if every person and fact were fully reported. By necessity I have had to be selective, but tried to be fair and representative in covering evernts and the people involved in them.
I have tried to restrain my prejudices, such as they are, and present the facts as I see them. Some events were omitted and some names were not included when to do so would haver caused embarrassment or possible harm. Even when writing the history of NA, it is critical to be concerned about the ongoing recovery of people who may have been part of those events. And there are a few individuals whose efforts were, in my opinion, counterproductive to the health and well-being of the fellowship. Rather than blame such individuals, such activities were portrayed without giving their names.
There are a number of people whose service to the fellowship deserve special recognition. These are people whose contribution were critical to the very existence of Narcotics Anonymous. I have selected six such individuals as heroes of the fellowship, as I believe their contributions were particularly valuable. These are people who have made it possible for NA to have existed, grown, or moved in a positive direction. Without the efforts of these heroes, NA could have died or been much less than it is.
The first hero is Houston S., who got the doctors at the US Public Hospital at Lexington to try the AA concept with their patients. Houston came to the meeting every week until 1963, when he turned his duties over to another AA member. Many addicts, having found
page 539
the message in this meeting, returned to their homes and joined AA. Many of them would eventually help NA when it started in their towns from coast to coast. From this came the New York fellowship and also the foundation for NA in California.
The second hero, of course, is Jimmy. He was part of the birth of NA as we know it today. He was its first "Traditions" conscience and chose to insist that "addiction" was the disease and not a specific substance. Without his determination, vision and hard work, NA would not have survived the 1959 lapse. His strength carried NA along until others were there long enough to help with the burden. And it was his service in the late 1970's when the truly established the office, that made it possible for addicts around the world to have a place to call when they knew they needed recovery from addiction. And while it may not be proper to call any member a hero for simply sharing their personal recovery, it cannot go unmentioned that Jimmy did this by phone and in person, any time of the day or night, for struggling addicts and struggling new NA communities all around the world.
Bob B. whose awakening in Tehachapi led him to become the quiet, reliable, consistent force behind NA, is a true hero. While Jimmy was ill, it was Bob who stepped in and carried the burden of leadership and responsibility for the office. His soft but nurturing personality brought comfort and resolve to others. And his long service as a trustee -- nearly twenty-five years -- was the basis for mature decisions and sound spiritual guidance.
Greg P. is another hero. His vision, his skill with words, and his persuasiveness were to set the framework upon which NA came of age. His early writing of the service structure, though it never materialized in quite that way, made it possible for NA to orgainize itself and express a true fellowshipwide group conscience. The sacrifice he endured to help fellowships across the country is legendary. His support for the development of the Basic Text, although at personal cost, was key to preserving a unified fellowship and keeping the book project alive.
Bo S. is an important hero of the fellowship. Despite the calamity that his service made of his personal life, his determination made it possible for NA to have a book on recovery. Without the book, the message of NA would have become fragmented, and the fellowship would have been eclipsed by other recovery movements. And without the book, NA would not have had the financial resources to meet the challenges that growth in the eighties afforded.
Bob R. from Los Angeles is also a hero. His vision of what NA could and should be was the driving force behind the way the office grew and responded to expansion in the 1980's. Under his leadership, the conference came into its own and began to produce the tools a dynamic
page 540
fellowship needed. His selfless devotion drove him to spend countless hours offering guidance adn inspiration when NA needed it most. Much of what happened in world services, especially at the office between 1983 and 1990, came as a result of his vision and character.
The seventh hero is acutally a body of people rather than one person. These heroes are the trusted servants and special workers who have carried on with the daily tasks of NA service. Without each office worker or manager, without each committee member or leader, and without every group representative and secretary, NA could have dwindled and faded into oblivion.
There are many whose combined efforts, ideas, leadership adn recovery provided the spiritual guidance which has enabled NA to truly carry the message of recovery throughout the world. Those of us whose lives have been touched by NA, and all those suffering addicts yet to discover NA and find freedom, owe a deep debt of gratitude to these pioneering members, and to the Higher Power of our individual understanding.
page 541
[POSTED SUMMER OF 2002 - Bo]
displays of this page since April 2002
Copyright (c) 2002
521 W. Bay Street #12 - Jacksonville, FL 32202