Online meetings – some concerns

Extracts from: aagrapevine posts ( "I Say forums" "experience with AA online?" page.) http://www.aagrapevine.org/online-sobriety

Re: online meetings

Submitted by anonymous on Sat, 2012-03-24 09:52.

With regard to Traditions Six and Seven, I think it has to be made clear what is and what is not A.A. especially where the transfer of money is involved. According to information on the online intergroup website www.aa-intergroup.org it is a nonprofit corporation registered in New Jersey. I have found no evidence on the GSO website that this nonprofit corporation is part of the AA service structure. However, the online intergroup does imply this on its member’s page: "The Online Intergroup is a service entity established pursuant to Tradition Nine of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) to operate on behalf of the participating online AA groups in accordance with AA's Twelve Traditions and Twelve Concepts." http://www.aa-intergroup.org/members.php The "Tradition Seven" monies collected by the online intergroup obviously go to the New Jersey nonprofit corporation. 

I think there needs to be a greater awareness in the fellowship that private foundations and nonprofit organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service are money making businesses which use their surplus profit to further their mission. History records that when run by alcoholics or drug addicts, these might not always be the legitimate charitable organisations that they appear to be. The leader of one such organization, which became a notorious cult in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s was interviewed by a national magazine in 1976 and quoted as saying: “Our tax-exempt privilege gives us the right, really, to hustle goods and services." Two years later in 1978, he was arrested and the Internal Revenue Service sued for $17 million in back taxes.

I would like to see some clarification from the forum moderators as to whether the online intergroup is, or is not, an official Alcoholics Anonymous corporation. If it is not, then the claims made on its website are a fraudulent misuse of the name Alcoholics Anonymous and AA members are being duped into thinking they are contributing to AA, when in fact they are contributing to an outside enterprise.

I think the future of online A.A. lies in separating the official from the unofficial; the latter being treated as AA members clubs. They must be entirely separately incorporated, giving absolutely no implication that they are A.A. I also think the AA Grapevine forums should not be used as a vehicle for endorsing outside enterprises, something which the AA Grapevine forum moderators could think about for the future, regarding Tradition Six.

Re: online meetings

Submitted by anonymous on Wed, 2012-03-28 09:25.

In addition to the above post I do not think that the New York GSO website ought to be linking to the online intergroup nonprofit corporation website when the Conference approved internet guidelines state: “Due to the lack of a central geographic location, online A.A. meetings are not a direct part of the U.S./Canada service structure.” http://aa.org/lang/en/en_pdfs/mg-18_internet.pdf 

The online intergroup is composed of a number websites and internet forums, some of which publicly solicit funds. Others link to recovery related businesses, or are forums on host sites which contain business adverts. I do not think it is sufficient for the General Service Board of AA World Services to cover itself with the following disclaimer on the link: “We have provided this link to facilitate information about local A.A. activities. Our links do not constitute or indicate review, endorsement, or approval. Thank you for visiting the A.A.W.S. Web site. We appreciate your interest and hope that you have found the information you were seeking.”

By its nature of being at the public level of the internet, and with international links, the online intergroup cannot be described as a local A.A. activity. The fact that there is a link from the GSO website gives the online intergroup website and all the websites linked therein, an affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied, to A.A. Therefore by providing the link the General Service Board of A.A.W.S. is in violation of Tradition Six (Long Form): “While an AA group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied.” 

Relating to Traditions Six and Seven, where the transfer of money is concerned there cannot be the grey area of an organization not being a direct part of the service structure. Either it is part of the AA service structure or it isn’t. Either they are the transfer of AA funds or they are not.

Bill W was clear of the dangers of public solicitations of money on behalf of AA.

“And already there have been a few alarming attempts at the public solicitation of money in the name of Alcoholics Anonymous. Few AAs will fail to imagine where such a course could lead us.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine June 1946, The Language of the Heart page 31)

“Conservative AAs realize that business ventures or solicitations carrying the AA endorsement are truly dangerous to us all. Were this practice to become general, the lid would be off. Promoters, AA and otherwise, would have a field day.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine May 1947, The Language of the Heart page 55) 

Here is one public solicitation from one of the sites listed by the online intergroup non profit corporation website. (Dotted line indicates my removal of a name)

“You may send your contributions to: PO Box …..
You may make your checks payable to:……
…… is our Treasurer and is also a member of the Steering Committee. Any questions you may have regarding contributions can be e-mailed to him at…….. Funds are needed for renting Web server space and the balance of the funds (after prudent reserve) will be sent to GSO and to OIAA (50/50 split).

We would like to remind those wishing to contribute to …….. that AA Tradition (s) states that AA may accept donations only from members.

You may also contribute using PayPal by clicking the Donation button below. You will receive an e-mail confirmation of your contribution. PayPal is a fully secure site that allows contributions in Canadian Dollars, Euros, Pounds Sterling, U.S. Dollars, Yen, and Australian Dollars. You may use PayPal by clicking on the DONATE button below:”

I cannot see that there are the checks and balances of monetary transfers and accountability that exist in the AA Service structure. In the above case payment is being made not to AA but the website name and a private PO Box. Anybody can set up websites or internet forums and then falsify the money accounts. Unless Websites or forums are moderated by an actual intergroup, area committee, General Service Office, AA Grapevine.org or AAWS, which are part of the AA service structure, then I don’t think they can be considered to be A.A. How can accounts which are formulated online be reliably and independently validated and audited without there being any personal contact? 

Bill W was clear about of being mindful of the careful use of the world communications net, for its potential to benefit or destroy A.A. I’m not sure which influence has got the upper hand at the moment. This is a matter which has to be considered with the utmost seriousness and caution. 

AA already has a global internet forum called aagrapevine.org. I think there is further scope for AA to connect globally in unity by providing links to intergroup, Area, and GSO forums around the world on the New York GSO website; and to make these local or regional forums open to non-participant AA observers from around the world. This appears to be the case with the AA (Great Britain) GSO conference discussion forum
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/members/?PageID=256 . This has registered users from the USA, Canada, India, Ethiopia, Philippines, Honduras, Spain, Argentina, Netherlands, Austria, Fiji, Burma, Greece, Iceland , Paraguay, Honduras, Zambia, Yugoslavia, Cameroon, Armenia, Afghanistan, Brazil, Sierra Leone, France, Germany, Hungary, Estonia, Guyana, Panama among other countries. 

"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. (Extract from "Freedom Under God: The Choice Is Ours" AA Grapevine November 1960.The Language of the Heart pp 319-320)”

Comment: We contacted AAWS (International Correspondence) in an attempt to get further elucidation with respect to the Online Intergroup's connection with the service structure. Their reply was as follows:

“Dear Friends,

My name is ….... and I am the staff member on the International assignment here at the A.A. General Service Office for the U.S. and Canada . Thank you so much for being in touch and for your question about the A.A. Online Intergroup.

The A.A. Online Intergroup is listed here in the U.S./Canada, and, as you know, Intergroup and Central Offices are part of A.A. and existed before the development of the Service Structure. It is our experience that central offices and intergroups are the front line of A.A. in most communities, as often the first contact a still-suffering alcoholic makes is with an A.A. member on the phone. Similarly, the A.A. Online Intergroup is a marvelous resource of A.A. meetings worldwide that are conducted via the phone or computer. We also list the A.A. Online Intergroup on our website.

For additional sharing it is important that you contact your own General Service Office in York , at:

General Service Office Of A.A.
P O Box 1
10 Toft Green
York , Great Britain YO1 7NJ , Great Britain
Phone: Main : (44)1904-644026
Site: www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk”

(You will note that the person in question got our names wrong – “Friends”not “Fellas” - but no mind. Our follow up email included the above extracts from the I-Say forum (an AA Grapevine discussion forum). The next response was less friendly and in fact distinctly frosty (including an objection on the part of the correspondent that we had got their name wrong! Something of a side issue given the nature of the subject):

“We take no action on unsigned correspondence. Also, you are to contact your General Service Board, and they will contact ours if they believe it is necessary. I will not be able to respond to the fellas again – also, my name is …..., not …... “

What's called a diversionary tactic in counselling circles! (strange too that AAWS is insisting that people MUST identify themselves IN FULL in order to get a reply from them. Very interesting!). However we managed to discover from other sources that discussions are ongoing as to the precise nature of this “Intergroup”'s position (and accountability) in the service structure – one apparently that has been going on for some years now, and with no sign of any conclusion! We think we can see another AA 'lash up' on the way! More to come on this we're quite sure!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our last communication with AAWS was as follows:

“With reference to previous communications you may take the name John Doe as a signatory”

No reply so far – apparently “John Doe” doesn't count – poor old John!

We also contacted the Online Intergroup itself – again no reply!

PPS By the by: the Online 'Intergroup' lists (among other oddities) a 'special interest' group devoted to BDSM (ie. BonDage and Sado-Masochism for the more innocent among you!), and another which is affiliated to an outside organisation viz. Wally P's “Back to Basics” gang (it has its own foundation and is similarly registered as a “nonprofit corporation” - which does not mean incidentally that someone cannot make a tidy living out of this enterprise!) Of the two we'd opt for the BDSM connection – far less painful!

Ask It Basket

"Ask-It Basket sessions during annual meetings of the General Service Conference are opportunities for sharing. The answers here do not constitute Conference action, but give a kind of perspective of A.A. opinion over the years. It will be noted that similar questions are asked year after year but the answers may differ from one Conference to another."

Below is a selection (the originals may be downloaded here (1951-1978) and here (1979-1985)) covering (among other things) “hand holding”, drug addicts, bible study and whether the Big Book itself has ever been conference approved? (Yes it has. In 1951. That puts that one to bed!). Some of the answers are more revealing than they were intended to be!

Q: The practice of hand-holding is now widespread and is affecting A.A. as a whole. Does this help us to carry the message better? Is the practice coercive?

A: No one in A.A. is coerced into doing anything, and we should accept it as members' personal choices if they do not wish to hold hands. (It was noted that the group conscience of one group felt the practice did not help to carry the message, so it was discontinued.)

Q: Can we have some sharing on the practice of some members who sell merchandise such as T-shirts and religious music tapes and advertise films other than those distributed by G.S.O. At roundups and state conventions? Are these functions A.A.? Or, like treatment facilities, are they not bound by our Traditions?

A: It was the sense of the meeting that this practice is against the Traditions and that we should not "peddle"anything but the A.A. message. However, it was also pointed out that we have no control over what an individual can do from his hotel room or outside of the meeting facility.

Q: Should a Bible study group of A.A. members be listed as an A.A. group or meeting?

A: No.

Q: We have a Sunday-morning A.A. Bible Study Group. Other than pointing out the Traditions and what constitutes an A.A. meeting, should we pursue it?

A: It was suggested that even though we are a spiritual program, it would not be a good thing to call this group an A.A. group.

Q: Is it true that Bill W. was not a voting member of the Conference but was always present, and that nobody had the courage to tell him he was not a voting member?

A: Bill didn't have to vote--he only had to get up and speak!

Q: Is there some tradition that dictates that we always have the General Service Conference at the Roosevelt Hotel? Wouldn't a suburban hotel, such as the Westchester Marriott in Tarrytown, be cheaper and more comfortable? Also, how about eliminating the meals in the hotel that are not essential to the agenda of the moment?

A: Several years ago, the suggestion was made to hold the Conference in a suburban hotel or convention center, but the Conference was overwhelmingly negative on this idea. Many members who come to the Conference look forward to coming to New York City, and, as a result, the matter was dropped. However, if there is a strong movement in that direction, the Conference can do whatever it wishes.

Q: Edwin [sic] Kurtz was given permission to use the archives in writing a history of A.A. for his doctoral thesis in history. This turned out to be a book entitled "Not God," published by Hatelden [sic]. Was it known at the time permission was granted that a book would be written and published? If not, would that have affected granting his use of the archives?

A: At the time he came to G.S.O. and expressed his interest, we did not know his work was going to be published. If he had said he wanted to write a book, he would have been given permission, because that is the purpose of the archives. Kurtz was the first person to use the archives for research purposes. Our Archives Department is open to anyone.

Q: What relationship does the International Advisory Council of Young People in A.A. have to the service structure of A.A. or to G.S.O.?

A: This council has no relation to the service structure, as such. It is an A.A. entity, however, in the sense that it is made up of A.A. members who share A.A. experience, is self-supporting, and has no outside affiliation.

Q: We have a few groups that hang up pictures of our co-founders in the meeting rooms, and one member asked if that was contrary to the Tradition of "principles before personalities." I would like to know if there are other such experiences. What if they also hang up pictures of members who are still alive?

A: It has long been a custom to hang pictures of our co-founders. However, the group conscience should prevail with regard to hanging any portraits.

Q: In the past when you went to an A.A. meeting. Vulgar language was not allowed. Now, when people come from treatment, vulgar language seems the common thing. Is this the “new way”, and how should it be corrected?

A: Experience seems to indicate that this problem eventually solves itself as new members grow in the program. It was pointed out that alcoholics should be allowed to say anything necessary to express themselves.

Q: What is the opinion of the delegates regarding an A.A. Member's having membership and/or voting rights in more than one group?

A: While some delegates felt it okay to belong to more than one group, most felt that members should vote in their home group only, in keeping with the concept of one voice-one vote.

Q: How do you deal with people addicted to drugs other than alcohol who use up meeting time?

A:Traditionally, we discuss our problems with alcohol at our meetings. If some wish to share about other problems, it is suggested that they share with their sponsors, or with others after the meeting.

Q: Many long time A.A. members are made uncomfortable by, or are even totally opposed to, the rapidly growing custom of hand-holding during the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the conclusion of meetings. As so many of those popularizing this custom are "A.A. members at large," individual group conscience docs not seem to be the course to take in resolving this developing problem. Any suggestions?

A: Those who would like to hold hands do,and those who don't, just don't. It is kind of ritualistic.

Q: Has any Conference ever approved the Big Book?

A: Yes, it was approved in 1951.

Q: Would it be wrong for a golf league, a bowling team, or a band to identify themselves as A. A. members, using the A.A. symbol?

A: A majority of those present indicated by a show of hands that this practice would-be wrong and in violation of Tradition Eleven.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the member who sent in these sources

AA Minority report 2012 (continued)(11)

“It can be understood that whenever trusted servants exercise their “right of decision” (Concept III) to refuse A.A. registration to alcoholics gathered together as a group with another purpose or affiliation; this cannot accurately be called punitive or governing, but a responsible, informative and assertive statement of Traditions One, Two and warranties 5 and 6. It follows that if a “such a dual purpose group should not insist that it be called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958. Language of the Heart pages 222-225), then there is no compulsion in Tradition One for to any part of A.A. to register it as one. – It can be seen that if, at any time a compulsion were to be imposed on a trusted servant’s “right of decision” then this would violate the principle in Tradition One and Concept III, thus making Traditions and warranties of Conference invalid.

“No AA can compel another to do anything”. (Tradition One , Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 133)

“We ought to trust our world servants with these discretions, because otherwise no effective leadership can be possible. Let us consider in detail, therefore, why the need for a ‘right of decision’ in our leadership is imperative, and let us examine how this principle can be applied practically in all levels of our structure of world service” (Concept III)

“Therefore some traditional and practical principle has to be devised which at all levels will continuously balance the right relation between ultimate authority and delegated responsibility.” How, then are we to accomplish this? …… The right A.A. solution has been found, however, in the latter part of Tradition Two, which provides for “trusted servants.” This really means that we ought to trust our responsible leaders to decide, within the understood framework of their duties, how they will interpret and apply their own authority and responsibility to each particular problem or situation as it arises.” (Concept III)

It can be understood that whenever trusted servants exercise their “right of decision” to refuse A.A. registration to alcoholics who as a group, do have another purpose or affiliation; then this cannot accurately be called expulsion from A.A. membership. This is because if as a group, they have another purpose or affiliation, then according to Tradition and the provision in Warranty 6, they have expelled themselves from any right to call their group an A.A. group, as stated by Bill W:

“But obviously, such a dual purpose group should not insist that it be called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958. Language of the Heart pages 222-225).

“Finally, any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6).

The trusted servant’s “right of decision” to refuse A.A. registration to a group, does not expel any individual alcoholics within the group from A.A. membership since A.A. registration is only applicable to alcoholics gathered together as a group. It can be understood in Tradition Three, that individual alcoholics are unconditionally entitled to be members of any A.A. group and as well, indulge in any ex-curricula group activities they wish to. – ice hockey, football, religious sects and denominations, atheist societies, arts and crafts, whale watching, the study of coercive techniques, flower arranging, leatherback turtle conservation, bullying techniques, paint ball, hang gliding, knitting, cult psychology, ballet dancing, members' social clubs, horse riding, alcohol free dances and social events, rock climbing, - the list is endless. However, if an A.A. group with such dual purpose were to hit the headlines with news of A.A. newcomers being trampled by horses or swallowed by whales; or if the neighbouring A.A. groups were disturbed by the need for them to give first aid to newcomers showing up at their meetings traumatised by hoof shaped head injuries; then it can be seen in A.A. Tradition, since each group is part of the whole, the principles of Traditions One and Two take precedence over the dual purpose group’s autonomy. The trusted servants and elder statesmen within the intergroup are therefore responsible to apply the “specific application” of Tradition Four. The trusted servant’s “right of decision” to refuse A.A. registration to a group cannot accurately be called an act of government or punishment because the group and its individual A.A. members are not, in any way whatsoever, being coerced or commanded to stop any other purpose or affiliation, nor are punitive sanctions being applied. Instead, the trusted servants, being “happy joyous and free” under Tradition One, are glad to extend a “cheerful invitation” to “those who wish to secede from A.A.” as stated in warranty five:

“If individual A.A.s wish to gather together for retreats, Communion breakfasts, or indeed any undertaking at all, we still say ‘Fine. Only we hope you won’t designate your efforts as an A.A. group or enterprise’….. To all who wish to secede from A.A. we extend a cheerful invitation to do just that. If they can do better by other means, we are glad.” (Concept 12, warranty five)

If on the other hand a dual purpose group’s dictators do not wish to secede, it can be understood that a trusted servant’s “right of decision” to refuse them A.A. Registration as a group, relates purely to a protective action against misuse of the A.A. name. It has nothing to do with individual’s membership, or restricting A.A. member’s liberty as individuals or as a group, - It can be seen in Warranty five; their liberty is not restricted in any way, whatsoever:

“If individual A.A.s wish to gather together for retreats, Communion breakfasts, or indeed any undertaking at all, we still say ‘Fine. Only we hope you won’t designate your efforts as an A.A. group or enterprise.” (Concept 12, warranty five).

They may wish continue to misuse the A.A. name by calling themselves an A.A. group, but they may not insist others call them an A.A. group. Nor may they insist that an intergroup does not apply the “specific application” of Tradition Four and warranties 5 and 6; nor may they compel trusted servants not use their “right of decision”:

“No AA can compel another to do anything.” (Tradition One, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 133)

“Finally, any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6)

“Whenever and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also; especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous."

(Concept 12, warranty five).

Herein lays the key to the paradox in A.A. Traditions One and Two, and how the ultimate authority in Tradition Two is applied without coercion, command or governance, through the liberty afforded to the individual in Tradition One; and “must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure of service.” (Concept II).

It can be seen that the trusted servant’s “right of decision” to refuse A.A. Registration to a group only the removes the A.A. name from other purposes or affiliations. It does not affect individual liberty or A.A. Membership whatsoever, in any other way. It can be seen that A.A. group service leaders are free to lead their group to any activity they choose, for example, the recreations of tennis, white water rafting, coercive book study, bungee jumping, no-one would attempt to stop them; but if these group leaders are irresponsible to lend the A.A. name to such another purpose or affiliation, lets say, bungee jumping; then the implicit nature of “but one ultimate authority” within the service structure trusts the responsibility of not lending the A.A. name to the delegated authority of whoever is responsible for registering the group:

“We cannot lend the AA name, even indirectly, to other activities, however worthy. If we do so we shall become hopelessly compromised and divided. We think that AA should offer its experience to the whole world for whatever use can be made of it. But not its name. Nothing can be more certain." (Bill W. Tradition Three, AA Grapevine 1948, Language of the Heart page 79-80)

It can be understood a trusted servant’s “right of decision” to refuse A.A. Registration to a group with another purpose or affiliation is responsibly assertive of the following:

Tradition One: “Our common welfare should come first,”

Tradition Two: “There is but one ultimate authority,”

Concept II: “Hence the principle of amply delegated authority and responsibility to “trusted servants” must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two….”

Concept X: “…All of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the “group conscience” as the ultimate authority and the “trusted servant” as the delegated authority. One cannot function without the other..”

Concept IX: “Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them, are at all levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety.”

Such action is assertive of the “specific application” of Tradition Four, as stated by Bill W:

“Tradition Four is a specific application of general principles already outlined in Traditions One and Two. Tradition One states: “Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole…….. Hence our common welfare comes first………….there is but one ultimate authority…” (Bill W, Tradition Four, Grapevine March 1948. Language of the Heart page 80).

This “right of decision” also ensures the integrity of AA Traditions and Warranties of Conference:

“Finally, any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6).

It can be understood that assertive behaviour to ensure the integrity of A.A. Traditions and warranties of Conference and to protect the A.A. name, cannot accurately be claimed to be punitive or governing. And it can be understood that if the “right of decision” granted to a trusted servant to refuse A.A. registration to alcoholics who as a group have another purpose or affiliation were to be removed by obligation, then the principles of Traditions One, Two and warranties 5 and 6 would be rendered invalid.”

Comment: The above distinguishes between AA membership (which is irrevocable, and refers to the individual's relationship with the fellowship), and group participation within the service structure (which is conditional, and relies not only upon the group's own conscience ie. its autonomy, but also the collective conscience of the wider fellowship (on the grounds cited above)). To put it simply: where a group fails repeatedly to respect the guiding principles of AA to such an extent that it PLACES ITSELF outside the service structure, and moreover refuses thereafter to amend its conduct, then it is the RESPONSBILITY and DUTY of the fellowship (according to its collective conscience and exercised through its trusted servants) to remove the AA name from that group (or groups) and therefore its continued participation (as a group) within that service structure. The basis for this action is made explicitly clear in both the concepts and the traditions (see above); this constitutes the difference between active leadership and passive collusion.

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Henrietta Seiberling on A.A.'s beginnings

Henrietta Seiberling on A.A.'s beginnings, supplied by Cong. John Seiberling

“Congressman John Seiberling wrote:

In the spring of 1971, the newspapers reported the passing of Bill Wilson of New York City, who as one of the two co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. The other co-founder, Dr. Robert Smith of Akron, Ohio, has passed on some years earlier.

Shortly after Bill’s death, the Akron Alcoholics groups asked my mother Henrietta S. Seiberling, to speak at the annual “Founders Day” meeting in Akron, which is attended by members of Alcoholics Anonymous from all over the world. She lives in New York and did not feel up to traveling, so they asked me to speak in her place.

I agreed to speak but felt that it would mean most to them to hear some of her own words, so I called her on the telephone and asked her to tell me about the origins of Alcoholics Anonymous so that I could make sure my remarks were accurate. I made a tape recording of the conversation and played part of it at the 1971 Founders Day meeting, which was held in the gymnasium at the University of Akron with a couple of thousand people present.

So many people have asked for a transcript of the recording that I have finally had one typed. Attached is a copy of the transcript, which follows the tape recording as closely as possible, with only my own remarks and some of the conversational asides and redundancies edited out.

The first meeting of Bob and Bill, described in the attached transcript, took place in the summer of 1935 in Henrietta’s house in Akron, which was the Gatehouse of Stan Hywet Hall, then my family’s estate, now the property of Stan Hywet Hall Foundation.

Henrietta was not an alcoholic. She was a Vasser college graduate and a housewife with three teenage children. She, like Bob and Bill, would be deeply disturbed by any inference that she or they possessed any extraordinary virtues or talents. On the contrary, they would all emphasize the power of ordinary people to change their lives and the lives of others through the kind of spiritual discipline so successfully exemplified in Alcoholics Anonymous.

I am happy to make this transcript available to persons who are sincerely interested in learning more about Alcoholics Anonymous and its message. It is a way of sharing some of the insight’s which made and still make Alcoholics Anonymous a vital force in people’s lives. I ask only that the transcript be held in the spirit in which it is offered and not used for publicity or in an effort to magnify any individual.

John F. Seiberling

Transcript Of Remarks

Henrietta B. Seiberling:

I would like to tell about Bob in the beginning. Bob and Ann came into the Oxford group, which, as you know, was the movement which tried to recapture the power of first Century Christianity in the modern world, and a quality of life which we must always exercise. Someone spoke to me about Bob Smith’s drinking. He didn’t think that people knew it. And I decided that the people who shared in the Oxford group had never shared very costly things to make Bob lose his pride and share what he thought would cost him a great deal. So I decided to gather together some Oxford Group people for a meeting, and that was in T. Henry Williams’ house. We met afterwards there for five or six years every Wednesday night.

I warned Ann that I was going to have this meeting. I didn’t tell her it was for Bob, but I said, “Come prepared to mean business. There is going to be no pussyfooting around. And we all shared very deeply our shortcomings, and what we had victory over, and then there was silence, and I waited and thought, “Will Bob say something?” Sure enough, in that deep, serious tone of his, he said, “Well, you good people have all shared things that I am sure were very costly to you, and I am going to tell you something which may cost me my profession. I am a silent drinker, and I can't stop.” This was weeks before Bill came to Akron. So we said, “Do you want to go down on your knees and pray?” And he said, “Yes.” So we did.

And the next morning, I, who knew nothing about alcoholism (I thought a person should drink like a gentleman, and that's all), was saying a prayer for Bob. I said, “God, I don't know anything about drinking, but I told Bob that I was sure that he lived this way of life, he could quit drinking. Now you have to help me.” Something said to me – I call it “guidance” – it was like a voice in the top of my head – “Bob must not touch one drop of alcohol.” I knew that wasn't my thought. So I called Bob, and said I had guidance for him – and this is very important.

He came over at 10 in the morning, and I told him that my guidance was that he mustn't touch one drop of alcohol. He was very disappointed, because he thought guidance would mean seeing somebody or going someplace. And then – this is something very relevant – he said, “Henrietta, I don't understand it. Nobody understands it.” Now that was the state of the world when we were beginning. He said, some doctor had written a book about it, but he doesn't understand it. I don't like the stuff. I don’t want to drink. I said, “Well, Bob, that is what I have been guided about.” And that was the beginning of our meetings, long before Bill ever came.

Now let me recall some of Bills very words about his experience. Bill, when he was in a hotel in Akron and down to a few dollars and owed his bill after his business venture fell through, looked at the cocktail room and was tempted and thought, “Well, I’ll just go in there and get drunk and forget it all, and that will be the end of it.” Instead, having been sober five months in the Oxford Group, he said a prayer. He got the guidance to look in a ministers directory, and a strange thing happened.

He just looked in there, and he put his finger on one name: Tunks. And that was no coincidence, because Dr. Tunks was Mr. Harvey Firestone’s minister, and Mr. Firestone had brought 60 of the Oxford Group people down there for 10 days out of gratitude for helping his son, who drank too much. His son had quit for a year and a half or so. Out of the act of gratitude of this one father, this whole chain started.

So Bill called Dr. Tunks, and Dr. Tunks gave him a list of names. One of them was Norman Sheppard, who was a close friend of mine and knew what I was trying to do for Bob. Norman said, “I have to go to New York tonight but you can call Henrietta Seiberling, “When he told the story, Bill shortened it by just saying that he called Dr. Tunks, but I did not know Dr. Tunks. Bill said that he had his last nickel, and he thought, “Well, I’ll call her.”

So I, who was desperate to help bob in something I didn’t know much about, was ready. Bill called, and I will never forget what he said: “I’m from the Oxford Group and I’m a Rum Hound.” Those were his words. I thought, “This is really manna from Heaven.” And I said, “You come right out here.” And my thought was to put those two men together. Bill, looking back, thought he was out to help someone else. Actually, he was out to get help for himself, no thought of helping anyone else, because he was desperate. But that is the way that God helps us if we let God direct our lives. And so he came out to my house, and he stayed for dinner. And I told him to come to church with me next morning and I would get Bob, which I did.

Bill stayed in Akron. He didn’t have nay money. There was a neighbor of mine, John Gammeter, who had seen the change in my life brought by the Oxford Group, and I called him and asked him to put Bill up at the country club for two weeks or so, just to keep him in town. After that, Bill went to stay with Bob and Ann for three months, and we started working on Bill Dotson and Ernie Galbraith.

The need was there, and all of the necessary elements were furnished by God. Bill the promoter, and I, not being an alcoholic, for perspective. Every Wednesday night I would speak on some new experience or spiritual idea I had read. That’s the way we all grew. Eventually the meetings moved to King School. Some man from Hollywood came, an actor, and he said that he had been all over the country and that there was something in the King School group that wasn’t in any other group. I think it was our great stress and reliance on guidance and quiet times.

Bill did a grand job. We can all see in his life what the Oxford Group people had told us in their message: that if we turn our lives to God and let him run it, he will take our shortcomings and make them valuable in His way and give us our hearts desire. And when I got the word that Bill had gone on, I sat there, and it was just as if someone had spoken to me again on top of my head. Something said to me, “Verily, verily, he as received his reward.” So I went to the Bible, and there it was, in Matthew VI. Then I looked at Bill’s story in Alcoholics Anonymous where Bill had said that all his failures were because he always wanted people to think he was somebody.

In the first edition of the book, he said he always wanted to make his mark among people. And by letting God run his life, God took his ego and gave him his hearts desire in God's way. And when he was gone, he was on the front page of the New York Times, famous all over the world. So it does verify what the Oxford Group people had told him.

Father Dowling, a Jesuit Priest, had first met our group in the early days in Chicago, and he came to Akron to see us. And then he went on to New York to see the others. And he said to one of our men, “This is one of the most beautiful things that has come into the world. But I want to warn you that the devil will try to destroy it.” Of course, it’s true, and one of the first things that the devil could have used was having money, and having sanitariums' as the men were planning. Much to Bob’s and Bill’s and Ann’s surprise, I said, “ No, we’ll never take any money.”

Another way where I saw that the devil could try to destroy us was having prominent names. The other night I heard on TV special about alcoholics, a man explaining why they are anonymous. And he showed that he didn’t really know why. He just said that it wouldn’t do to let people know that you were an alcoholic. That’s not the reason. In fact, the surest way to stay sober is to let people know that you are an alcoholic because then you have lost something of yourself.

I would say that the second way that I saw that the devil would be trying to destroy us was to have any names. Those who think that they are prominent or that they have become leaders, all fail people because no one is on top spiritually all the time. So I said, “We’ll never have any names.”

I feel that the whole wonderful experience of Alcoholics Anonymous came in answer to a growing great need in the world, and this was met by the combination of Bill, who was a catalyst and promoter, and Bob, with his great humility (if you spoke to him about his contribution, he’d say, “Oh, I just work here.) and Ann, who supplied a homeyness for our men in the beginning.

And I tried to give to the people something of my experience and faith. What I was most concerned with is that we always go back to faith. This brings me to the third thing that would be destructive to the early days, Bob and Bill said to me. “Henrietta, I don’t think we should talk too much about religion or God.” I said to them, “Well, we’re not out to please the alcoholics. They have been pleasing themselves all these years. We are out to please God. And if you don’t talk about what God does, and your faith, and your guidance, then you might as well be the Rotary Club or something like that. Because God is your only source of power.” And finally they agreed. And they weren’t afraid any more. It is my great hope that they will never be afraid to acknowledge God and what he has done for them.

The last A.A. dinner that I went to, over 3,000 people were there. And it was the first meeting that I went to which I was disappointed in. There were two witnesses there, a man and a woman, and you would have thought they were giving you a description of a psychiatrist’s work on them. Their progress was always on the level of psychology. And I spoke to Bill afterwards and I said that there was no spirituality there or talk of what God had done in their lives. There were giving views, not news of that God had done. And Bill said, “I know, but they think there were so many people that need this and they don’t want to send them away.” So there again has come up this same old bugaboo – without the realization that they have lost their source of power.

This makes me think of the story of the little Scotch minister who was about to preach his first sermon, and his mother hugged him and said, “Now, Bobbie, don’t forgot to say a word for Jesus. Your mother always wants a word for God."

And then there is one other thought I‘d always like to stress, and that is the real fact of God’s guidance. People can always count on guidance, although it seems elusive at times.

Congressman John Seiberling placed this in the Congressional Record on September 11, 1973”

(our emphases)

Comment: An account of some of the events leading up to the first meeting between Dr Bob and Bill Wilson.

From the above it is noteworthy that both Dr Bob and Bill had already arrived at the same conclusion - that too much emphasis on God and religion would not work with alcoholics. It was only on Sieberling's insistence (dogma driven) that they conceded the point. But already the seeds of AA's separation from the Oxford Group were sown. Religious dogma (or for that matter any sort of dogma) was – and is - not going to work with alcoholics. There may be an initial compliance (as illustrated above) but finally intuition will win out.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

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?"

Extract

"I assume that the previous responder refers to the AA Minority Report 2012 (which can be accessed by putting the phrase into any search engine) submitted for consideration by the AA conference. My understanding is that it was co-authored by a number of AA members (their names included in the submission but their anonymity respected under the guidelines and traditions relating to such publications) and not by a single individual. I have read the original report and see no evidence that the authors are branding anyone a “cultist”, “extremist” or “who are 'damaging AA and violating the traditions'” simply on the above stated grounds (which would indeed render the entire enterprise quite ludicrous). In fact the whole emphasis of the study is to draw our attention back to what I would term 'authentic' AA sources, and to remind us of the importance not only of learning from past experience (and moreover the principles so derived) but also their application to contemporary problems These principles evolved through a process of trial and error and there is absolutely no requirement for us to repeat those mistakes, especially when we have clear guidance to the contrary. It also recalls to us our obligation to act (according to those same principles) where individuals or groups behave in such a way as to cause harm to those we are supposed to be assisting and thereby bring AA into disrepute.

With reference to the basis upon which a minority report may be submitted AA members need look no further than Concept V:

“Concept V

Throughout our service structure, a traditional “Right of Appeal” ought to prevail, thus assuring us that minority opinion will be heard and that petitions for the redress of personal grievances will be carefully considered.”

From this it can be seen that it is not merely at conference level that such views should be taken into account but “throughout our service structure”. (Incidentally it is interesting to note that “personal grievances” also fall under this category. This might suggest a basis for establishing a formal complaints procedure within AA – at every level of the service structure – where members can have such grievances both heard and redressed. At the moment no such mechanism exist).

As for the conduct of conference delegates I would expect it to be based on the guiding principles of AA (according to the consensus established and reflected in our conference approved literature): their duty thereafter is to defend and uphold them.

With regard to the purpose of an AA group this is stated clearly in the Preamble (which in my view should be read out in its existing form at the start of every AA meeting if only to ensure that those new to our fellowship are clear about our objective). The vast majority of the meetings I have attended in the last 25 years have conformed entirely to these injunctions (the exceptions being those which form the subject matter of the AA Minority report). (I've lost count incidentally of the number of times I've heard that “old chestnut pulled out of the fire” by some of AA's detractors ie. “all they do is talk about drink”, a 'defence' deployed invariably as a deflection from facing the real problem. It's so much easier to blame others than take responsibility for your own life isn't it?). Fortunately in AA we have no censor to dictate how members should share nor what they should share about but are guided rather by the example (not merely 'words') of those more experienced within the fellowship. This form of leadership displays far more integrity and conviction than any set of 'rules' laid down by a (usually) arbitrary authority ie. a “human power”.

The reference to the phrase in the basic text of our society ie. Alcoholics Anonymous is incomplete ie. 'precisely how we recovered'. In this case the context is as important as the quote. In full it is as follows: “To show other alcoholics precisely how we have recovered is the main purpose of this book” (p. xiii. Foreword to First Edition). Here there is no suggestion that this is to be taken as anything other than a demonstration of the efficacy of “a” program of recovery on the part of the authors specifically. It cannot be inferred from this that they are claiming that there are no other means of recovering from alcoholism nor that this method will 'necessarily' work for everybody. Indeed this is made explicit within the text itself (anyone sufficiently familiar with the book will know what I refer to. If you don't then now is your chance to find out!). But to cite an example from Chapter 5, How It Works: “Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program......” No claim is made here either explicitly or implicitly that there is no other method of recovery. They are simply arguing that lack of commitment is the central problem. Indeed it is no more than intuitive to recognise that an individual who applies himself half-heartedly to anything reduces his chance of success by comparison with someone who commits completely.

Finally in answer to the question (I assume rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway) “Who're we trying to attract?” again I refer to the aforementioned preamble of AA ie. those who have “a desire to stop drinking”. As to whether they are “real alcoholics” or not is again fortunately none of my (or anybody else's) business. That is for each individual to decide. An untidy state of affairs perhaps but then life frequently is!"

Join the debate at: http://www.aa-conference.org.uk/conforum/index.php

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

April Fools Day quiz

1. The “Venerable C” will not sponsor men with beards because:

a) he's pogonophobic (has a fear of beards)

b) he's envious. He can't grow one himself

c) he thinks men who grow beards have something to hide

2. Newcomers MUST stay out of of saunas because:

a) newcomers should stay out of ALL WET PLACES

b) they'll get athletes foot

c) they might meet naughty homosexuals who will do unspeakable things to them

3. You should not smoke cigarettes because:

a) it causes cancer

b) it makes your clothes smell nasty

c) you're not sober – you're SMOKING your drink!

4. A sponsor who diagnosed his sponsee as suffering from self-pity and not depression was qualified as:

a) a psychiatrist

b) a therapist

c) a plumber

5. A certain well known cult leader was asked why he had rung up a newcomer. He replied:

a) I wanted to extend the hand of friendship

b) I wanted to see how he was

c) because my sponsor told me to

6. When is it OK for an AA member to DEMAND a lift from another member?

a) they're having a panic attack and desperately need help

b) they're having a heart attack and need to get to a hospital – fast

c) they're your sponsor – and they say so!

7. When it is NOT OK (and even physically dangerous) to call another member an “ego-maniac”?

a) if it's not true

b) if they are - but they're working on it

c) if they are - but they're also (three guesses?).... your SPONSOR

8. What should a sponsor do if their sponsee has a relapse?

a) be there when (and if) their sponsee wants help

b) remind themselves that there BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD......

c) sack the sponsee because it makes them (the sponsor) look bad

9. When is it not OK to mention the word “suicide”?

a) in front of the bereaved relatives

b) when there's a Roman Catholic priest around

c) when Happy Dennis is around

10. When is it mandatory for everyone to hold hands and “jump for joy” in an AA meeting?

a) you've just won a roll-over on the lottery and you want to celebrate

b) you've just got rid of your (cult) sponsor

c) you're attending THAT meeting in Ealing

11. What did a well known cult leader (and “trusted servant” in West Kent intergroup) do when he was exposed as lying to that intergroup?

a) own up, make amends and resign

b) own up and resign

c) shriek loudly and walk out of the meeting

12: When is it OK NOT to be “happy, joyous and free”?

a) when your dog has just died

b) when you've woken up to the fact that you're just human after all

c) when your sponsor's not around

Yep – we managed to put together TWELVE questions. There were more but they were so bizarre that we couldn't possibly put them here – and you wouldn't believe them anyway!

And the answers! Well you probably worked out our system. If you answered c) for the first eleven you were spot on!

1c: Clancy won't sponsor men with beards because they've got something to hide! (but no one knows what yet! Crafty buggers!)

2c: David C's latest edict – stay out of saunas! You don't know what you might pick up!

3c: A gem from the cult meeting Tankerton (East Kent). We're not sure if this applies to “wacky baccy” - probably!

4c: Gavin the plumber (Strood cult meeting – West Kent) – and part time mental health specialist - made this diagnosis of a newcomer. Subsequently proven wrong we might add!

5c: David C “The Icon” made this admission to the newcomer himself! What must they have thought! It's nice to know your welcome is so sincere!

6c: Billy “the Kid” (a mean hombre from Hampton Wick, Friday/Richmond (Ormond Rd), Tuesday DEMANDED he be given by a lift by a sponsee – end of!

7c: Billy “the Kid” - again! Likes to get up close and personal! We told you he was one mean hombre! (not sure which part of the AA message includes fisticuffs?)

8c: Anonymous (but from West Kent). Remember! In the cult image is all!

9c: Happy Dennis (Ealing) gets 'unhappy' if we use this word because: “we don't use that word …... we're happy!”

10c: Ealing again – at the end of the meeting everyone gets in a circle, holds hands, and jumps in the air because they're so …... HAPPY! (Honest! No word of a lie!)

11c: Mark M – cult leader Strood Thursday (West Kent) when trying to pull a fast one at West Kent Intergroup

12: This was a trick question – all three were the correct answer!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)