Tradition Nine

Short form:

"Nine—A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve."

Long form:

"9.—Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its secretary, the large group its rotating committee, and the groups of a large metropolitan area their central or intergroup committee, which often employs a full-time secretary. The trustees of the General Service Board are, in effect, our A.A. General Service Committee. They are the custodians of our A.A. Tradition and the receivers of voluntary A.A. contributions by which we maintain our A.A. General Service Office at New York. They are authorized by the groups to handle our over-all public relations and they guarantee the integrity of our principal newspaper, the A.A. Grapevine. All such representatives are to be guided in the spirit of service, for true leaders in A.A. are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness."

Comment: A fairly straightforward pair of statements and mostly unambiguous (although in the case of Alcoholics Anonymous Great Britain the General Service Office is based in York and the home-grown version of Grapevine is Share magazine). The key phrases presented here are "least possible organisation", "trusted and experienced servants" (who do not "govern"), and who are, moreover, "DIRECTLY responsible to those they serve". (our emphasis). "Least possible organisation" does go some way to ensuring that the development of formal power hierarchies and the corresponding evil of bureaucratisation are minimised. Unfortunately we would argue that the trend seems to be in the other direction especially with the establishment of the largely unnecessary Regional structure in Great Britain (which we will discuss in more detail at a later date). Moreover it is difficult to see quite how it is possible for these “leaders” to be “DIRECTLY responsible to those they serve” where there do not appear to be any mechanisms (or even forums) in place by which such accountability might be demonstrated (we assume here that the two concepts ie. responsibility and accountability, are necessarily indivisible.

Finally, of course, such principles (even in their currently attenuated forms) are entirely inimical to the 'philosophy' of those cult groups that have infiltrated the fellowship. Their emphasis on “sponsorship idolatry” (which concept has in many instances been elevated to such a position as to be regarded as an adequate substitute for that of Higher Power) has produced precisely the kind of hierarchy that this tradition was intended to forestall, with an almost 'professional' class of members (and we include here the circuit speaker brigade) who seem to have attributed to themselves not only some kind of “specialist” - if not esoteric - knowledge concerning the programme but assigned to themselves moreover the authority - and the right - to “suggest” (note: “suggest” is cult-speak for “direct”) how AA members should conduct their lives, and with virtually no “nook or cranny” remaining exempt from the scrutiny of these self-appointed “experts”. The arrogance of these individuals has to be seen to be believed but their general lack of any kind of humility or even “true perspective” might easily be summed up (and exemplified) in the words of David B (the originator of one arm of the cult in Great Britain) when he addressed one of his less compliant sponsees with the immortal words: “If I want an opinion from you I'll give it to you”.

Cheerio

The Fellas