See
AA Guidelines: Cooperating with Court, DWI and similar programs, G.S.O.,
Box 459, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163
This
document explains the workings of the court mandated attendance
system (amongst other matters) and then seeks to provide an
interpretation of the traditions which supports this. It fails.
Firstly
it is undoubtedly true that the courts can make any provision they
like for the disposition of those convicted of offences (including
drinking) under the law. If a government decides to pass legislation
which permits the courts to refer offenders to AA (or any other
treatment agency) then they are entirely within their rights. AA can
have no objection to this because after all (according to Tradition
10):
Ten—Alcoholics
Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought
never be drawn into public controversy. (Short form)
and
10.—No
A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A.,
express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly
those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The
Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters
they can express no views whatever. (Long form)
(Interestingly
the above guideline whilst citing the relevant traditions does so
only in the short form, an omission which we believe is rather
unhelpful since the long form tends to hammer home the point!)
You
will note that the tradition applies to both the AA group AND to its
individual constituent members qua AA members (ie. in so far as they
are carrying out their duties, responsibilities etc in relation to
our primary purpose within the context of AA and the AA group). This
tradition is clearly not intended to apply to AA members where they
are going about their business as ordinary citizens. In this latter
case they are as entitled as anyone else to hold whatever views they
like, and express them as and when they wish.
Moreover
Tradition 6:
Six—An
A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any
related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money,
property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose. (Short
form)
6.—Problems
of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our
primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable
property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and
managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A.
group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to
A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or
administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if
necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such
facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be
the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them.
For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as
well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside
A.A.—and medically supervised. While an A.A. group may cooperate
with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or
endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no
one. (Long form)
(our
emphasis)
From
the long form of this tradition (now you can see why citing the short
form only may sometimes be rather unhelpful) it may be seen that this
guideline applies to AA's relationship with “anyone” (including
the courts, probation service etc) where it goes beyond cooperation
ie. affiliation or endorsement. In the case of endorsement this
includes both “actual or implied”.
Endorsement
(definitions):
1.
approval or sanction.
2.
the placing of one's signature, instructions, etc., on a
document.
3.
a signature or instructions placed on the back of a check or
other document, as for the purpose of assigning one's interest
therein to another.
4.
a clause under which the stated coverage of an insurance policy
may be altered.
Clearly
AA's participation in the court mandated attendance system (as
described in the above guideline) falls into the category of “actual”
endorsement – literally! But we reiterate: the courts are entirely
within their rights to sentence offenders in any way they see fit as
laid out under the legislation. If they require them to attend AA
meetings they are again wholly entitled to do so. Moreover,
according to our own traditions, we cannot possibly oppose this
policy (qua AA members) nor seek to stop such people attending AA
meetings. So far so good. However at the point where the court
requires some evidence of attendance from a member of an AA group
(ie. as an AA member) then at precisely that point do we move into a
position of endorsement (as opposed to cooperation) and therefore act
in breach of our own traditions. Now the guideline seems to
acknowledge in part this problem but seeks to avoid the implication
by suggesting the following:
“2.
Some members have the mistaken impression that such programs
“affiliate” A.A. with outside enterprises, or constitute
“endorsement” by A.A. of a court or D.W.I. program. However,
A.A.’s cooperation with these programs no more constitutes
“affiliation” or “endorsement” than do A.A. meetings held in
hospitals and prisons.”
But
this 'defence' is rather missing the point. In neither instance do
these institutions require confirmation of attendance. In the former
case it may not be deemed necessary or the individuals in question
may be accompanied to the meetings by a member of staff. In the
latter example we'd say it's a pretty fair bet that the prison
authorities know exactly where the prisoner is! They shouldn't need
(or require) confirmation of attendance!
The
guideline continues:
“.......so
A.A. groups do not accept rent-free meeting rooms or literature
furnished by any non-A.A. source, and are totally independent of a
court or other enterprise. It is shown that A.A. groups do not force
attendance, or keep attendance records. Courts can do these things as
they are not bound by the A.A. Traditions.”
(our
emphasis)
These
observations are indeed all quite accurate (Note: we “are [supposed
to be] totally independent of a court or other enterprise”). Courts
are fully entitled to keep attendance records. However they have no
right to require AA members or AA groups to carry out this function
for them. Nor should we, according to our own traditions, be doing
so. In acting otherwise we are effectively endorsing not to say
condoning a specific legislative policy (which is in itself a
political act).
The
guideline goes on to argue that the enforced nature of court mandated
attendance is not substantially different from other AA's experience
ie. we are all in one way or another “sentenced” to attend AA
meetings (although it is acknowledged - “We could not stay sober
just because we were “required” to, or for anybody else.”)
But again the authors of this guideline have missed the point. In
all these other instances there is no requirement for proof of
attendance on behalf of these agencies eg. partner, employer, doctor
etc, and certainly no suggestion that any AA member or group need
provide such evidence.
An
attempt is then made to suggest that signing the attendance form
(presented in its various formats) represents no more than a
“courtesy” on the part of the member or group. It does not
constitute any kind of 'binding' agreement or contract:
“All
involved recognize that neither the group nor the members are “bound”
in any way by the signature, nor does this courtesy signify
affiliation of the group with any other program. It simply
illustrates cooperation.”
But
no one is suggesting that it is 'binding'. However it does represent
a clear endorsement of the referring agencies' policy. AA itself
does not keep membership records or any registers of attendance.
These 'chits' are signed for no other reason than to implement the
policy of an “outside organisation”. AA members and groups
therefore are acting as part of the legislative 'bureaucracy' and
processing paperwork purely on their behalf – not ours! Again we
are quite literally 'endorsing' their actions!
Of
course the solutions are quite simple (and some of these are
suggested in the guideline itself). Additionally, however, where
courts require offenders to attend AA meetings they should ensure
that these are accompanied by an officer of the court (thereby
acquiring independent evidence of attendance). AA already makes
provision for these via its 'open meeting' system ie. facilitating
attendance by non-members. Of course this will probably represent an
additional cost to the state - but then that is something upon which
we have no opinion nor hold any responsibility!
Finally
we would be interested to hear from any members with regard to their
experience of the CMA ('chit') system (good or bad). We can be
contacted at our email address (see blog). Confidentiality assured.
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Our thanks to the member for pointing us in the direction of this
guideline
