Structure. It was then hijacked by the people on the WSO Board which later became known as NAWS, Inc. They saw their mission as running NA so they could bring order into world services which, perhaps, they did not understand because they were not that involved in the literature process and did not understand the absolute necessity of involving members at all phases of what was going on at the world level.
They began by taking over the secretary and treasurer functions of the WSC and the WSB (Board of Trustees). They also took over the NA Way Magazine. At that point they controlled all NA publications. In the 1990's, the same people who were involved in these changes did one more thing. They took world service out from under the umbrella of protection afforded by the Twelve Traditions by pushing through the NA Twelve Concepts - no relation to the AA Twelve Concepts. . Then they engineered the shut down of the WSC subcommittee system for six or seven years and pushed through the Super Board in the late 1990's. All this further centralized administration of NA resources and financial activities. The people who engineered it all were in upper level administrative positions and/or on the Super Board. Consensus Based Decision making puts pressure on the informed or questioning members to conform to a majority opinion and does away with a coherent voting system. So, with CBD, if you are aware of concerns or issues not known or visible to the majority, you are forced to go along with the group by social pressure.
It may be that Consensus Based Decision making is another way of saying 'tyranny by the majority' because it doesn't allow participants to abstain or oppose. Another interesting factor is when we decided by simple majority or two-thirds on major changes, you could tell if a motion passed unanimously or if by a close vote. Also, if there were a lot of abstentions - it gave a sure sign that discussion had not reached the point where it was clear to the participants where they stood on the matter under consideration. If a vote was too close or had too many abstentions, a wise chairperson would then call for more discussion. Also, at a later date, a close inspection of the minutes shows how things went because of the Y/N/A counts. Consensus Based Decision has no such footprint. Of course, administrators at WSO had other ways to doctor the minutes - just re-word or delete motions or amendments and leave out important elements of discussion.
I have one very important and special deletion in mind. Let me know if you're interested. NAWS, Inc. employs corporate techniques to attain their goals and we in NA need to learn a little more about this if we are to successfully deal with issues stemming from these techniques. We don't have to be hateful or vengeful, just informed and consistent. One way we can do this is to bring out into the open just what corporations do to insure compliance with their policies and the sanctions they impose to encourage some behavior and discourage others. What's at stake is our spiritual integrity. We simply cannot endure as a spiritual Fellowship without maintaining certain standards and values which have made NA great over the years.
We have become an externality to NAWS, Inc. which functions as a corporation - meaning it is only concerned with the bottom line: making money. The part that gets side-stepped is we the members built NA and maintain it not for our financial well-being but for our very lives and the lives of the newcomers. Exploitation of this as if it were a weakness just because members as a whole support world services is unthinkable to most.
Why is the corporation flooding us with all this concern for our service structure? Could it be that they regard all attempts at group conscience as externalities that just take up funds that they would prefer to run through their accounts9 Are we that expendable? After all there is a chance the Fellowship will find out why the Concepts are so dear to their hearts. Without the Concepts, they would have to do what they were told by the groups. Some lawyer told them this this single line, "The Steps were written to guide us individually, the Traditions were written to guide our groups but the Concepts were written to guide our service structure.” would relieve them of the obligation to do what the groups and members of NA have to say on any given topic. Did anyone tell you about the power in the AA Concepts to order resignations and restructuring of their General Service Office? They didn't? Oh.
Well consider the following ways in which our members have been buffaloed into chumming along with things they knew were 'kind of funny.' Funny. Yeah, right!
"'Wait My Chance Syndrome:" Some members won't contend on issues because they are concerned that it will only make the problem worse. They are worried that the conflict will diminish those who are weak in their desire for recovery - that they will just go out and use if they are disheartened by a conflict. So they hang on and console themselves with the idea that if things get really bad, they'll be in a position to oppose or prevent more serious problems.
The "Can't Fight City Hall:" is another excuse for inaction by members close to or directly involved with, untoward orchestration of motions by NAWS, Inc. attempting to push the Fellowship in a direction they might find objectionable or in violation of our 12 Traditions.