WESTERN NEW YORK REGION
REPORT TO THE NEZF--JANUARY 2001

What does our region need that can be provided by the NEZF?

Let me preface this by underscoring the enormity of this question, particularly in its its implicit and underlying motive in determining the direction of the NEZF. It would stand to reason that this topic would provoke a myriad of responses. Unfortunately, it did not. In fact, I received only the scantest feedback, solidifying my belief that our region does not have any immediate needs to be filled by the NEZF. The only feedback that I did receive was in the form of questions, such as "what could the NEZF provide to us?" Again, we have the chicken and the egg conundrum. Which comes first? Regions asking the NEZF to meet certain needs or the NEZF telling regions what could be provided?

The most tangible benefit that the NEZF currently provides is that it represents a communications vehicle among geographically linked regions. Indeed, this may be the best service that the NEZF could provide. Communications could be strengthened among the member regions in various ways. We could have multi-regional learning days, perhaps in conjunction with regional conventions. After each NEZF, a brief "sexy" newsletter could be produced and widely distributed so that interested parties could learn about the NEZF. In the vein of increased communications, an NEZF web site could be created, publicizing events in our member regions, listing a directory of meetings in the Northeast and detailing previous and current zonal topic discussions. A Bulletin Board could be used for dialoguing and input on issues and topics. Also on this note, the Worldwide Workshop System could be replicated by the NEZF or held simultaneous to other workshops. We could videoconference with other zones, share information and discuss pressing issues.

Overall-at this point-the WNY Region has little to say about what the NEZF could provide. While this is disturbing, it is emblematic of the lack of participation in thought provoking topics and activities that is prevalent in many regions. It is unclear as to whether this will ever change, despite our best intentions. We are a microcosm of a rapidly devolving society where "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity." If we want the NEZF to move in a specific direction, it will take bold steps on the part of those that are gathered around this table today.

 

 

How can area/regional subcommittees combine their efforts to decrease duplication and increase productivity?

Admittedly, this is not problematic in our region. This is mainly due to the fact that we have very few subcommittees operating at the regional level. While this is mainly due to a lack of addict power, it is probably fortuitous that we rarely find ourselves duplicating services. This begs the question, are meeting the needs of our local fellowship? I think that we are.

Since our experience is one where most regional subcommittees that we do have are not duplicative of our area subcommittees (i.e. web group, convention committee exist only at the regional level) we offer little feedback on this question. It is worth mentioning though that we do not have problems because we have very few duplicative committees. For example, our regional PI subcommittee serves as a focal point and guiding hand for our member areas' PI subcommittees. It coordinates the local efforts and allows areas to hear what other areas are doing and at times, collaborate on projects. Our regional subcommittees are more reflective of the resource model illustrated in the Guide to Local Service.

Communications is always the problem and always the answer…