Bill Wilson talking about the Traditions - Tradition Seven

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous ...and rather fond of the Traditions too!)

A rationalisation for economic insecurity (or greed)

Source: The Twelve Concepts for World Service (and AA Service Manual)

http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/en_bm-31.pdf

pp. 60 – 65

See also “profits” (on blog) together with details of AA (Great Britain) accounts at Charity Commission website

“Concept XII

General Warranties of the Conference: in all its proceedings, the General Service Conference shall observe the spirit of the A.A. Tradition, taking great care that the conference never becomes the seat of perilous wealth or power; that sufficient operating funds, plus an ample reserve, be its prudent financial principle; that none of the Conference Members shall ever be placed in a position of unqualified authority over any of the others; that all important decisions be reached by discussion, vote, and whenever possible, by substantial unanimity; that no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy; that though the Conference may act for the service of Alcoholics Anonymous, it shall never perform any acts of government; and that, like the Society of Alcoholics Anonymous which it serves, the Conference itself will always remain democratic in thought and action........

Warranty One: “The Conference shall never become the seat of perilous wealth or power.” What is meant by “perilous wealth and power”? Does it mean that the Conference should have virtually no money and no authority? Obviously not. Such a condition would be dangerous and absurd. Nothing but an ineffective anarchy could result from it. We must use some money, and there must be some authority to serve. But how much? How and where should we draw these lines?

The principal protection against the accumulation of too much money and too much authority in Conference hands is to be found in the A.A. Tradition itself. So long as our General Service Board refuses to take outside contributions and holds each individual’s gift to A.A.’s world services at a modest figure, we may be sure that we shall not become wealthy in any perilous sense. No great excess of group contributions over legitimate operating expenses is ever likely to be seen. Fortunately the A.A. groups have a healthy reluctance about the creation of unneeded services which might lead to an expensive bureaucracy in our midst. Indeed, it seems that the chief difficulty will continue to be that of effectively informing the A.A. groups as to what the financial needs of their world services actually are. Since it is certain therefore that we shall never become too wealthy through group contributions, we need only to avoid the temptation of taking money from the outside world.

In the matter of giving Delegates, Trustees and staffs enough authority, there can be little risk, either. Long experience, now codified in these Twelve Concepts, suggests that we are unlikely to encounter problems of too much service authority. On the contrary, it appears that our difficulty will be how to maintain enough of it. We must recall that we are protected from the calamities of too much authority by rotation, by voting participation, and by careful chartering. Nevertheless, we do hear warnings about the future rise of a dictator in the Conference or at the Headquarters. To my mind this is an unnecessary worry. Our setup being what it is, such an aspirant couldn’t last a year. And in the brief time he did last, what would he use for money? Our Delegates, directly representing the groups, control the ultimate supply of our service funds. Therefore they constitute a direct check upon the rise of too much personal authority. Taken all together, these factors seem to be reliable safeguards against too much money and too much authority.

We have seen why the Conference can never have any dangerous degree of human power, but we must not overlook the fact that there is another sort of authority and power which it cannot be without: the spiritual power which flows from the activities and attitudes of truly humble, unselfish, and dedicated A.A. servants. This is the real power that causes our Conference to function. It has been well said of our servants, “They do not drive us by mandate; they lead us by example.” While we have made abundantly sure that they will never drive us, I am confident that they will afford us an ever-greater inspiration as they continue to lead by example.

Warranty Two: “Sufficient operating funds, plus an ample Reserve, should be its prudent financial principle.”

In this connection we should pause to review our attitudes concerning money and its relation to service effort.

Our attitude toward the giving of time when compared with our attitude toward giving money presents an interesting contrast. Of course we give a lot of our time to A.A. activities for our own protection and growth. But we also engage ourselves in a truly sacrificial giving for the sake of our groups, our areas and for A.A. as a whole.

Above all, we devote ourselves to the newcomer, and this is our principal Twelfth Step work. In this activity we often take large amounts of time from business hours. Considered in terms of money, these collective sacrifices add up to a huge sum. But we do not think that this is anything unusual. We remember that people once gave their time to us as we struggled for sobriety. We know, too, that nearly the whole combined income of A.A. members, now more than a billion dollars a year, has been a direct result of A.A.’s activity. Had nobody recovered, there would have been no income for any of us.

But when it comes to the actual spending of cash, particularly for A.A. service overhead, many of us are apt to turn a bit reluctant. We think of the loss of all that earning power in our drinking years, of those sums we might have laid by for emergencies or for education of the kids. We find, too, that when we drop money in the meeting hat there is no such bang as when we talk for hours to a newcomer. There is not much romance in paying the landlord. Sometimes we hold off when we are asked to meet area or Intergroup service expenses. As to world services, we may remark, “Well, those activities are a long way off, and our group does not really need them. Maybe nobody needs them.” These are very natural and understandable reactions, easy to justify. We can say, “Let’s not spoil A.A. with money and service organization. Let’s separate the material from the spiritual. That will really keep things simple.”

But in recent years these attitudes are everywhere on the decline; they quickly disappear when the real need for a given A.A. service becomes clear. To make such a need clear is simply a matter of right information and education. We see this in the continuous job now being done with good effect for our world service by Delegates, Committee Members, and General Service Representatives. They are finding that money-begging by pressure exhortation is unwanted and unneeded in A.A [tell that to group treasurers who regularly use emotional manipulation to raise funds eg. 'gratitude week' – the implication being that if you don't contribute you are in some way being 'ungrateful'!]. They simply portray what the giver’s service dollar really brings in terms of steering alcoholics to A.A., and in terms of our over-all unity and effectiveness. This much done, the hoped-for contributions are forthcoming. The donors can seldom see what the exact result has been. They well know, however, that countless thousands of other alcoholics and their families are certain to be helped.

When we look at such truly anonymous contributions in this fashion, and as we gain a better understanding of their continuous urgency, I am sure that the voluntary contributions of our A.A. groups, supplemented by many modest gifts from individual A.A.’s, will pay our world service bills over future years, in good times at any rate.

We can take comfort, too, from the fact that we do not have to maintain an expensive corps of paid workers at World Headquarters. In relation to the ever-growing size of A.A. the number of workers has declined. In the beginning our World Service Office engaged one paid worker to each thousand of A.A. members. Ten years later we employed one paid worker to each three thousand A.A.’s. Today we need only one paid helper to every seven thousand recovered alcoholics.¹ The present cost of our world services ($200,000 annually as of 1960) is today seen as a small sum in relationship to the present reach of our Fellowship. Perhaps no other society of our size and activity has such a low general overhead. (with the current employment level standing at 13 in Great Britain this ratio of “one paid helper to every seven thousand recovered alcoholics” would suggest a membership of 110,000. The actual membership is estimated to be 40,000 requiring therefore only 6 to 7 staff)

These reassurances of course cannot be taken as a basis for the abandonment of the policy of financial prudence.

The fact and the symbol of A.A.’s fiscal common sense can be seen in the Reserve Fund of our General Service Board. As of now this amounts to little more than $200,000—about one year’s operating expense of our World Office.² This is what we have saved over the last twenty years, largely from the income of our books. This is the fund which has repeatedly prevented the severe crippling, and sometimes the near collapse, of our world services.

In about half of the last twenty years, A.A. group contributions have failed to meet our world needs. But the Reserve Fund, constantly renewed by book sales, has been able to meet these deficits—and save money besides. What this has meant in the lives of uncounted alcoholics who might never have reached us had our services been weak or nonexistent [we'd be curious to know exactly how many alcoholics GSO has been responsible for saving directly? We'd guess NONE …. directly. Recovery begins with one alcoholic talking with another – which would happen with or without the General Service Office], no one can guess. Financial prudence has paid off in lives saved.

These facts about our Reserve Fund need to be better understood. For sheer lack of understanding, it is still often remarked: (1) that the Reserve Fund is no longer needed, (2) that if the Reserve Fund continues to grow, perilous wealth will result, (3) that the presence of such a Reserve Fund discourages group contributions, (4) that because we do not abolish the Reserve Fund, we lack faith, (5) that our A.A. book ought to be published at cost so these volumes could be cheapened for hard-up buyers, (6) that profit-making on our basic literature is counter to a sound spirituality. While these views are by no means general, they are typical. Perhaps, then, there is still a need to analyze them and answer the questions they raise.

Let us therefore try to test them. Do these views represent genuine prudence? Do we lack faith when we prudently insist on solvency?

By means of cheap A.A. books should we engage, as a fellowship, in this sort of financial charity? (how does selling literature at cost price constitute “financial charity”? Nobody is suggesting giving the literature away - just not making a profit on it!) Should this sort of giving [paying for a book is not 'giving'. It is a straightforward financial transaction. 'Giving' constitutes a charitable act and does not constitute a contract. A financial transaction clearly does] not be the responsibility of individuals? Is the Headquarters’ income from A.A. books really a profit after all? (Short answer: Yes)

As this is written, 1960, our Headquarters operation is just about breaking even. Group contributions are exceeding our service needs by about 5%. The A.A. Grapevine continues in the red. Compared with earlier days this is wonderful. Nevertheless this is our state in the period of the greatest prosperity that America has ever known. If this is our condition in good times, what would happen in bad times? Suppose that the Headquarters income were decreased 25% by a depression, or that expenses were increased 25% by a steep inflation. What would this mean in hard cash? [what this means is that you retrench, economise, lay people off, cut costs just like the rest of us! In the “good times” where “group contributions are exceeding … service needs by about 5%” you are able build up a reserve to be drawn upon when the bad times come. This is called prudent financial management].

The World Service Office would show a deficit of $50,000 a year and the Grapevine would put a $20,000 annual deficit on top of this. We would be faced with a gaping total deficit of $70,000 every twelve months. If in such an emergency we had no reserve and no book income, we would soon have to discharge one-third of our thirty paid workers and A.A. staff members [see above]. Much mail would go unanswered, pleas for information and help ignored. The Grapevine would have to be shut down or reduced to a second-rate bulletin. The number of Delegates attending our yearly General Service Conference would have to be drastically reduced (no bad thing in itself). Practically and spiritually, these would be the penalties were we to dissipate our Reserve Fund and its book income. [but despite all this AA, its meetings and its essential services would continue unabated. Most people would hardly notice the difference]

Happily, however, we do not have to face any such slash as this. Our present reserve and its book income could see us through several years of hard times without the slightest diminution in the strength and quality of our world effort.

It is the fashion nowadays to believe that America can never see another serious business upset. We can certainly hope and pray that it will not. But is it wise for us of A.A. to make a huge bet — by dissipating our own assets — that this could never happen? Would it not be far better, instead, for us to increase our savings [by how much? And when will these be enough?] in this period when the world about us in all probability has already borrowed more money than can ever be repaid?

Now let us examine the claim that the presence of our Reserve Fund discourages group contributions. It is said that the impression is created that A.A. Headquarters is already well off and that hence there is no need for more money. This is not at all the general attitude, however, and its effect on contributions is probably small.

Next comes the question of whether A.A. as a whole should go in for what amounts to a money charity (see above. Selling books at cost does not “amount” to a “money charity”. Therefore the entire argument subsequently presented by Bill Wilson on this theme is entirely fallacious) to individual newcomers and their sponsors — via the selling of our books at cost or less. Up to now we A.A.’s have strongly believed that money charity to the individual should not be a function of the A.A. groups or of A.A. as a whole. To illustrate: when a sponsor takes a new member in hand, he does not in the least expect that his group is going to pay the expenses he incurs while doing a Twelfth Step job. The sponsor may give his prospect a suit of clothes, may get him a job, or present him with an A.A. book. This sort of thing frequently happens, and it is fine that it does. But such charities are the responsibility of the sponsor and not of the A.A. group itself. If a sponsor cannot give or lend an A.A. book, one can be found in the library. Many groups sell books on the instalment plan. There is no scarcity of A.A. books; more than a half million are now in circulation. Hence there seems no really good reason why A.A. services should supply everybody with cheap books, including the large majority who can easily pay [hardly the point!] the going price. It appears to be altogether clear [is it?] that our world services need those book dollars far more than the buyers do.

Some of us have another concern, and this is related to so-called book “profits.” The fact that A.A. Headquarters and most of the groups sell books for more than they cost is thought to be spiritually bad. But is this sort of noncommercial [simply calling something “noncommercial doesn't make it “noncommercial”!] book income really a profit after all? In my view, it is not [according to the standard definition of profit it it clearly is]. This net income to the groups and to A.A.’s General Services is actually the sum of a great many contributions which the book buyers make to the general welfare of Alcoholics Anonymous. The certain and continuous solvency of our world services rests squarely upon these contributions [but they are not actually 'contributions' in the voluntary sense. They are financial transactions]. Looked at in this way, our Reserve Fund is seen to be actually the aggregate of many small financial sacrifices made by the book buyers [or more properly – financial transactions. Bill's repeated attempts to reframe the argument here simply constitutes a form of semantic camouflage which fails entirely to obscure the underlying reality]. This fund is not the property of private investors; it is wholly owned by A.A. itself.

While on the subject of books, perhaps a word should be said concerning my royalties from them. This royalty income from the book buyers has enabled me to do all the rest of my A.A. work on a full-time volunteer basis. These royalties have also given me the assurance that, like other A.A.’s, I have fully earned my own separate livelihood. This independent income also has enabled me to think and act independently of money influences of any kind—a situation which has at times been very advantageous to A.A. as well as to me personally. Therefore I hope and believe that my royalty status will continue to be considered a fair and wise arrangement …..." [of course an alternative would have been to employ Bill like other full time workers. This seems to us another highly dubious rationalisation. A matter of history now but …..]

________________

1

2013—about one to seventeen thousand, U.S. and Canada.

2

At December 31, 2013, the net assets of the Reserve Fund (excluding the liability for pension benefits) were $15,301,600, and represented 10.9 months of the $16,879,500 of recurring operating expenses of the operating entities. In 2012, the net assets represented a reserve of 11.3 months of operating expenses.”

(our emphases)(our comments in red)

Comment: The above is simply an extended rationalisation (much like Bill's attempt to argue that recitation of the Lord's Prayer (Christian) in AA meetings might not be regarded as implying any kind of religious affiliation on account of its widespread usage elsewhere?) in support of book sale generated profits subsidising GSO (a direct contradiction of Tradition 7). The act of deciding to buy a book - or not - is clearly, in itself, voluntary. However the distinction between voluntary 'giving' and entering into a contract is determined in this instance by who sets the amount. If you as 'buyer' decide (including paying nothing) then it's a voluntary contribution. If the seller decides it's a contract. Moreover it should be remembered that literature is not only sold to AA members but also to treatment centres etc. These are necessarily “outside organisations”. This constitutes yet another breach of Tradition 7!

We propose that books be sold only at cost for those who prefer that kind of 'hard copy' medium (or do not have access to the internet). With regard to digital publications these should all be made freely available with the option to donate a sum if the reader wishes (with the maximum set at the 'hard copy' cost price. A proviso should be added that non-members (ie. outside organisations) donate nothing). Only then will we be operating in accordance with those principles which we, after all, set for ourselves.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous … and NOT funded by profits from book sales ….. or indeed ANY other kind)

PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

PPS Plymouth Intergroup corruption

Conference questions not quite up to par! (contd)

38. 
Would the Fellowship discuss, share experience and make recommendations on how GSO reserves should be brought back in line with Guidelines, for instance whether the selling price of AA literature ought to be reduced or whether other actions to reduce reserves should be considered?

Background

• Tradition 7

• Report of the Trustees and Financial Statements for the year ended 30 September 2013

• The AA Structure Handbook for Great Britain 2013 p120

• Concept XII

The AA Structure Handbook for Great Britain 2013 p120 suggests GSO hold 'a prudent reserve equivalent to the budget expenditure for the forthcoming year', this aim being underlined by the Reserves Policy in the Report of the Trustees. However, at 30 September 2013 reserves totalled £2,096,000 while annual expenditure was £1,228,000.

In the year to 30 September 2013 the General Service Board reported a surplus of £188,000, further increasing its reserves from a figure already over the Handbook's recommended position and the Trustees' aim

Tradition 71ong [sic] form states that ' ... we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose.'

Additionally, Concept XII warns against becoming ' ... the seat of perilous wealth ... '

In the year to 30 September 2013 literature sales were £519,000 while costs as disclosed in the accounts were £182,000. Literature is therefore being sold at almost three times cost.

Reducing the selling price of literature would bring many benefits, such as:

• decreasing the Board's annual surplus and reducing reserves to bring them into line with Handbook and Trustees' aims to hold one year's running costs as a prudent reserve.

• helping groups and members to carry the message more widely at a lower cost.

• allowing AA groups to sell literature at a lower price than online bookstores, making this part of the fundamental attraction of meetings.

My intention behind asking this question is to address two significant issues revealed by the latest Accounts – those being that literature is being sold at a large profit, significantly hindering its vital role in carrying the message more widely, and the unnecessary and ever growing level of reserves which are in danger of compromising our primary spiritual aim.

Terms of Reference No. 7 Treasurer’s report at Conference 2014 answers this.

Comment: We'd go further.... we believe that ALL AA literature should be available FREE as online downloads. Printed literature should only be sold at cost. A facility should be made available on the website where members may make a VOLUNTARY donation for downloads thus obtained (but only to a pre-set maximum limit per account to avoid bequests being made by an alternative route). Advice should also be given that non-AA members (outside organisations) may of course avail themselves of the facility but refrain from making any donation. Only then will we be operating according to our own stated principles. See Tradition 7. AA is not a publishing business nor should profits from literature sales be used to subsidise the running of the General Service Office. Apart from being in breach of the aforementioned Tradition this subsidy reduces the “power of the pot” ie. the ability of the fellowship to hold the service structure to account by the simple expedient of withholding funds. In the meantime we advise members to download the existing free literature (here (GB) and here (US)) instead of purchasing hard copy. Moreover where competitively priced alternatives are available they should purchase these (although people should be aware that some of these are major tax avoiders in the UK eg. Amazon). AA is quite capable of functioning without this form of subsidy.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

PPS Also see Plymouth (cult) Intergroup – fraud allegations (update)

The AA Preamble – contd

Here it is:

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organisation or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.”

(our emphasis)

Tradition 7 makes clear the basis of all of AA's finances:

“Seven—Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.” (short form)

“7.—The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority.” (long form)

Since AA is no more than the sum total of its groups and members this principle should apply to AA collectively, and to every part of its service structure. We refer you here to this question proposed (unsuccessfully) for consideration by the GB conference (2014):

(Unfortunately the committee omitted to elaborate on precisely which part of the cited background information was incorrect. As far as we can determine the figures quoted are accurate). What is clear, however, is that a substantial part of AA's revenues derive from the profit from literature sales. These do NOT constitute voluntary contributions. They are voluntary only in the sense that people may choose to buy the literature or not. However the amount paid is not determined by the buyer but by the vendor. As such they fall outside the term “contribution”. To contribute is “to give (support, money, etc) for a common purpose or fund”. It is not to a sum exacted in fulfilment of a legally binding contract for sale. Moreover:

Source: The Charity Commission (226745 - The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous (Great Britain) Limited)

You will see from these accounts (required by law) that under “Income” there are three sources listed: “Voluntary”, “Trading to raise funds” and “Investment”. For accounting purposes, at least, “Voluntary” (ie. members' contributions) is considered to be a completely separate entity from “Trading” (ie. literature sales). You will also note the amounts involved: “Voluntary” accounts for £890,000 whilst book sales make up £510,000 (a not inconsiderable portion of total income).

From this it is quite clear AA is NOT fully self-supporting through the voluntary contributions of its members.

(We will be coming back to this conference question in the near future)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

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

Tradition Seven, Grapevine, November, 1952, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Editorial: On the 7th Tradition, Grapevine, June, 1948, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Derbyshire AA Intergroup?

A while ago we received a series of emails emanating from the Derby area in relation to the activities of the local intergroup. It would seem from these that all is not well. Various allegations were made as to the conduct of this intergroup with reference to a number of meetings in the Derby City area. We visited the above mentioned intergroup's website to check some of the matters raised in our correspondents' emails and came across a number of features which we found somewhat surprising. We summarised these in one of our own responses. See below:

“Dear …...

Thank you for your email. Firstly we should begin by saying (and as a point of clarification) that our goal is as stated on the website and includes (although not overtly) our full support for the principles on which AA is based ie. the Steps, Traditions, Concepts, guidelines (albeit with some qualifications in the last instance) etc. We were somewhat dismayed therefore to note your reference to “genuinely autonomous” meetings since this in itself represents a misquote of Tradition Four, something which we have gone to considerable lengths to emphasise on our site. We quite categorically do NOT support groups that exercise their own autonomy BUT with a complete disregard for the impact this might have on other groups or AA as a whole, and moreover where such action undermines the effectiveness of the remainder of the Traditions. Although our primary focus is on “cult” groups (as we define them) there are plenty of instances where what might otherwise be described as legitimate AA groups also breach (and seriously) these Traditions, and not only to their detriment but also other groups and AA collectively.

With regard to the intergroup website we have checked through this and there are a number of areas of concern. Firstly the site itself does not seem itself to be directly linked into the main AA website (under Midlands region – Derbyshire). In connection with this we note the following:

Under the heading "Website" (Minutes Dec 2010):

"….. has received no further communication following the contact he made with GSO Electronic sub committee.

….. has also sent two emails to GSO asking if we could have our page back on the new site but has received no reply."

Also under same heading (Minutes Sept 2010)

"….. informed IG that the Derbyshire page had been removed from the G.S.O site because it has links to outside bodies- the body in question is Google maps, the page previously provided a link to Google maps so that a visitor to the page could see where exactly a meeting was located. He stated that he would re-organise the National page to comply with AA guidance, and asked the group whether the links should be taken off the Derbyshire website, which is separate to the national page on the AA website, or not?

It was agreed that the links to Google maps should be kept on the Derbyshire site."

Next: the templates available on the site do not have any indicated conference approved provenance. One of these (the 4th step inventory) seems to derive from the following site: http://aaworkshop.org/4th-step-inventory.php. [with “Back to Basics” connections. See here for more information on this grouping]. This site has no affiliation with AA as such (although it omits to mention this) and therefore the use of the material (and despite its relatively innocuous content) constitutes an implied endorsement (and affiliation) by Derbyshire Intergroup (a breach of the Traditions). Exactly the same may be said with regard to the 1944 sponsorship pamphlet (again no indication that this is conference approved). Most of the views expressed in this document are again relatively uncontroversial (although there are some with which we might take serious issue) but an AA intergroup really has no business carrying reference material which does not form part of the approved corpus of AA literature (and especially where the existing [AA] literature most adequately covers the areas under question). Under the section “What Happens at Meetings” again the content is relatively harmless but there are a number of statements included which seem to express the personal opinions (and preferences) of the author(s) rather than being purely observational. For example the view is expressed that: “We are not a religious organisation but we are spiritual and many of us (even the atheists among us) find this short prayer helpful.” Apart from the fact that this seems to be something of a broad assumption it is questionable how a prayer addressed directly to God could ever be regarded as “helpful” by someone who is a genuine atheist. Praying to something that you have no belief (or faith) in whatsoever would seem to us to be a rather bizarre activity. There is also something distinctly patronising about the qualifying condition ie. “EVEN the atheists....” (our emphasis). The only category of alcoholic in AA is – an alcoholic in AA! That is it! Again, the observation that: “..... we usually stand in a circle, join hands and say ….” is not as far as we're aware an accurate statement. It may be the case in the Derbyshire area but it is not “the norm” elsewhere. Further: “We do not talk or comment when someone is sharing and it is considered bad manners to comment negatively on an earlier share when it is your turn. (We call that "cross-sharing")”. The expression “cross-sharing” is a relatively recent 'fad' (or for those of us who have been around AA “for a little while” at least!) and we have found, on the contrary, a bit of “negative” sharing can be most instructive especially when it's somebody's life on the line! And of course the question arises: who is it precisely that considers it “bad manners” to “cross-share”? The author(s)? Other members? Who exactly are these “spokesmen for AA”? Indeed there is no guideline which may DIRECT how a member may or may not speak and therefore they should not be subjected to any form of censorship (implicit or otherwise) other than that governed by the relevant statutes. It seems quite unnecessary in our view to include such detailed “opinions” on an AA site which should contain only basic information relating to meeting lists, conventions, intergroup business and links to the relevant sections of the main AA website. This is a yet another example of unhelpful “micro management”!

With reference to the “Sobriety Breakfast” (advertised on the site) this is another clear breach of the Traditions (specifically Tradition Seven). Fund raising “events” (and we would include here profits derived from literature sales - an example of AA traditions being broken not only locally but even nationally!), raffles, dances, discos etc all represent “transactions” contributing to a profit. In exchange for the “goods” or “services” provided a specific charge is made (including generally that element of profit) and a contract comes into existence. There is no indication within the Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous that such “contracts” are intended to be created between it, the Fellowship service structure and its members. The point of a “voluntary contribution” indeed is that no such contractual relationship is created. Both parties (if it may be put that way) are mutual donors and both are mutual beneficiaries, the rewards deriving solely from the relationship itself and not from any extrinsic and “superfluous” benefit.

Finally we would certainly be interested to hear whether the intergroup website has carried information about “informal” meetings (associated with a particular religious denomination) since this would be a clear (and extremely serious) breach of the Traditions. The only reference we can find in the minutes to such “informal” meetings relate to those held at the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary (and this seems to be due to some constraints on accessibility).

We would also be interested to hear specifically why the intergroup took the action you indicated with respect to your group(s) and what steps you have taken to remedy the situation, and what (if any) response you have had from the intergroup in this regard.

For our part we will pass on some of the above observations to both GSO York and also to Derbyshire Intergroup. In the meantime we would appreciate it if you would send us the group details (as they appear in the AA online Where to Find) of both your group(s) and also the groups you refer to as belonging to the cult. This will ensure that no confusion may ensue through misidentification. We will then follow up on the matter

Cheers

The Fellas”

We did subsequently contact Derbyshire Intergroup with regard to the above – no response. We also contacted GSO York who kindly acknowledged our communication.

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to the correspondents from Derby for drawing our attention to these issues)

Tradition Seven

Short form:

"Seven—Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions."

Long form:

"7.—The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority."

(our emphases)

Again a pretty straightforward piece of advice. (Firstly it might be useful to know what an AA group is as distinguished from an AA meeting. For some useful (conference approved) insights into this we recommend the following booklet called unsurprisingly enough: The AA Group. Click here (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-16_theaagroup.pdf) for pdf download)). Essentially a self-supporting fellowship ensures its own autonomy, and of course this is consistent with our principle of non-affiliation. Most importantly we are not a “business” nor should we be unduly distracted by such concerns beyond those necessary to ensure that AA remains viable. In practice this means that ONLY AA members are responsible for the financing of our society. Therefore AA meetings at which non-AAs are present (eg. guests) should ensure that these are made aware of this (courteously and discreetly) and should not put any money in the pot. Similarly groups should pay the going rate for whatever accommodation they use for their meetings; they should not allow themselves to be subsidised in any way. So for example those meetings run on hospital premises where there may be no charge should still pay an appropriate market rent to ensure that they abide by this principle. Interestingly this tradition does raise a question with regard to the sale of AA literature to the general public. Effectively any monies derived from this source and subsequently used to subsidise AA mean that we are in fact taking money from “outside agencies”. This problem would be avoided of course if literature was sold simply at cost price with no profits made, the funds derived being used simply to finance the costs associated with production and distribution. The debate about whether AA should be partly financing itself in this fashion has been going on for some time now. Perhaps it is time we achieved this “ideal” and started abiding fully by this principle. Such a step would also avoid the current controversy of literature being bought from sources outside AA (online distributors for example). We should only be financing ourselves from our own members' “voluntary contributions” - AA is not in the book selling “business” - that is not our “primary purpose”.

Finally a “voluntary contribution” means precisely that. Whatever money is given is given ONLY according to the will of the donor including the time, place and amount, all of these specified by them and by them alone. Any AA event which seeks to impose a charge upon the attendees is clearly in breach of this Tradition and in our view ceases any more to be associated with Alcoholics Anonymous. Moreover any attempt to “suggest” an amount as a way of avoiding this guideline is in our view contrary to this principle especially where such “suggestions” are accompanied by any form of coercion or manipulation (It is entirely reasonable though for the treasurer of a group to ensure that its members – and any visitor to the group (in accordance with Tradition 4)– are kept fully informed of the group's financial position). This may have implications for AA conventions etc but the principle is pretty clearly stated. Therefore if AA members wish to organise such events and where these may include the provision of food (beyond the customary tea/coffee and biscuits), entertainment etc - and where there are inevitably costs associated with these - then the two activities should be clearly separated. Access to the AA meeting should be open to all AA members who wish to attend (and without charge) the remainder subject to the usual economic constraints. One is an AA activity, the other is not. Again AA is not in the “business” of running dances, discos, buffets, raffles, bingo and other assorted purely social occasions – these are “outside” issues.

In connection with the above the current “rash” of workshops and cult conventions organised by sundry individuals where a charge is made for attendance are NOT by definition AA events. They should not be promoted at AA meetings and newcomers especially should be made aware that these are NOT AA sponsored events. Moreover the organisers of such events should NOT use the name Alcoholics Anonymous nor use the AA logo and should explicitly (and in large lettering) make it plain to all and in understandable language that they are nothing to do with AA. After that a fool and his money are easily parted......

Cheerio

The Fellas