Question
2:
“Would
the Fellowship ask itself the question: “Are there too many
meetings and not enough groups?”
Background
Pamphlet
‘The AA Group’
The
Home Group: Heartbeat of AA
Consider
the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and
practical implications when deliberating each question.”
Extracts
”The
following shows the growth of AA in Great Britain and how previous
conference recommendations have dealt with the expansion:
1948
Formation of first AA group
1957
Formation of first intergroup
1966
First General Service Conference
1980
Regionalisation of Great Britain
1992
3,000 groups (AA Service Handbook for Great Britain Section 2)
2012
4,400 groups (Background, Committee 1, Question 1)
“In
an effort to rationalise the expansion of the Fellowship in Great
Britain, the Twenty Fifth Conference in 1990 recommended the
introduction, where feasible, of multi meeting groups. In 1992 the
Twenty Seventh Conference introduced for a trial period a further
tier between Intergroups and Region, to assist London Region with
handling over 450 groups in 18 intergroups.” (AA Service Handbook
for Great Britain Section 2-5)
“The
Tenth General Service Conference in 1975 made a recommendation that
Intergroups should consider the formation of Regions – an assembly
of neighbouring Intergroups - to prevent fragmentation which could
follow group growth and the formation of more Intergroups.”
(Guideline 5)
“The
Fifteenth General Service Conference in 1980 approved and established
Regionalisation throughout Great Britain” (Guideline 5)
The
figures below show the growth of AA in my intergroup area, based on
information received from the local archivist. It can be seen that
twenty two years ago the intergroup liaison officers were operating
in an assembly size of 10 GSRs, approximately one quarter the size in
which they operated in 2011.
1949:
1 meeting
1950:
3 meetings
1990:
10 meetings
2011:
38 meetings
This
raises the questions: Can intergroup officers today, liaise
adequately with 20-40 meetings/groups? Is the fellowship expecting
too much of those in service? Are some service positions which were
once available to people who are in full time work and who have
families, now restricted to those who are single or not working full
time? Is this a reason people are not coming forward to fill
vacancies in the service structure? Are they daunted by the size of
intergroups and the responsibilities put on liaison officers? Is the
jump from group service to intergroup service today, the equivalent
to a person jumping from group to region twenty years ago?
A
look at the questions/ topics for conference over the last 10 years
reveals recurring concerns about the number of vacancies within the
service structure, lack of communication between groups and the rest
of the service structure, reports of strain in assemblies at all
levels. - A structure under strain and disintegrated at group level.
Groups have been added to intergroups, intergroups added to regions,
regions added to the General Service Conference. Assemblies at all
levels are getting unwieldy.
To
compensate, it seems more service positions are being created to
manage large assemblies: intergroup and region steering committees;
the “further tier between Intergroups and Region, to assist London
Region.” as recommended by Conference in 1992. It seems to me this
further tier to the structure needs to be placed between intergroups
and groups, as recommended by Conference 1990 in “multi meeting
groups.” I think the term “multi meeting group” ought to be
scrapped and replaced with district committee, as per the AA Service manual combined with the Twelve Concepts for World Service.
I think it would be better understood by AA groups. It would
integrate the GB service structure from top to bottom on geographical
divisions. And, everywhere is feasible.
Such
a further tier added the service structure, by intergroups organising
themselves in subdivisions of localised committees, may open up
communication between groups and the rest of the service structure.
Experience of working in liaison at a local level may give people
confidence to move up to liaison at intergroup and regional levels,
especially knowing that the workload has been made lighter at
intergroup level by the local committees.
Extracts
from the AA Service Manual :
http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/en_bm-31.pdf
“ A
District is a geographical unit containing the right number of groups
– right in terms of the committee member’s ability to keep in
frequent touch with them, to learn their problems, and to find ways
to contribute to their growth and well being.” (AA Service Manual
combined with the Twelve concepts for World Service p $31)
“If
it were not for adding committee members to take care of new groups
as A.A. grows, the General Service Conference might well become
unwieldy.” (AA Service Manual combined with the Twelve concepts for
World Service p $33)
“As
the number of groups increases and it becomes too difficult for the
D.C.M. to communicate with them all, several courses can be followed:
• New
Districts: Divide the district into two or more districts, each with
its own D.C.M.
• Local
committee member (L.C.M.): A large district could divide itself into
smaller districts (Often called subdistricts or local districts),
each electing a local committee member…………….
• …………..
Within this large district there are as many district subdivisions as
needed to adequately serve the groups. Each of these may be called a
subdistrict, local district, or zone." (AA Service Manual
combined with the Twelve Concepts for World Service pp $33-34)
"Good
communication and cooperation among groups, districts, and areas is
important when redistricting or other changes in district structure
are undertaken. There are many variations, but the goal is the same:
to take care of expansion at the district level….” (AA Service
Manual combined with the Twelve Concepts for World Service pp $33-34)
If
growth and unity is to be sustained in Great Britain in the coming
years then it is important that the service structure expands at
group level, for this is the only place it can. AA groups, via their
intergroup assemblies will have to take responsibility for
integrating subdivisions in their own geographical area. And region
assemblies will need to resist applications from new additional
intergroups to join the regional assemblies, which intend to divide
from existing intergroups.
The
reason for this: There is a real danger that in large assemblies the
democratic rights of AA groups via their GSRs or regional reps cannot
be upheld. Not all the representatives will have the opportunity to
speak within the time frame of the meeting. The voice of the
promoters will tend to be heard at the expense of the conservatives;
debate will become unbalanced. This jeopardises democracy, is against
the right of participation (Concept IV) and the General Warranties of
Conference. (Concept XII). If regions become unwieldy and divide, the
General Service Conference will be at risk of becoming undemocratic
for the same reasons.”
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
