A while
ago we received a series of emails emanating from the Derby area in
relation to the activities of the local intergroup. It would seem
from these that all is not well. Various allegations were made as to
the conduct of this intergroup with reference to a number of meetings
in the Derby City area. We visited the above mentioned intergroup's
website to check some of the matters raised in our correspondents'
emails and came across a number of features which we found somewhat
surprising. We summarised these in one of our own responses. See
below:
“Dear …...
Thank you
for your email. Firstly we should begin by saying (and as a point of
clarification) that our goal is as stated on the website and includes
(although not overtly) our full support for the principles on which
AA is based ie. the Steps, Traditions, Concepts, guidelines (albeit
with some qualifications in the last instance) etc. We were somewhat
dismayed therefore to note your reference to “genuinely autonomous”
meetings since this in itself represents a misquote of Tradition
Four, something which we have gone to considerable lengths to
emphasise on our site. We quite categorically do NOT support groups
that exercise their own autonomy BUT with a complete disregard for
the impact this might have on other groups or AA as a whole, and
moreover where such action undermines the effectiveness of the
remainder of the Traditions. Although our primary focus is on “cult”
groups (as we define them) there are plenty of instances where what
might otherwise be described as legitimate AA groups also breach (and
seriously) these Traditions, and not only to their detriment but also
other groups and AA collectively.
With
regard to the intergroup website we have checked through this and
there are a number of areas of concern. Firstly the site itself does
not seem itself to be directly linked into the main AA website (under
Midlands region – Derbyshire). In connection with this we note the
following:
Under the
heading "Website" (Minutes Dec 2010):
"…..
has received no further communication following the contact he made
with GSO Electronic sub committee.
….. has also sent two emails to GSO asking if we could have our page back on the new site but has received no reply."
Also under
same heading (Minutes Sept 2010)
"…..
informed IG that the Derbyshire page had been removed from the G.S.O
site because it has links to outside bodies- the body in question is
Google maps, the page previously provided a link to Google maps so
that a visitor to the page could see where exactly a meeting was
located. He stated that he would re-organise the National page to
comply with AA guidance, and asked the group whether the links should
be taken off the Derbyshire website, which is separate to the
national page on the AA website, or not?
It was
agreed that the links to Google maps should be kept on the Derbyshire
site."
Next: the
templates available on the site do not have any indicated conference
approved provenance. One of these (the 4th step inventory) seems to
derive from the following site:
http://aaworkshop.org/4th-step-inventory.php. [with “Back to
Basics” connections. See here for more information on this
grouping]. This site has no affiliation with AA as such (although it
omits to mention this) and therefore the use of the material (and
despite its relatively innocuous content) constitutes an implied
endorsement (and affiliation) by Derbyshire Intergroup (a breach of
the Traditions). Exactly the same may be said with regard to the 1944
sponsorship pamphlet (again no indication that this is conference
approved). Most of the views expressed in this document are again
relatively uncontroversial (although there are some with which we
might take serious issue) but an AA intergroup really has no business
carrying reference material which does not form part of the approved
corpus of AA literature (and especially where the existing [AA]
literature most adequately covers the areas under question). Under
the section “What Happens at Meetings” again the content is
relatively harmless but there are a number of statements included
which seem to express the personal opinions (and preferences) of the
author(s) rather than being purely observational. For example the
view is expressed that: “We are not a religious organisation but we
are spiritual and many of us (even the atheists among us) find this
short prayer helpful.” Apart from the fact that this seems to be
something of a broad assumption it is questionable how a prayer
addressed directly to God could ever be regarded as “helpful” by
someone who is a genuine atheist. Praying to something that you have
no belief (or faith) in whatsoever would seem to us to be a rather
bizarre activity. There is also something distinctly patronising
about the qualifying condition ie. “EVEN the atheists....” (our
emphasis). The only category of alcoholic in AA is – an alcoholic
in AA! That is it! Again, the observation that: “..... we usually
stand in a circle, join hands and say ….” is not as far as we're
aware an accurate statement. It may be the case in the Derbyshire
area but it is not “the norm” elsewhere. Further: “We do not
talk or comment when someone is sharing and it is considered bad
manners to comment negatively on an earlier share when it is your
turn. (We call that "cross-sharing")”. The expression
“cross-sharing” is a relatively recent 'fad' (or for those of us
who have been around AA “for a little while” at least!) and we
have found, on the contrary, a bit of “negative” sharing can be
most instructive especially when it's somebody's life on the line!
And of course the question arises: who is it precisely that considers
it “bad manners” to “cross-share”? The author(s)? Other
members? Who exactly are these “spokesmen for AA”? Indeed there
is no guideline which may DIRECT how a member may or may not speak
and therefore they should not be subjected to any form of censorship
(implicit or otherwise) other than that governed by the relevant
statutes. It seems quite unnecessary in our view to include such
detailed “opinions” on an AA site which should contain only basic
information relating to meeting lists, conventions, intergroup
business and links to the relevant sections of the main AA website.
This is a yet another example of unhelpful “micro management”!
With
reference to the “Sobriety Breakfast” (advertised on the site)
this is another clear breach of the Traditions (specifically
Tradition Seven). Fund raising “events” (and we would include
here profits derived from literature sales - an example of AA
traditions being broken not only locally but even nationally!),
raffles, dances, discos etc all represent “transactions”
contributing to a profit. In exchange for the “goods” or
“services” provided a specific charge is made (including
generally that element of profit) and a contract comes into
existence. There is no indication within the Traditions of Alcoholics
Anonymous that such “contracts” are intended to be created
between it, the Fellowship service structure and its members. The
point of a “voluntary contribution” indeed is that no such
contractual relationship is created. Both parties (if it may be put
that way) are mutual donors and both are mutual beneficiaries, the
rewards deriving solely from the relationship itself and not from any
extrinsic and “superfluous” benefit.
Finally we
would certainly be interested to hear whether the intergroup website
has carried information about “informal” meetings (associated
with a particular religious denomination) since this would be a clear
(and extremely serious) breach of the Traditions. The only reference
we can find in the minutes to such “informal” meetings relate to
those held at the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary (and this seems to be
due to some constraints on accessibility).
We would
also be interested to hear specifically why the intergroup took the
action you indicated with respect to your group(s) and what steps you
have taken to remedy the situation, and what (if any) response you
have had from the intergroup in this regard.
For our
part we will pass on some of the above observations to both GSO York
and also to Derbyshire Intergroup. In the meantime we would
appreciate it if you would send us the group details (as they appear
in the AA online Where to Find) of both your group(s) and also the
groups you refer to as belonging to the cult. This will ensure that
no confusion may ensue through misidentification. We will then follow
up on the matter
Cheers
The
Fellas”
We did
subsequently contact Derbyshire Intergroup with regard to the above –
no response. We also contacted GSO York who kindly acknowledged our
communication.
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
(our
thanks to the correspondents from Derby for drawing our attention to
these issues)
