AA MINORITY REPORT 2017 (revised)

Click here
Showing posts with label AA Conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AA Conference. Show all posts

Sunday, 6 July 2014

How to Submit a Topic or Question for Conference


Have you noticed how the AA conference is referred to as “conference” (with the definite article omitted) as if you were asking someone a question … as in “How to Submit a Topic or Question for ….. Dave”. Weird isn't it. Anyway, that aside, here's how it's done.

Briefly:

Anyone can send a question in.

It should be about something concerning AA as a whole ie. NOT about the complete absence of Jaffa cakes in your meeting or the fact that the group secretary insists on doing a second 'chair' after EVERY main speaker or even that 'drunks' keep on coming into the meeting and being a damned nuisance (perish the thought!). It has to be about AA generally eg. like the complete absence of Jaffa cakes at ANY meeting or the fact that cult members ABSOLUTLY INSIST on boring the rest of us to tears with their jejune (what a word!!), prolixious (another great piece of verbiage – which itself is fantastic!!!), scripted, and essentially FAKE sharing. (Ooh! Ooh! We can feel a question coming up!!).

The question's got to be in before the 31st August (so you've got plenty of time)

Before sending in your devastating enquiry check out the Terms of Reference, previous questions (accepted and not accepted by THE conference)

You'll need to supply “supporting information” for your query eg. references to AA literature etc. But whatever you do DON'T - we repeat DON'T - make ANY reference whatsoever to ANYTHING happening outside the AA 'bubble'. As far as THE conference is concerned THE world outside DOES NOT EXIST. Remember this essential fact or you'll frighten them and they'll shut their eyes, put their hands over their ears and start humming loudly if you mention IT. And we wouldn't want that to happen would we! Would we?

You'll also need to declare THE intention behind your 'suggested' (a much devalued word in AA these days) question which again will need to be relevant. World domination, the establishment of a Caliphate in Barking, 'jihad' (we wonder if the NSA/GCHQ are picking up on this particular blog entry?? But then “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition” do they?) don't quite qualify as valid intentions for consideration by that noble band of men and women who currently make up THE AA conference (on the other hand they might liven up the proceedings somewhat!!).

Finally, with anything of substance or real interest tidily eliminated (we are being a teensy weensy bit unkind here!), you may despatch your missive to:

c/o The Wizard of Oz
Emerald City,
End of the Yellow Brick Road
The Isle of Dreams
Neasden
London

or alternatively send it to:


Happy scribbling!!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous … and already beavering away!!)

Sunday, 5 January 2014

The mysterious case of the missing conference question forum (contd)


Well we said we'd be back with more …. and here we are?

As you will no doubt recall a member forwarded to us this response to an enquiry they had made concerning the missing conference question forum (the absence of which even GSO seemed unaware). To whit:

"Dear .......,

thank you for your support request. We decided not to run the Conference Forum this year for a few reasons: 

1.    The Electronic Communications Sub-Committee is short on members who have the time to moderate the forum. 

2.    The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure, where members views are heard at Group level, taken to Intergroup and then to Region for the Region's Delegates to bring to Conference in York. Discussion on an open forum is not part of that structure. 

3.    The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which  could bring AA into disrepute. 

This decision was not taken lightly but the man hours of moderating for a very few members posting over the last few years does not seem a good use of ECSC time. 

Regards, 

...... (ECSC)"

Well we found the reasons given really quite intriguing - some plausible, some not so.

Firstly it would seem from point 1 (and the concluding paragraph) that there's something of a manpower/time shortage. Not a problem. We've been scanning the forum for a couple or so years now and have got it down to a fine art. We can easily rustle up a few AA members who'd be more than happy to wield the red ink with gay abandon. Moreover we know the ropes pretty well. No cussing, no links to outside organisations, no personal abuse (although sarcasm will do at a pinch), no controversy (keep it bland), and whatever you do don't mention the 'c**t' word ('cult' of course. What did you think we meant!), especially not 'aac**tw****h'. Under our watch (geddit! …. watch! …. Oh never mind!) there will be absolutely no mention of sexual predation in AA (even though everybody knows it goes on - it's even got a slang term for it: 13 stepping) or systematic emotional abuse (ie. carrying the message c**t style. See! We've already got the idea! We're even censoring our own blog!!), anti-medication/counselling dogma, Big Book 'thumpers' (otherwise known as Big Book Bores), addicts, … the list goes on ad infinitum ….

By the time we've finished chopping out all these inessentials we'll make the redaction of MPs' expenses look like a walk in the park! In face we think that we'll have to put in a chit (oops …. sorry …..mustn't use that word either!) ….a c**t for additional supplies of magenta and then just ladle it on. Nothing, absolutely nothing non-PC will get by us we can assure you.

So that deals with that. So what's the other objection? Ah yes - a shortage of contributors to the forum. Well that's hardly an argument. The forum is a place for debate, for arguments to be put, opinions aired, (dare we say even grievances vented!) in order that those who may not have such well defined perspectives can clarify their own position. Now there's something called the Oxford Union (not to be confused with the Oxford Groups) where a couple of chaps will present opposing arguments on some or other subject. At the end of the 'show' the audience votes for the winner by exiting the debating chamber via one door or another (not quite the X-Factor but essentially the same principle). The spectators themselves don't take part in the debate. They listen and then decide according to who has presented the more persuasive argument (or more probably their own existing preconceptions). The number of actual participants therefore is minimal but the potential audience is virtually unlimited. On this basis the lack of active participants can hardly be considered a significant factor in deciding the utility of the event. You only need two! We would argue similarly with respect to the conference question forum. The fact that the vast majority of registered users don't actually say anything doesn't invalidate the exercise.

Now we come to point 2: “The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure …....” or to put it more simply: they (the Electronic Communication sub-committee), try as they might, can't exercise the sort of total control (ie. censorship) they'd like over what members say in the forum. Well perhaps the forum doesn't “fit in” with that nice tidy structure but then so what! And why exactly should this “structure” serve as the only platform where such opinions may be expressed? For example as a parliamentary democracy we (the general public) get to play at running the country every five years or so. Does that mean that nobody can express a view outside that “structure” in the meantime? Hardly! The ECSC should welcome and indeed expand the opportunities available to AA members to express their thoughts on how the fellowship is run rather than shut down any dialogue simply because it doesn't “fit in” with some preconceived notion of appropriateness!

And before anyone starts banging on about “no controversy” misquoting the traditions at us here's Tradition 10 (long form): 

10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever. “ 

Controversial” discussion, therefore, about what's going on inside AA is perfectly acceptable!

(our emphases)

But finally we come to that category of “intriguing” (if not slightly sinister) “reasons” for shutting the forum down viz. Point 3: 

The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which could bring AA into disrepute.”

(our emphasis)

To say that our 'flabber' was 'gasted' would be something of an understatement! What exactly is the “wrong type” of debate? We have to assume from this context that it's any kind of discussion which “on a public facing site.... could bring AA into disrepute”. Well we hate to be the bearers of bad tidings chaps but take a gander at the internet! You'd expect the ECSC at least to be reasonably well acquainted with this particular medium of communication (and more so if they'd read the – unexpurgated – minority reports 2012, 2013), There is absolutely no shortage of sites, forums, blogs etc which are totally dedicated to slagging AA off from top to bottom! And one of the more common recurring themes contained therein is AA's apparent unresponsiveness to any kind of criticism, its failure seemingly to take responsibility at any level for what's going wrong in the fellowship. Not only do we not seem to be taking “inventory” but worse still we appear to be failing to follow up with the appropriate “amends”. A proper and OPEN debate on a “public facing site” might be just what the fellowship needs in order to demonstrate its willingness to listen to criticism and, more importantly, ACT on this where it seems justified. Inward looking organisations (especially those that rely solely on self-regulation) tend towards corruption over time. Conversely those that recognise the value of “public” debate and candour tend to thrive. The fellowship is an anonymous organisation – neither secret nor secretive!

In light of the above (and not wishing to be accused of hypocrisy), and in the interests of ensuring ANY member of AA (even non-AA members) can have their say on the questions posed to the AA Conference 2014, we shall be listing these on the blog over the next few days. The comment system may be employed (members are able to sign in anonymously) to communicate views, opinions and even experience. Additionally (and alternatively) the same conference questions will be added to our very own aacultwatch forum (in a separate section) for those who prefer that kind of format. In either case (and unlike the now defunct AA conference forum) contributors will be permitted to include references to outside organisations (and links where relevant - but not for the purpose merely of advertising their own website). We recognise that AA does not exist in a bubble, and that such sources of information can form a valuable contribution to the debate. Moreover the aacultwatch forum includes a facility whereby members can send private emails to each other. Again this was something not made available to members on the AA site. Finally we will NOT be using large quantities of red ink in order to censor members who choose to express their views frankly and freely. One of the central pillars of democracy is freedom of speech. Personal abuse, however, will not be tolerated but satire, irony, wit, bombast, and indeed any and all rhetorical devices are more than welcome (within reason). In all cases, however, the decision of the moderators is final!

Otherwise the floor is yours!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Friday, 20 December 2013

The mysterious case of the missing conference question forum


You may not have noticed but the AA (GB) conference question forum has gone AWOL, it is no more, it has vanished, sucked mysteriously into some black hole which usually only GSO York can penetrate. But strange to say even this august body doesn't seem to be aware of its sad demise. According to the AA website (the only official website for AA in this country) the forum is still up and running:



Curiouser and curiouser! One enterprising member, however, had observed its parting and duly contacted the powers-that-be (but not a Higher Power!) to find out what had happened to the errant debating chamber. They received the following reply which they then passed on to us:

"Dear .......,

thank you for your support request.We decided not to run the Conference Forum this year for a few reasons:

1.    The Electronic Communications Sub-Committee is short on members who have the time to moderate the forum.

2.    The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure, where members views are heard at Group level, taken to Intergroup and then to Region for the Region's Delegates to bring to Conference in York. Discussion on an open forum is not part of that structure.

3.    The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which  could bring AA into disrepute.

This decision was not taken lightly but the man hours of moderating for a very few members posting over the last few years does not seem a good use of ECSC time.

Regards,

…...... (ECSC)"

Comment: We'll let you reflect on the implications of this response.... Of course there'll be more to follow shortly!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the AA member for their contribution

PPS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 1:

Share experience on getting articles on AA in the local press and make suggestions on how the Fellowship can get articles into the national press.

Background

1. Members are having some success on getting articles on AA in their local newspapers
2. The Fellowship has not succeeded so far in getting articles on AA in the national press.

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

Extracts:

A couple of years ago I had one of the most rewarding days for me in recovery; a few hours spent manning an AA stall in a shopping centre as part of Alcohol Awareness Week, answering inquiries from the general public. A banner displaying the AA logo and Alcoholics Anonymous name had been kindly sent down from GSO for the event via the intergroup Public Information Liaison Officer. I was serving as a local Public Information co-ordinator for my town at the time and helped the intergroup PI officer organise the event and volunteers to man the stalls in two towns. On one of the days we were short of volunteers, so I took a day’s annual leave from work to cover. I wrote a small article the following day for the local paper. The article gave brief details that AA taken part in Alcohol Awareness Week, by having the stall in the shopping centre; brief details of AA, the national AA helpline number and GSO website. The article was checked and OK’d by the intergroup PI officer and sent to the paper. It was rewarding to see the article published in the local paper the following week.

I think more could be done using local press and suggest it could be considered by Public Information committees to send articles of newsworthy items to the local paper now and then, for example, when a new meeting opens, or the occasional intergroup news, for example:

“The 152nd assembly of Alcoholics Anonymous [county name] met on [date of intergroup assembly][description of topics worthy of press release] brief details of AA, brief history of AA locally, for example: The first AA meeting to be held in [name of county] started in [date and town of first meeting] there are now [number of meetings in county] in [names of towns, villages]” The article ending with the national helpline number and something like “For more online information about AA and list of local AA meetings visit www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk”

Unfortunately local coordinated PI efforts collapsed after a group affiliated to the Primary Purpose Group of AA (Dallas) cult and Dick B cult started up and did its own competitive brand of PI without consultation with the local PI/ Intergroup PI team, and without consideration for PI guidelines and traditions. I found myself answering complaints from outside agencies about the group's behaviour. ”

Comment: If you want a job doing badly ….... get the cult involved!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)


Saturday, 20 April 2013

“Are there too many Questions for Conference each year?”



A: [Short form]: Yes … [Long form] .. Errr.... Yes. Oooh it's just getting easier and easier this stuff …... But seriously .. who decides what's important? And what's so wrong with rhetorical questions anyway (we demand with a broad sweep of our arms, eyebrows raised ….. rhetorically!!!)?....... Plus we really like the “specialist” and “minority” issues …. so much meat to them! But if you want some really “important” questions how about these:

What IS the meaning of life?
Why do you always end up with odd socks after using the washing machine?
How long's a piece of string?
Is the Pope a Catholic and do bears always **** in the woods?

There! That should keep the committees going for a while! Always glad to be of service ….... Don't mention it ….. (smiles … rhetorically....)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)



Question 1:

Would the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how to make AA more visible to the general public, particularly by increasing awareness and understanding of how the AA programme works?"

Extracts

In response to ........’s post, page 2 (Tue Feb 14) requesting suggestions of practical measures, I have the following to suggest, in addition to my three suggestions on page 2, Committee 1, Question 2. These are also relevant to this question.

Suggestion 4

It can be seen that concerns reflected in some of the topics/questions for conference Great Britain this year have been raised in the AA Grapevine for the past 10 years. Globalisation of communication has in my view, enabled power drives of a magnitude never seen before in AA history, which are negatively altering the nature of the fellowship and AA public relations. This will need an equal magnitude of effort to rectify. Global communication has perhaps crystallised the meaning of Tradition One that each individual is “but a small part of a great whole.” An intergroup in Great Britain cannot now be seen simply as a local situation, but it is part of AA world affairs. With this change in the way the world communicates, I think AA members need to be more aware of what is going on in AA beyond their locality with World affairs. The AA Grapevine “I Say” forums are accessible free, to all, without having to subscribe to the AA Grapevine magazine:


The New York GSO newsletter Box 4-5-9 is available online: http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=27

In short, the AA Grapevine is rapidly becoming “the collective voice of Alcoholics Anonymous.” (Bill W. Extract from “What Is Our AA Grapevine?” The Language of the Heart p387, AA Grapevine December 1946)

As AA grows in breadth and depth, so should the Grapevine, for this is the largest mirror we have of up-to-date AA thought, feeling, and activity.” (Bill W. Extract from “The Grapevine and You and Me” The Language of the Heart p 392. AA Grapevine June 1957.)

AA Grapevine “I Say” forum: Traditions, page 4:
Mon, 2011-09-12 22:45
#1 Killer in AA
The out side sponsorship system sponsoring inside of A.A. helping them out.”


and

Suggestion 5

Suggest encouraging a greater awareness of the Washingtonian movement. This could be done via intergroup and region workshops and in general sharing at meetings. Some of AA Tradition was based on the experience of the collapse of the Washingtonian movement. Alcoholics today are no different in their basic personality traits and instinctive drives than they were in the time of the Washingtonians. It would only take one AA generation not to pass on knowledge of the history of AA Traditions and Concepts to the next generation, a period of perhaps 30-50 years, for AA to then diversify and repeat Washingtonian disintegration. Information on the Washingtonian movement can be found in the following AA publications:

Tradition Ten (The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions)
Pass it On pp 325n 354, 366-7n
The Language of The Heart pp 4-5, 7, 11, 43 
Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age pp 77, 124-125

Extract from “Modesty One Plank For Good Public Relations” by Bill W. (The Language of the Heart pp 4-5. AA Grapevine August 1945):

“…Those who read the July Grapevine were startled, then sobered, by the account which it carried of the Washingtonian movement. It was hard for us to believe that 100 years ago the newspapers of this country were carrying enthusiastic accounts about 100,000 alcoholics who were helping each other stay sober; that today the influence of this good work has so completely disappeared that few of us had ever heard of it.

Let's cast our eyes over that Grapevine piece about the Washingtonians and excerpt a few sentences: "Mass meeting in 1841, at City Hall Park, New York City, attracted 4,000 listeners. Speakers stood on upturned rum kegs." "Triumphal parades in Boston. Historic Faneuil Hall jammed." (Overdone self-advertising--exhibitionism? Anyhow, it sounds very alcoholic, doesn't it!) "Politicians looked hungrily at the swelling membership. . . helped wreck local groups through their efforts to line up votes." (Looks like personal ambition again, also unnecessary group participation in controversial issues; the hot political issue was then abolition of slavery.) "The Washingtonians were confident. . . they scorned old methods." (Too cocksure, maybe. Couldn't learn from others and became competitive, instead of cooperative, with other organizations in their field.)

Like A.A., the Washingtonians originally had but one object: "Was concerned only with the reclamation of drunkards and held that it was none of its affair if others used alcohol who seemed little harmed by it." But later on came this development: "There was division among the older local organizations --some wanted wines and beers --some clamored for legislation to outlaw alcohol --in its zeal for new members many intemperate drinkers, not necessarily alcoholic, were pledged." (The original strong and simple group purpose was thus dissipated in fruitless controversy and divergent aims.)

And again, "Some (of the Washingtonian local groups) dipped into their treasuries to finance their own publications. There was no overall editorial policy. Editors of local papers got into squabbles with editors of temperance papers." (Apparently the difficulty was not necessarily the fact they had local publications. It was more due to the refusal of the Washingtonians to stick to their original purpose and so refrain from fighting anybody; also to the obvious fact that they had no national public relations policy or tradition which all members were willing to follow.)

We are sure that if the original Washingtonians could return to this planet they would be glad to see us learning from their mistakes. They would not regard our observations as aimless criticism. Had we lived in their day we might have made the same errors. Perhaps we are beginning to make some of them now.

So we need to constantly scrutinize ourselves carefully, in order to make everlastingly certain that we always shall be strong enough and single purposed enough from within, to relate ourselves rightly to the world without. Now then, does A.A. have a public relations policy? Is it good enough? Are its main principles clear? Can it meet changing conditions over the years to come?.."

Extract from ‘Rules’ Dangerous but Unity Vital by Bill W. (The Language of the Heart p 7-8. AA Grapevine September 1945):

“…If there is no authority how can they have any public relations policy at all? That's the very defect which ruined the Washingtonian alcoholics a hundred years ago. They mushroomed to 100,000 members, then collapsed. No effective policy or authority. Quarreled among themselves, so finally got a black eye with the public. Aren't these A.A.s just the same kind of drunks, the same kind of anarchists? How can they expect to succeed where the Washingtonians failed? Good questions, these. Have we the answers?....”

It appears that trends of diversity seen in the Washingtonian movement are beginning to become present in AA. The publication and use of non standard literature and the undertaking of public relations via the internet by individuals and groups, at national and international levels, without an effective policy or authority, is beginning to make AA public relations become unsound. If AA unity is to continue, then a sound national and international public relations policy with authority needs to be maintained and respected at the level of the internet by individuals and groups. Although the internet is new, Bill W. did write of the potential of “this limitless world forum” to benefit AA or to shatter it through the “ego demands of our own people.”

"A vast communications net now covers the earth, even to its remotest reaches. Granting all its huge public benefits, this limitless world forum is nevertheless a hunting ground for all those who would seek money, acclaim and power at the expense of society in general. Here the forces of good and evil are locked in struggle. All that is shoddy and destructive contests all that is best.

Therefore nothing can matter more to the future welfare of AA than the manner in which we use this colossus of communication. Used unselfishly and well, the results can surpass our present imagination. Should we handle this great instrument badly, we shall be shattered by the ego demands of our own people--often with the best of intention on their part.” (Bill W. The Language of the Heart pp 319-320)




Note: The questions and subsequent discussion can still be viewed by going to: 

You may, however, continue the debate at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch

For the next batch of conference questions we will be including a section on the aacultwatch forum specifically devoted to these but with considerably fewer constraints on members' contributions, and with considerably more licence to cite sources directly in support of their arguments (currently not possible on the AA website). Moreover members will be able to to exchange private messages via our forum (a facility which is currently denied on the AA website). Anyone may join in the discussion.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)



Question 1:

Would the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how to make AA more visible to the general public, particularly by increasing awareness and understanding of how the AA programme works?"

Extract:


Interestingly (and with reference to the comments above) it was only yesterday that I was chatting with an intergroup chairman who indicated that they have received complaints from a number of GPs in their area about the conduct of one particular group who are engaged in what can only be described as “promotional” activity on their own behalf (and with no liaison whatsoever with the relevant intergroup officers or indeed any other group – in breach of Tradition Four etc). Fortunately the GPs in question are sufficiently familiar with AA to disregard the overt “religiosity” of this group and when requesting contacts for their referrals now explicitly specify that they DON'T want members from this particular group to attend. However in this instance we are relying rather on these doctors' good sense to discriminate between AA and what have been referred to as “cult” groups elsewhere in the forum, but with little or nothing being done otherwise (or as far as I'm aware) on the part of the fellowship's service structure to alert these and other outside agencies of the dangers inherent in these rogue elements. In another intergroup area treatment centres now distinguish between what they call the “two AAs” and again it is simply due to the fact that the managers of these facilities are sufficiently familiar with AA's ethos that they refer their clients to “mainstream AA”. Moreover at least one major London NHS Health Trust I know of has been alerted to some of the “anti-prescribed medication” practices of some of these “fundamentalist” groups. Indeed another 12 Step fellowship has been set up quite recently in this country which explicitly refers on its website to the harm suffered (including suicide) by some of its members (all of whom are what is termed “dual diagnosis”) as a result of being given misguided and downright dangerous advice on the use of prescribed medication by members of these dogma-driven groups. In yet another intergroup concerns have been expressed by health service managers about the increasingly “religious” overtones presented by some groups (and members). As a service that is necessarily secular they are increasingly obliged to be much more circumspect in their dealings with the fellowship. In the same intergroup area I think it no coincidence that ALL the hospitals there now no longer host AA meetings. The groups that were operating in these facilities (and through no fault of their own) have been given various “reasons” why they can no longer use the premises. In yet another IG area “extremist” groups were targeting a chain of treatment centres whilst offering to take their clients to a particular group which is notorious for its anti-prescribed medication/anti-counselling policies. It was only through the direct intervention of an AA member (who had contacts on the board) that the management were alerted to this fact and took the appropriate action. This last instance highlights the extent to which outside agencies still rely upon our reputation in deciding whether to allow AA (?) members access to their patients. Our failure to keep them informed, and warn them of the potential problems associated with these “fundamentalist” groups, is an abdication of our responsibility (under Concept XII). Moreover we have a “duty of care” with respect to all those who come to us for assistance, and we are currently letting them down quite appallingly. In my view it is no longer sufficient for the AA conference simply to debate questions and come up with guidelines (which are observed generally by AA groups but ignored by those for whom they are most applicable). There needs not only to be guidance but also clear and decisive leadership at all levels of the service structure to ensure that this valuable resource is not destroyed by those who would distort our message of hope. Indeed there really is no point in discussing how we are going to present our message to the wider public if we cannot even be clear what that message is, or rather how we are going to ensure that it is not to become so perverted as to be rendered virtually unrecognisable! There are a number of practical measures which can be employed to arrive at this end. I can think of some but I would be interested to hear what other members have to say in this connection.”



Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 9 February 2012

Conference 2012 Discussion - Sign up! Have your say!



Committee No. 1

Question 1:

Would the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how to make AA more visible to the general public, particularly by increasing awareness and understanding of how the AA programme works?

Background

1. According to the 2010 membership survey of AA in Great Britain, 31% of members heard of AA from an existing member. According to the AA Census published by the GSO in Great Britain, in 1997 4.1% of AA members reported that their point of entry into AA was media. By 2002, that number had dropped: only 1.6% of AA members listed media as their point of entry into AA. In 2005, 5% of members indicated that they came to AA because of radio, internet, newspaper adverts, or tv. In 2010, 4% of members first heard of AA through radio or newspaper (tv was not listed as a category). A further 6% listed the internet; however the internet may not be available to as many people as newspaper, radio or tv.

In figures taken from the GSO website for Great Britain (www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk), there are 34,000 AA members (from the 2005 AA Survey). (The 2005 survey was used because he 2010 survey online did not indicate numbers of members.) This means that 0.056, or nearly six-hundredths of a percent, of the population of Great Britain is a member of AA. According to the AA Fact File on the GSO website, there are "approximately 4,400" AA groups in Great Britain. Based on a population of 60,000,000 (source: ), that means there is one AA group for every 13,636 people.

Given the relatively low percentage of AA members in Great Britain (0.056 percent), the chances of a person with a drinking problem are also relatively low. (A person only has a six-in-ten-thousand chance of personally knowing an AA member), national-level press could be one vital means of ensuring that the public at large is aware of the existence of AA and that it offers a program of recovery from alcoholism that has worked for many.

Mindful of all the good work carried out by PI at all levels of the Fellowship, all too often the media tend to focus on the problem rather than the solutions. It is the hope of this question that Conference might consider whether there might be more that can be done at the national level of AA in Great Britain to reach out to national-level press in order to increase the awareness of AA among the public as a whole.

Establishing a committee to study this question, perhaps including outreach to GSOs in other regions of the world to learn about what methods they are using for press outreach and whether those have been beneficial, might be a prudent approach to examining whether additional public information efforts by GSO in Great Britain could be an effective means of ensuring that there is greater public awareness of the existence of AA in the UK.

2. Section 17, AA Service Handbook for Great Britain, ‘Public Information’.

3. “We believe that there are opportunities for all members to participate in PI activity,
and that carrying the message is every member's responsibility". (Conference 2011, Committee 4, Question 1).

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question."


Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 27 October 2011

"To Alcoholics Anonymous from Alcoholics Anonymous - A call for moral inventory and leadership in A.A."

Quote from an email currently in circulation (together with pdf attachment - see below for download link):

"To whom it may concern,

Attached is a copy of a minority report submitted for consideration by AA Conference (GB 2012).

Summary:


This document comprises an analytical and critical survey of the Fellowship in 2011, discussing the complex dynamics surrounding current events occurring in the USA, UK and Canada and relating these to past events and to AA Traditions and Concepts.

The discussion begins with two examples of active leadership, one by Bill W. in the 1940s, the other by a committee in Santa Monica California USA, in 1958; it then moves on to include current events. The outcome exposes a hazardous departure from Tradition, serious and growing internal divisions and public concerns. It also exposes a widespread and hazardous misconception in the application of A.A. Traditions. And a situation where neither A.A. Tradition, nor General Warranties of Conference are withstanding in today’s fellowship. This causes us to feel duty bound to place this as a minority report before the UK General Service Conference 2012.

Background

The grounds for submission of a minority report;
The principle of anonymity upheld.

1) The conference procedures are given in the AA Service Handbook for Great Britain section 10-3, 10-4. This can be accessed online at the UK GSO website:
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/members/index.cfm?PageID=98&DocumentTypeID=21
Concept V explains the criteria and reasons for sending a minority report.

A minority report can be sent by any AA members, at any level in the service structure from A.A. group to Conference.

Concept V states that all minorities should be encouraged to file minority reports whenever they feel that a majority is in considerable error. That they should charge themselves with the actual duty to file a minority report if they consider the issue to be such a grave one that it could affect A.A. as a whole. The main function of a minority report is to protect against the making of a grave error and to restrain those in authority from unjust uses of their power. The well heard minority is therefore our chief protection against an uninformed, misinformed, hasty or angry majority.

The Conference steering committee will decide whether to put the contents of the report and any questions arising from it to conference for discussion.

2) “Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.” (Tradition 12)

It is AA Tradition that the names of those who make submissions of topics /questions to conference are kept confidential. The same principle of anonymity applies to minority reports. It also applies to officially published AA pamphlets and books, the authors are not accredited except for a few titles by Bill W. The names of authors of the report are not accredited since this, according to AA Tradition is irrelevant, the subject matter of the report is what is important. It was co-authored by a number of AA members residing in the UK.

In fellowship

......"

Comment: A useful analysis of the challenge presented by cult groups within the Fellowship both in Great Britain and North America

Enjoy the read!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our usual thanks to our reporters)