23/10/07
In the not so distant past an interesting event occurred at our Conference. A procedural matter had come up, had been properly discussed and a decision taken to adopt a common sense attitude to the matter in hand. The substance of this discussion is of little importance suffice it to say that it was not to the liking of our friends in the “Road to Recovery” group in Plymouth. Two conference delegates both hailing from the south west and both from that very same group (Jon F and another) so took exception to the temerity of the Conference in making a decision contrary to their wishes that they decided to make their displeasure known to the General Secretary. In line with their interpretation of the Concepts (that the minority voice should be heard - and obeyed) they approached the lady in question to convey their disapproval. So eager were they to emphasise to the lady where she and the rest of the conference were so clearly wrong (and – it goes without saying – that they were right) that their manner can only be described as belligerent and intimidating. So violent was their behaviour that another member was obliged to intervene to prevent what might have developed into a physical attack. The General Secretary, according to accounts that we have received, was so visibly shaken by the incident that the matter was subsequently discussed by the conference. One of the two delegates in question was coming to the end of his stint and therefore it was decided that his departure would solve that part of the problem. However the other still had some time to go. He was informed in no uncertain terms that it was a widely held view that he should be removed from the conference forthwith and it was only the generosity of the General Secretary that prevented this. It was however conveyed to him that he had had a narrow escape and that no further behaviour of this nature would be tolerated.
Their true colours revealed.
In the not so distant past an interesting event occurred at our Conference. A procedural matter had come up, had been properly discussed and a decision taken to adopt a common sense attitude to the matter in hand. The substance of this discussion is of little importance suffice it to say that it was not to the liking of our friends in the “Road to Recovery” group in Plymouth. Two conference delegates both hailing from the south west and both from that very same group (Jon F and another) so took exception to the temerity of the Conference in making a decision contrary to their wishes that they decided to make their displeasure known to the General Secretary. In line with their interpretation of the Concepts (that the minority voice should be heard - and obeyed) they approached the lady in question to convey their disapproval. So eager were they to emphasise to the lady where she and the rest of the conference were so clearly wrong (and – it goes without saying – that they were right) that their manner can only be described as belligerent and intimidating. So violent was their behaviour that another member was obliged to intervene to prevent what might have developed into a physical attack. The General Secretary, according to accounts that we have received, was so visibly shaken by the incident that the matter was subsequently discussed by the conference. One of the two delegates in question was coming to the end of his stint and therefore it was decided that his departure would solve that part of the problem. However the other still had some time to go. He was informed in no uncertain terms that it was a widely held view that he should be removed from the conference forthwith and it was only the generosity of the General Secretary that prevented this. It was however conveyed to him that he had had a narrow escape and that no further behaviour of this nature would be tolerated.
Their true colours revealed.
24/10/07
Update to "An Incident at Conference"
Our thanks to the member who sent in the following information in relation to above article. We quote it in full:
"RE: Your article: An incident at Conference This matter was raised at the Regional Assembly after the Post-conference assembly. The Assembly was told the General secretary was happy to drop the matter but the chair told us while we should respect the wishes of the Secretary this was a serious matter that had implications for the whole Region. Two eyewitness accounts were given, one from the Region board member and another from a Bournemouth delegate. They were both agreed that the secretary was badly shaken after these two well built males "ran towards her and started shouting at her" we were told she went outside after where she was consoled by the board member, he said "she was crying and could not light her cigarette because she was shaking so badly. The remaining Delegate John F was asked to give his account of the event where he kept trying to blame the secretary for "her mistake" insisting that he was just trying to correct the procedure, which was wrong. Everybody was getting annoyed with John F because he refuted his behaviour was "tantamount to bullying" and claimed that it was only "aggressive questioning". The assembly did their best to get John F to accept his (and Alexis K's) behaviour was bullying and therefore wrong, but when he was pushed for to make a statement about "his own behaviour" there was a complete lack of any humility or culpability. All he would say was "What happened was regrettable but if the same circumstances were arise again I would do the same thing again" This was met with a call for John F's de-selection as a delegate. At that time there were eight members of the Plymouth road to recovery group and seventeen other region officers with voting rights at the S.W. Region in attendance. All of the Roadies predictably voted against his de-selection, and two other members abstained. So although all the other regional members voted to deselect him (which actually means no-one from outside his group voted to keep him as a delegate), the vote failed to achieve a two thirds majority by one vote and he was able to retain his position as a delegate for another year."
Editors comment:
So there you have it – a warning to us all of the dangers of failing to act to stop these individuals gaining positions in significant numbers at group, intergroup and regional levels. And the questions are: Do we really need or want to have thugs and bullies such as these in positions of responsibility in AA? Is it acceptable for our fellowship to condone such behaviour by continuing to ignore it? This type of conduct is displayed consistently by cult members whenever their demands are not met. Time and time again where they have been thwarted their response has always been the same: childish outbursts of petulance, bullying and generally behaviour that one would normally associate with an ill-disciplined child. It is a reminder that these immature personalities, these dry drunks, maintain the outward appearance of sobriety, masquerade behind the forms of AA and yet remain utterly clueless when it comes to its heart and soul. These control freaks and bleeding deacons are increasingly becoming an all to common feature of the AA landscape. Their condition is fully diagnosed in the Big Book and its remedy outlined in detail. The responsibility for dealing with this disease within our Fellowship is not the responsibility of Conference, nor the regions or intergroups; they are literally powerless to effect any significant change. It lies with the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. The buck stops with the AA members and the AA groups. Leadership has never come from the top: it comes from us.
The solution: ensure that your group is effectively cult-proofed – details under Cult Proofing
A brief reminder:
Each group in AA is autonomous (Tradition Four) and may act as it sees fit so long as those actions do not affect other groups or AA as a whole. No member of AA can be barred from attending an AA meeting but AA membership does not automatically confer “group” membership; a group is free to add further requirements for “group” membership. So some suggestions: a group can insist that anyone who wishes to join their group fulfils the following criteria eg:
1) that they are not a member or supporter of the cult groups or their approach;
2) that they regularly attend their proposed home group for a minimum period before being accepted; this will give other group members a chance to get to know them and assure themselves that the new members are not in fact associated in any way with the cult groups;
3) that they assent to the group conscience of the group as recorded in the group archives (a diary can be used for this purpose);
4) that having become a group member they will regularly attend their new home group;
5) that they will participate in regular group consciences;
6) that they will get a job in the group and support it in that fashion etc.
It may be that an application can then be proposed by an existing group member and seconded by another thus vouching for the new applicant. A vote can then take place on whether the existing group members accept the application. This can be done at a group conscience (these being held regularly – say four times a year each held one week before the local intergroup meeting so that group members can discuss any matters that they want put forward by their GSR). It can also be pointed out that in the same way that a member can be accepted as a group member they can also be removed from that position if their conduct is found to be unacceptable to the group – though of course they cannot be barred from attending the meeting as an “AA” member.
The effect of the above will ensure that the cult members can no longer infiltrate mainstream AA groups – they cannot become members of those groups, they cannot therefore hold any office in those groups and finally they cannot participate in the voting of those groups. Only group members may vote in their home group. In the same way intergroups can refuse to admit representation of cult groups into their meetings (eg Bournemouth and Poole Intergroups where both intergroups refused admission of a cult group into their area on the grounds that the cult group was “too controversial”). In this way cult members can be excluded from holding office at group level, intergroup level and regional level and therefore be blocked from positions as conference delegates. Finally they will lose all power within AA. But it should be pointed out that this has to take place at group level first – no amount of conference questions, letters to GSO, proposals put to intergroup or region are really going to have any effect on the situation until the groups take back control of AA. To this end the practice of allowing intergroup officers to vote in decisions taken by intergroup has to stop. The only members that should have a right to vote at intergroup should be GSRs and GSRs in turn should follow the instructions of their group and not vote according to their own conscience. This profoundly undemocratic state of affairs has crept into our Fellowship to such an extent that the groups (and their members) are increasingly being excluded from the decision-making processes of the fellowship – “our leaders are but trusted servants – they do not govern”. It should be noted that some of our “trusted servants” can no longer be trusted and further all of them should be reminded that they are in fact servants and not masters.
So we are not just in the business of reporting the problem but also, in accordance with the purpose of AA, in providing solutions. The rest requires the proper application of will power guided by a Power greater than ourselves.
