1.
Would
Conference consider the adequacy of guidance offered to groups (pages
82 – 85, The AA Structure Handbook for Great Britain 2013) in
situations of persistent inappropriate/predatory
sexual/threatening/violent behaviour at meetings and online, by
individuals, share best practice and make recommendations (including
appropriate amendment to the Structure Handbook) to clarify
the onus of responsibility on group members to disallow such conduct.
Background
information
A)
Tradition 1
Our First Tradition reminds us that our common welfare must come
first; personal recovery depends on AA unity. If any individual is
persistently shattering the unity of an AA meeting or service forum
then that
individual is jeopardising the personal recovery of every member at
that meeting.
B)
Regional viewpoint
Our Region considers the guidance offered to groups (pages 82 –
85, The AA Structure Handbook for Great Britain 2013) in relation to
unacceptable personal behaviour and conduct is inadequate when there
are individuals in our fellowship who
cannot or will not listen to reason and who constantly persist in
inappropriate conduct
and personal vendettas, notwithstanding frequent police involvement
at the request of particular groups, resulting in other fellowship
members from newcomers to ‘old timers’ staying away from these
groups and other groups visited by these individuals.
C) Provable experiences Many groups within our Region area are deeply concerned about the outrageously inappropriate conduct and behaviour, in some cases constant, of a very few individuals in our fellowship [perhaps more than a few if you include the behaviour of cult groups and members: bullying, coercion, threats etc]. This behaviour mainly comprises loud, aggressive and real threats of violence, sometimes actual acts of violence [eg. Billy and others], sometimes repeated and unsolicited sexual attention and also includes the supplying of personal information such as full names, addresses, post codes and telephone numbers of fellowship members to parties and agencies outwith the fellowship and the reporting of what has been shared in confidence at AA meetings to outside agencies including the police [as we've said before the Yellow Card is not an adequate safeguard. It is entirely naive to expect otherwise. Similarly members should not divulge personal information - especially not phone numbers - to others until you've got to know them well. The practice of members (usually cult) asking newcomers for their contact details should be discouraged. Unless the latter volunteers this information they should be left alone. We have encountered plenty of examples where newcomers have reported being repeatedly pestered by phone calls from cult members doing their "two newcomers a day" routine. These are simply nuisance calls and should be treated as such]. It should be stressed at the outset this background information takes no cognizance of the occasional or uncharacteristic ‘outburst’ from any person not having a particularly good day [Ooh! Someone presumably who's NOT ON THE PROGRAMME! Slap on the wrist!]. It refers, rather, to those individuals who persist in disruption and who constantly react with violence simply on hearing a view contrary to their own. What is of even greater concern, though, is that a great many groups appear not to be tackling these problems as robustly as they should! Our First Tradition reminds us that our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity. If one individual is constantly shattering the unity of any AA meeting or business forum then that individual is jeopardising the personal recovery of every other person at that meeting. Our common welfare must come first. Our First Tradition is frequently ignored, though. Some groups have followed the advice given in pages 82 – 85 of the handbook to the letter and have, on occasions and as a last resort, sought police assistance. Sometimes police assistance has been sought recurrently in respect of the same individual. This police involvement has remedied the situation for that day but the individual has returned the following week even angrier and all the more threatening. These groups have grasped the nettle and told the individual(s) concerned that they are no longer being admitted to that group or its meeting. On numerous occasions, following such positive action, group members have been telephoned at home, or have received letters from, law firms with solicitors asking “on what or who’s authority is (name) excluded from (named) group?” Our Traditions are being outrageously disregarded when individuals are supplying personal information to outside agencies. Perhaps this leads to the false notion, held by many, that groups do not have a right (as agreed by group conscience) to debar a constantly threatening individual. Surprisingly too, and sadly, the misguided notion and message from a far greater number of groups is that this measure is completely contrary to AA’s way of thinking and that ‘nobody can be barred from AA’! Whilst agreeing wholeheartedly that no individual can be barred from AA as an entity, we acknowledge that the supreme authority in AA is the conscience of the group.
C) Provable experiences Many groups within our Region area are deeply concerned about the outrageously inappropriate conduct and behaviour, in some cases constant, of a very few individuals in our fellowship [perhaps more than a few if you include the behaviour of cult groups and members: bullying, coercion, threats etc]. This behaviour mainly comprises loud, aggressive and real threats of violence, sometimes actual acts of violence [eg. Billy and others], sometimes repeated and unsolicited sexual attention and also includes the supplying of personal information such as full names, addresses, post codes and telephone numbers of fellowship members to parties and agencies outwith the fellowship and the reporting of what has been shared in confidence at AA meetings to outside agencies including the police [as we've said before the Yellow Card is not an adequate safeguard. It is entirely naive to expect otherwise. Similarly members should not divulge personal information - especially not phone numbers - to others until you've got to know them well. The practice of members (usually cult) asking newcomers for their contact details should be discouraged. Unless the latter volunteers this information they should be left alone. We have encountered plenty of examples where newcomers have reported being repeatedly pestered by phone calls from cult members doing their "two newcomers a day" routine. These are simply nuisance calls and should be treated as such]. It should be stressed at the outset this background information takes no cognizance of the occasional or uncharacteristic ‘outburst’ from any person not having a particularly good day [Ooh! Someone presumably who's NOT ON THE PROGRAMME! Slap on the wrist!]. It refers, rather, to those individuals who persist in disruption and who constantly react with violence simply on hearing a view contrary to their own. What is of even greater concern, though, is that a great many groups appear not to be tackling these problems as robustly as they should! Our First Tradition reminds us that our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity. If one individual is constantly shattering the unity of any AA meeting or business forum then that individual is jeopardising the personal recovery of every other person at that meeting. Our common welfare must come first. Our First Tradition is frequently ignored, though. Some groups have followed the advice given in pages 82 – 85 of the handbook to the letter and have, on occasions and as a last resort, sought police assistance. Sometimes police assistance has been sought recurrently in respect of the same individual. This police involvement has remedied the situation for that day but the individual has returned the following week even angrier and all the more threatening. These groups have grasped the nettle and told the individual(s) concerned that they are no longer being admitted to that group or its meeting. On numerous occasions, following such positive action, group members have been telephoned at home, or have received letters from, law firms with solicitors asking “on what or who’s authority is (name) excluded from (named) group?” Our Traditions are being outrageously disregarded when individuals are supplying personal information to outside agencies. Perhaps this leads to the false notion, held by many, that groups do not have a right (as agreed by group conscience) to debar a constantly threatening individual. Surprisingly too, and sadly, the misguided notion and message from a far greater number of groups is that this measure is completely contrary to AA’s way of thinking and that ‘nobody can be barred from AA’! Whilst agreeing wholeheartedly that no individual can be barred from AA as an entity, we acknowledge that the supreme authority in AA is the conscience of the group.
Repeated
and plaintive comments from some groups along the lines of “the
only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking” and
“you can’t bar someone from AA” are less than helpful. Each
group and every individual member of that group has a primary purpose
- to stay sober and help other alcoholics achieve sobriety. If a
group misguidedly thinks it must simply put up with this conduct then
it puts lives at risk. We are aware of numerous fellowship members
who do not go to certain groups through fear of who may be there. The
consequences of this could, ultimately, be tragic. Groups must focus
upon their absolute responsibility to consider our common welfare
first and foremost as it is through this common welfare personal
recovery begins and flourishes.
D)
Extract from document New Hampshire (US) General Service Workshop
2012 – Safety in AA : Our Common Welfare
namely Sec 3 para 2… “The
group conscience should fully empower meeting chairs and make them
aware of their responsibilities to maintain order and safety in
meetings so that the group as a whole will benefit. Group Conscience
discussions should include emphasis on Tradition One and the
importance of the unity of the group having precedent over the
individual. Some groups include in their opening announcements that
illegal and disruptive behaviour is not tolerated; include statements
at the start of meetings that announce that abusive behaviour will
not be tolerated. Group can set boundaries. Do what is necessary to
keep meetings safe. Ban persons who repeatedly engage in disruptive
conduct that prevents the meeting from fulfilling its primary
purpose. Do what is best for the whole group. Address disruptions
when they occur.”
(The full 6 pages of this report can be read online at –
http://www.nhaa.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SafetyInAA_2012.pdf).
A hard copy is available on request from GSO.
E)
Our Region’s unanimous opinion
that the aforementioned extract from the New Hampshire (USA) 62nd
General Service Workshop – “Safety in AA – Our Common Welfare.
2012” highlights an appropriate response from groups towards
persistent rogue behaviour and it, or similar, should be included in
the guidance offered in the Structure Handbook.
F)
No member of the Fellowship
is above the law of the land.
(our
emphases and comments in red)
Comment:
Ah! A subject close to our hearts! We particularly applaud the
sentiment expressed in the prefatory statement: “clarify
the onus of responsibility on group members to disallow such
conduct”.
It is perfectly acceptable to remove someone from a meeting for
disruptive behaviour. The usual form is to ask them to desist. If
they fail to do so they may be invited to leave but reminded that
they are welcome to attend at some future time. If they fail to
leave and continue to disrupt the meeting the police should be called
and the person removed. It is not just the secretary's job to take
responsibility for this. It is the whole group's. Therefore it is
helpful beforehand to adopt as part of the group conscience the above
policy so there are no recriminations subsequently. The traditions
are quite clear on this. If the person should return and continue to
behave in a hostile fashion then the same procedure may be adopted.
In more extreme cases where this becomes a pattern then some rather
more robust 'greeters' may need to be deployed outside the meeting to
prevent entry. If things 'kick off' then the police naturally should
be called and the person in question may be arrested for 'disorderly
conduct' and hopefully charged. This may serve as a future deterrent
or at least as yet another 'marker' on the way to their 'rock
bottom'. Alternatively a court injunction might be obtained to
prevent further disruption. Actions as they say have consequences;
nobody drunk or sober should fall prey to the delusion that they are
in some way exempt. As the question states: “No member of the
Fellowship is above the law of the land”. As for solicitors'
letters they may generally be disregarded especially if the question
is raised “by whose authority?” Answer: the authority of those
responsible for running the group ie. its members. No other is
required. Moreover no AA group has entered into any kind of contract
with its members. We are a voluntary organisation and we charge
nothing for the provision of our services. “Breach of contract”
does not apply here. It might be argued that we owe a 'duty of care'
(civil law) to the individual in question. It is difficult to see how
any court would accept we are in breach of that duty simply for
barring disruptive individuals. What about the 'duty of care' we owe
to other members especially the most vulnerable - newcomers! Finally,
and perhaps most seriously, we come to the malicious disclosure of
personal information to outside agencies. For some such disclosures
can have serious repercussions. Alcoholism still carries a stigma in
our society. AA itself has done much to reduce this but prejudices
still exist. Clearly people have to exercise their own judgement
when it comes to what they reveal about themselves in meetings. As a
rough guide we'd say don't share anything in a meeting that you
wouldn't want broadcast any further. The meeting is only as safe as
the 'sickest' person in it! How well do you know the other attendees?
Perhaps stick to sharing only in a 'general way'. Don't give your
phone number, email address etc out to anyone until you've got to
know them well. If you work in a sensitive occupation bear that in
mind when you discuss what you do with others. Don't mix business
with AA. It doesn't work! If an individual threatens to disclose or
in fact discloses such information in order to obtain what they want
this may constitute blackmail, which is a criminal offence. Such a
matter should be reported to the police immediately. Again the
perpetrator should be discouraged from holding to the notion that
they can act with impunity.
[And,
of course, if all else fails, there's always the 'thick lip' option.
“He fell down the steps, your honour” Nah! Just kidding!??)]
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous … and a mostly peaceable bunch!)
PS
For AA Minority Report 2013 click here
No comments:
Post a Comment