Tradition Four

[badgolferman]

Short Form:
“Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other
groups or A.A. as a whole.”

Long Form:
With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible
to no other authority other than its own conscience. But when its plans
concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to
be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should
ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without
conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such
issues our common welfare is paramount.

---------

Once again we have another tradition which touches upon the question of
authority within the fellowship. Bill tried to make it abundantly
clear there was no entity within the fellowship which could compel any
individual or even any group to behave a certain way. This concept is
demonstrated in the popular story about the Middleton AA Group which
went into the alcoholic drying up business despite warnings not to do
so. That endeavor turned into a disaster which brought about the now
famous Middleton Group Rule 62, "Don't take yourself too damn
seriously."

They say this is the tradition which allows groups to be wrong. That
may be so, but those groups which choose to be wrong would be well
served to also remember the part of the tradition which warns against
their actions "...affecting other groups or AA as a whole." Just as
individuals learn to become part of society and get along with their
neighbors, so must the groups cooperate with their neighboring groups
and ensure their actions don't affect the name and reputation of AA.
Examples of such things would be scheduling events which conflict with
other groups' activities, conducting public "AA Car Washes", and the
most recent examples of groups continuing to meet in churches or other
facilities without masks and ignoring other coronovirus restrictions.

Not only does this tradition touch upon the question of authority, but
it also reinforces the concept of unity between groups in order to keep
our fellowship focused on our primary purpose of helping other
alcoholics achieve sobriety.

[LaRocca (Tony)]

This is a tradition that has had the live and let live faction and the
AA cops at odds with each other for as long as I have been around..I
tend to side more with the live and let live group, with some exceptions.

I am amazed how some AA's get their noses bent out of shape about
special purpose meetings, like women's, gay, men's, free thinkers,
professionals, etc. etc....If I think they are bullshit, fine...Nobody
is forcing me to go...I don't see how they could hurt AA as a whole, and
even if they did, there is really nothing I could do to stop them if I
even wanted to.

On the other hand, if a group or club is out there promoting AA to the
general public with members breaking their anonymity in the media, for
me anyway, that is wrong.

--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed

[Charlie M. 1958]

Like most things in life, I think balance is the key here.

If there were a universal set of AA rules that every group /had/ to
follow there would be many unhappy AA'ers, and many newcomers who would
be turned off by certain rules, possibly never finding sobriety. By
allowing each group to have a degree of autonomy, people can find the
meetings that best suit their own personalities. The tricky part is
determining just how much liberty a group can take with the thaditions
before they are doing harm to other groups or AA as a whole. Everyone
has a slightly different take on that.

I don't know how it works in other places, but here it is up to the
local district to decide if a group should be de-listed from the meeting
book and website. That's the ultimate punishment a group can be given. I
think I've mentioned this, but my Sunday home group is an open meeting.
Many years ago, membership was almost evenly split between AA and
Al-Anon. Someone gut a bug up their ass because we occasionally had an
Al-Anon lead, and made a stink about it at the district level. They
apparantly had enough votes to de-list us, so the group conscience was
to no longer have any Al-Anon leads. We didn't like it, but ultimately
/WE/ had the authority to either conform or go renegade.

[Sharx335]

Here's an example of the "freedom in chaos" here in Edmonton AA.

Edmonton is a city of approx. 1,000,000.   Roughly 200 meetings a week,
at least in pre-covid times.  But, WTF, according to our meeting list,
most of the meetings in the SW quadrant of the city, where I live are
concentrated on, say, 4  nights a week. MORE to the point, on SOME of
those nights, several of the meetings are a 5 minute walk from each
other, leaving huge swaths of SW Edmonton devoid of easy reachable
meetings. It's been that way for years but AA survives here,
regardless.  Not rational but it works.  Any of us is FREE to start a
meeting on a day and a location to fill in any of the "gaps". Or not.