A
correspondent contacted us recently in connection with the following:
“I'm
curious at the 'murky goings on' in Richmond Victoria. Could your
contacts in Perth find out more details and any more up to date info
on this? I'm interested to know whether the Richmond, Victoria CSO
has yet complied with conference. I note the Hong Kong International 'AA'? convention advertised on the website
promotes the all singing all dancing "Scott L. From Nashville
Tennessee" (I wonder how much he's getting paid). Hong Kong
convention flyer: 'AA Times Alcoholics Anonymous Meetings and Events
in Victoria Australia: http://aatimes.org.au/events
"The
National Office of AA Australia should not supply AA literature to
the Central Service Office (CSO) located in Richmond, Victoria which
names itself as ‘Alcoholics
Anonymous Victoria’ and
‘AA
Victoria’ until
that CSO changes its registered business and trading name to one
which more appropriately describes its function and role in our
fellowship. (Topics for the 2011 General Service Conference, Topic
002/2011;‘AA Around Australia’ September 2011, page 7)
http://www.aa.org.au/members/documents/AAAA2011SepFinal.pdf”
Also
it is interesting to note from the same document the following item
listed under Topic 031/2011 (p. 6):
“Conference
Finance Committee
Conference
resolved that the General Service Board should produce a draft
guideline regarding the use of members‟ contributions towards the
cost of importing AA speakers, being mindful that groups are
autonomous and noting that Guideline 14 already contains some
relevant information.
Guideline
to be submitted as a topic for Conference 2011.
Suggested
Guideline
Although
most members enjoy hearing speakers from other countries, using
members‟ contributions to fund travel and accommodation expenses of
such speakers to attend conventions and rallies in Australia can
cause disharmony and disunity, so the decision requires careful
consideration.
Ideally
speakers from overseas should be selected from those already booked
to attend, and who are self funding. However, if a committee believes
that there is a unique speaker, who carries the Alcoholics Anonymous
message better than anyone in Australia, or anyone else who is
attending the Convention, they should put forward a valid argument to
their group conscience.
The
practice of individual members funding speakers to attend should be
avoided, particularly if the group conscience has decided, for
whatever reason, not to fund the speaker.
It
is also worth reminding ourselves of the following statement which
appears in our publication "Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions‟
under Tradition 12:
“we
try to give up our natural desires for personal distinction as AA
members both among fellow alcoholics and before the general public‟.
Funding
members to speak could be considered to be disregarding this
tradition.”
Comment:
You'll note above the usual misquote of Tradition Four: “that
groups are autonomous” (which is shocking when you consider this is
being discussed at conference level!). What the tradition actually
says is: “Each group should be autonomous except
in matters affecting others groups or A.A. as a whole”
(Short form).
And:
“With
respect to its own affairs, each A.A. Group should be responsible to
no other authority than its own conscience. But
when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, these
groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or
individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service
Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”
(Long form – our emphases).
Moreover
the observation that “if a committee believes that there is a
unique speaker, who carries the Alcoholics Anonymous message better
than anyone in Australia, or anyone else who is attending the
Convention, they should put forward a valid argument to their group
conscience” suggests a sense of irony on the part of the
commentators. The notion that there exists no one in a whole
continent who can 'uniquely' carry the AA message, and that resort
has to be made to a foreign import implies a dearth of experience on
the part of the entire Australian membership! Surely not! But the
entire concept that a “unique speaker” is required in order to
offer some “special interpretation” of the programme so that the
message may be carried more effectively is questionable in itself.
Actions not words form the substance of recovery. A glib delivery
peppered with amusing anecdotes and slick one liners does not
constitute the AA message. Something rather more than “emotional
froth” is required. But perhaps this is what AA is degenerating
into... “X Factor” recovery …. or 'bread and circuses'... we
hope not!
We
can only pray that the Australian members get their act together for
surely without the services of Scott L all is lost (even more irony!)
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends
of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Thanks to our correspondent
