The CSTCC welcomes Questions from the Fellowship concerning the Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions and Twelve Concepts. Our responses are individual, and neither binding nor authoritative. We do not speak for the whole of S.L.A.A.
Question from the Fellowship (Committee Reference #2024-5):
The S.L.A.A. By-Laws provide the following guidance for delegate members to the Annual Business Meeting (ABM):
- The delegate member(s) should be selected for judgment, experience, stability, willingness and for faithful adherence to the Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions, Twelve Concepts, and Twelve Recommended Guidelines of S.L.A.A.
- Whenever possible, a delegate member should have a minimum of six months of continuous sobriety prior to the date of submitting qualifications and continuing to the date of the Conference.
Our intergroup has recently proposed an interpretation of this By-Laws section to mean that a member must have completed working the Twelve Steps to be eligible as a delegate to the ABM. The proposed policy would also require a member to have completed working the Steps to hold any Intergroup officer positions.
One member affected by this has over two years of sobriety and has been working the Steps for the last year and a half with a sponsor. But, under this new proposed policy they would now be ineligible to provide service as a delegate to the ABM or hold any position as an Intergroup officer.
Question: Is this interpretation in conflict with Tradition Three? Is the proposed policy in keeping with the spirit of the Traditions and Concepts in general?
Response #1:
First and foremost, I would refer to Tradition Four as a group is obliged by Tradition Two to follow their group’s conscience. Then to Tradition Three. Here I would say this requirement refers only for membership and is immutable. Should they decide on setting requirements for service Tradition Four allows them the opportunity to discover what does and does not work for that group of participating people.In my opinion, one of the problems with that requirement is; what does not only completing, but working the Twelve Steps entail? What format is it based on? What qualifications does the sponsor need to have? After all, The Steps are the principles of a healthy life. Not restricted to only those with addictions. They were derived from many different religions and philosophies applicable to all peoples.
Response #2:
This By-law appears to be written as a general recommendation, not a rule or law. It does not contain specifics for good reason; it’s open to interpretation. The use of words like judgment, stability, experience, and willingness are all subjective. The decision to elect and send a delegate is entirely up to the intergroup’s group conscience. Every intergroup is autonomous.
Tradition Three, as I understand it, only refers to membership to our fellowship, not membership to a specific service body. Each intergroup can use their collective experience and God-consciousness to vote on requirements for their elected representatives. Some intergroups base their requirements on previous negative experiences they have had with their delegates. The ABM delegates, in many cases, are financially sponsored by their intergroup, with funds raised by their community. It’s important that the intergroup feels their delegate will be a good steward of the funds raised by their community.
My intergroup has changed their requirements of the ABM delegate multiple times, based on the candidate’s reliability and dedication to their sobriety, and the overall community, not based on where they were in the steps. We have had delegates relapse (since that is a part of recovery) and we trusted their commitment to S.L.A.A. so they remained our delegate. I have zero judgment on any reasonable requirements an intergroup places on their ABM delegate. I believe completing the steps is reasonable.
Separately, as far as measuring commitment based on the completion of the steps, I believe the steps are a way of life, not a box to be checked off of a to-do list. You can work the steps daily even if you haven’t officially done the steps with a sponsor yet. It took me 4 years to officially “finish” my steps, even though I worked them in my life every day, and remained sober throughout that time. Several of my sponsors relapsed, some had me start the steps over when I switched sponsors, and I had life events that slowed me down, but my commitment to my program and my community never wavered. I would have respected the decision of my intergroup if they decided not to elect me as a delegate during that time.
Response #3:
My short answer is no. I don’t see any violation with the Traditions. But, I do see failure to have effective group communication and use the principle of group conscience.
Response #4:
There is no conflict with Tradition Three.
Relevant Concepts include One, Nine, Ten, and Eleven, although all of the Concepts are pertinent.
The intergroup’s actions here are, like with all of our groups, autonomous and directed by their group conscience.
This intergroup is, in a legalistic sense, consistently functioning within the directives of our three legacies (Steps, Traditions, and Concepts).
Nevertheless, since the question has been asked, I’ll share my opinion. The behavior of this intergroup service body is overly rigid and not consistent with the spirit of the three legacies. They are exercising their right to be wrong. The type of insistence on perfection, on micromanaging members behavior, is a negative influence on our fellowship. I’m reminded of a speech by Bob P., one-time AA Trustee, about the same trend in that fellowship. Because it is relevant to our situation in S.L.A.A. today, I quote him here:
“If you were to ask me what is the greatest danger facing AA today, I would have to answer: the growing rigidity – the increasing demand for absolute answers to nit-picking questions; pressure for GSO to “enforce” our Traditions; screening alcoholics at closed meetings; prohibiting non-Conference-approved literature, i.e., “banning books;” laying more and more rules on groups and members. And in this trend toward rigidity, we are drifting farther and farther away from our co-founders. Bill, in particular, must be spinning in his grave, for he was perhaps the most permissive person I ever met. One of his favorite sayings was, “Every group has the right to be wrong.” He was maddeningly tolerant of his critics, and he had absolute faith that faults in AA were self-correcting.”
Response #5:
First, I want to point out that the By-Laws utilized in this proposed policy are Article V, Section 5, subsections “g” and “h”. Subsection “g” is very general in nature, and provides no specificity about working of Steps. Subsection “h” states at the beginning: “Whenever possible”, which conditions the rest of the Subsection as non-mandatory. Also, while they are in the section concerning delegates to the ABM, there is no mention anywhere about applicability to any other intergroup officer position.
Having said that, the first part of the actual Question seeks input on whether the policy is in conflict with Tradition Three. Tradition Three only addresses membership in the program, and makes no mention of service positions. So, I don’t see any conflict between the proposed policy and this Tradition.
The second part of the Question is more general, and seeks input on the policy’s alignment with the spirit of the Traditions and Concepts. My short answer is that it aligns with some, and appears to conflict with others.
Per Tradition Four, each group (including Intergroups) is autonomous unless their decision will have an impact beyond that group / intergroup. It seems unlikely that this proposed policy change would affect any other intergroups, so it is in keeping with this Tradition.
Concept Nine states (in part) that: “Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them, are at all levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety”. However, no information on what sound and appropriate methods consist of is included in this Concept. The A.A. illustrated pamphlet titled: “The Twelve Concepts for World Service” goes into more detail on this subject. It states the following:
- “A leader in A.A. service is therefore a man (or woman) who can personally put principles, plans and policies into such dedicated and effective action that the rest of us want to back him and help him with his job.”
- “Good leadership will also remember that a fine plan or idea can come from anybody, anywhere.”
- “Good leadership never passes the buck.”
- “Another qualification for leadership is ‘give and take’, the ability to compromise cheerfully…”
At no place in the pamphlet does it mention amount of sobriety or whether a member has (or is) working the Steps. So, while it is reasonable to place requirements on some service positions (such as a meeting Treasurer), placing particularly stringent minimum requirements would seem to be counter to the intent of this Concept. My local intergroup has never required completion of the Steps to hold any position, including ABM Representative.
Lastly, this proposed policy appears to run counter to the intent of Concept Four, the “Right of Participation”. While Concept Four is, on the surface, about a members right to vote, I believe it also provides guidance on inclusivity. We all have the right to participate in service. It is an integral part of working the program, and denying a member that opportunity without a good reason could negatively affect their recovery.
