Question from the Fellowship (Committee Reference #2024-2):
Is it in alignment with the Traditions for an Intergroup to refuse to post a meeting’s information on that Intergroup website and kick that meeting out of the Intergroup because, for one week a month, the meeting is an OPEN meeting available to professionals and others seeking information?
Response #1:
All groups, including intergroups, are autonomous. The Traditions do not protect us from bad behavior, but if we follow the guidance of the Traditions bad behavior can be avoided. It appears that this Intergroup is not behaving within the spirit of the Traditions, but they have the right to be wrong. I suggest that we all spend more time studying the Concepts as well as the Traditions. More discussion leading to substantial unanimity is always a positive. Avoiding acts of government is a good idea. Not providing services to our members and member groups is a failure of our service bodies. There are open meetings and closed meetings; the health of our fellowship requires both.
Response #2:
Per Tradition Four, each group (including Intergroups) is autonomous. So, the decision to de-list an individual meeting is ultimately up to the local Intergroup.
However, there are other Traditions that also apply to this situation.
Tradition Five instructs us that our primary purpose as a group (including Intergroups) is to help the suffering addicts. De-listing a meeting would make it harder for an addict to find the meeting, and therefore it would be counter to this Tradition.
Tradition Three provides the basis of an S.L.A.A. group. There only needs to be two or more people gathered together with a desire to stop acting out in the disease. This meeting would seem to qualify as a legitimate S.L.A.A. group. De-listing a legitimate S.L.A.A. group would not be in keeping with this Tradition.
Tradition One is the key to our success as a fellowship. Our common welfare must come first, and our recovery depends upon unity. Removing the meeting from the website and Intergroup is not a unifying action.
So, while the Intergroup certainly has the authority to de-list a meeting, it would not seem to be in keeping with the overall spirit or intention of the Traditions.From a personal perspective, 99% of the S.L.A.A. meetings I have attended have been open to everyone, identified as sex and love addicts or not. My experience is that some newcomers are not yet ready to identify, and we have allowed them to work through the process. Also, I fully support having professionals in the meeting. By bringing more awareness of our disease and program to the professional community, I believe that we are potentially helping addicts find our program.
