According
to the North East London Intergroup website:
You
will note the emphasis on the fact that the system does not
compromise the anonymity of anybody – except of course the most
important person – the person whose presence at an AA meeting is
being confirmed by the chit system. Moreover “Whilst AA has
endorsed the system” (as well as the 'chit' itself) somehow “the
actual reporting of attendance is definitely not part of AA
procedure. It is up to the person requesting the chit to report on
themselves to whoever is supervising them”. So let's see if we've
got this straight. Whereas AA does endorse the system (that is the
'chit' system which is essentially about confirming attendance) the
system itself is not part of “AA procedure”. But then - rather
confusingly - it is we who are responsible for supplying chits to those
requesting them – but not the probation service. We issue the
chits, the probation system does not. We actually hand over these
chits to the client on request (by 'client' of course we mean the
probation services' client not AA's client. AA does not have
'clients' but members whose anonymity we so jealously guard unless,
of course, they're probation service 'clients'. Then it's different).
But then the whole thing is OK because it's not US reporting the
attendance of the person but the person who reports the attendance of
the person. Well why do they need a chit then? If the whole thing is
really about self-reporting then all that's required is that the
'client' toddle off to their probation officer and tell them they've
been to X, Y or Z AA meetings. They have then 'self-reported'. But
apparently that's not enough, or at least according to the probation
service (but not AA of course since we do not keep or require
attendance records for our anonymous members). The 'client' needs to
supply a chit to prove that they have attended an AA meeting. AA is
in fact auditing their attendance and then confirming via the chit
system that the individual (thereby breaking their anonymity) has met
their quota of meetings (or meeting) for that week. Without the chit
the 'client' cannot 'prove' their attendance. AA's participation in
this 'system' is therefore essential. So not only are we endorsing
the system (which according to our own traditions we're not supposed
to do) but we also play a pivotal role in enforcing it. No chit means
no proof of attendance which possibly means off to the 'chokey' for
the backsliding non-attendee! None of this of course would be a
problem if the probation service did its own job rather than relying
on us to do it for them. AA is not an adjunct of the probation
system nor are we employed to carry out their duties. But then we do
come free don't we? And that's always an attractive proposition
especially for a government that's looking for any way to cut costs
(except for bankers of course. They're a special case. Oh! And energy
companies. They're also exempt! And then there's tax avoiders (or tax 'scroungers' as we like to call them) like
Google, Amazon, Boots, Starbucks and the banks again....they're
different! And so on ad infinitum).
So
to summarise: AA apparently endorses the chit system (which we
shouldn't). We implement it on behalf of the probation service
(which we shouldn't). We break the anonymity of OUR members but
THEIR clients (which we shouldn't). And if we don't hand over the
chit to their 'client' that person (AA member) might end up in
prison. Yeah ….... sounds like we're not involved in this
'procedure' at all! Maybe this comes under the category of evasion -
“We were just following orders. It wasn't OUR responsibility!”
We
would be interested to hear from other AA members with regard to
their own experience and/or observations of the CMA ('chit') system
(good or bad). We can be contacted at our email address here.
Confidentiality assured
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Anybody want a 'chit' signed? We're quite happy to provide this
service (for a small voluntary contribution … nudge, nudge - wink,
wink!)
