AA Police interview

[BigGirlPanties]

During a meeting, the chairperson saw a person she knew to attend Al-Anon.
It was a meditation meeting, in which the meditation was guided by music, lasting about 25 mins. Afeter she read a bit from as bill see its, then re-reads the opening but only the part about it ebing a closed meeting, and then added:

"This meeting is only for those who have a problem with alcohol, if you do not and are not willing to indentify yourself as an alcoholic, you need to leave now."

Waa waaa whattttttttttttttttttttttt?

Where was that written in the opening? When was that group conscience taken to take peoples inventory and then toss em out?

She then looked directly at the person she knew and infront of everyone, says into the mic, "So n So, do you have a problem with alcohol?". Person says "Yes" she said you sure? "Yes"..

"Ok, then you can stay".

WTF????????????????

No where, no how has this group ever given permission to a chair to take someones inventory, question them in front of a group and then make a determination if they can stay or not. Thats GOD's job as he works in the heart of the individual who must personally decide.

And, for the record, that person DOES have a problem with alcohol.May notbe the problem SHE thinks the person needs to have to be there. There are ton's of folks who come in the back door of AA thru Al-Anon.

Thanks for letting me vent.

[fraankie]

very inappropiate
i never seen that
if anything,
for sure, the guy was turned off to AA
and
what kinda "carrying the message" is that?

there is a blue card script for opend and closed meetings
i read it myself when chairing
but
i don't single anyone out at the meeting

i remember there were two people who were social work students
who were attending the meeting for their classes
so
even though it was a closed meeting
i read the script
and
let it go
it is up to the person to leave

best
fraankie

[CarolD]

Yes...the chair was out of line
and I am glad the person stayed.

Music in AA?
I find that idea strange.

JMO

[collinsmi]

Most closed meetings I've been to, anyone not willing to identify themselves as an alcoholic during introductions is then reminded it is a closed and what that means. If they still are unwilling to identify with the membership requirements they are generally pulled aside and asked to leave, by other members of the group so the chairperson can concentrate on moving the meeting along. I don't, but I'm told many are members of AA AND AlAnon. Makes a lot of sense to me. Well, the meeting went on, maybe that's the important thing. Easy, but not too productive, to get wrapped around the axle.

[nolonger]

I saw someone stand up and object to a speaker at an AA speaker meeting, because they were NA and not AA. Someone else stepped in and agreed to speak instead, but some people there were very angry about it all. I agreed in principle with what the objection of the first person, but thought the way he made it was really crass.

[chip]

Holy Smokes!

I hope I don't see behaviour like this in any of my meetings. Once a fellow refused to even say his name. He got mad and left when the chairperson asked him to say his name.

I take comfort in the fact that at my home group "who you see here, what is said here, stays here". This is important to me because of my line of work.
chip

[Signal30]

Someone told me once at a meeting, when dealing with someone you don't like, "Pray for the *******!!!"


I guess it's principles before personalities.

[Music]

The third tradition states that the only requirement to be in AA is a desire to stop drinking. Closed meetings are just that! Closed to anyone who is not an alcoholic or doesn't have a desire to stop drinking. If someone refuses to declare their alcoholism, or at least a desire to stop drinking, they don't belong at a closed AA meeting. There are "open" meetings for those folks.

As far as the music is concerned, meetings are autonomous and can set rules governing what goes on at that particular meeting as long as other meetings or AA as a whole aren't affected.

Bottom line is, if you don't like what goes on at a meeting, go to another meeting.

[Grasshopper]

As my understanding is=is that no "one" person can make decisions for the group.There needs to be a group conscious meeting,before action is taken,questions asked of another.Even a mini,conscious,of what others want to do in the moment.
Meetings are autonomous.
When i came into AA,i didnt have any desire to quit drinking,nor was i aware that im alcoholic.I knew there were issues with my drinking.But i came to AA to fix another,and wanted to know what i need to do.I went to closed meetings,and never said i was alcoholic,just my name.The only deisre i had,at that time ,was to get another sober.I talked before/after meetings about my loved one,but i always listened,and couldnt at first figure out why i felt more,at, "home"at AA meetings than al-anon.A can relate,to others at closed meeting,where to me,the meat/potaoes are at.Until the day,out of the blue i said my name and that yes im alcoholic too.It was when i got honest with myself.And took the binocluers off my loved one.

[Sugah]

The only time I've seen something happen like this is when nursing or psychology students have come to a meeting as a requirement for class. At a closed meeting, they are given a meeting list, directed to open meetings on the schedule, and thanked for their interest in AA.

Personally, if a chair handled a meeting in that way, I'd probably walk out in protest. There are many people who know, deep down inside, that they are alcoholic before they've been able to admit it out loud. To potentially chase away a newcomer in that way is, to me, tragic.

Peace & Love,
Sugah

[Music]

Originally Posted by Sugah

Personally, if a chair handled a meeting in that way, I'd probably walk out in protest.

Could be that the "chair" was following the guidelines set down by the group conscience of that particular group. I went to a meeting a while back and there were some students in attendance who wanted to experience what an AA meeting was like. When the "closed meeting" statement was read, they identified themselves, were asked to leave temporarily while a group conscience was taken. One person objected. This group split up after the lead, so the students were asked to sit in on the small group where the objecting person was not present. There's a way to work things out, but people should respect the anonymity and the singleness of purpose principles and identify themselves to avoid problems.

I might add that it's perfectly ok to walk out in protest, but what am I protesting against in this instance? The right of the group to set it's own ground rules??

[Emimily]

haha, wow! that's crazy! i knew a guy at the meetings i used to go to back in c-rado who would only identify himself as having a desire to stop drinking... not an alcoholic, not an addict, but someone with a desire to stop drinking. awesome cat, really had his head on straight.

i'm glad i wasn't at that meeting, i'm way too smarmy and smart-alecky for meetings with people that square. my goodness... hahahaha...

[Sugah]

Originally Posted by Music

Could be that the "chair" was following the guidelines set down by the group conscience of that particular group.

...

I might add that it's perfectly ok to walk out in protest, but what am I protesting against in this instance? The right of the group to set it's own ground rules??

I fully understand what you're saying, Music. There is a group that I do not attend, period, because I disagree with their group conscience. It's just two guys who treat the meeting like a fund-raising opportunity for their own agenda, not AA's. And that's fine. That meeting survived seven years until another one opened in the same time slot down the street.

As far as walking out in protest in an instance like this, my "point" would be that the action is potentially more harmful to the newcomer. We could get into a very fuzzy discussion of the first tradition vs. the fifth, with a good helping of the third thrown in there. When it's said that the newcomer is the most important person in the room, I believe that, even if that newcomer is not willing or not sure if s/he should speak up.

I dunno...I'm tired today, and my thoughts might be what's fuzzy. I see your point, but I expressed my gut reaction. After a few hours' reflection, I still haven't changed my mind. I would have walked out.

Peace & Love,
Sugah

[BigGirlPanties]

Originally Posted by Music

The third tradition states that the only requirement to be in AA is a desire to stop drinking. Closed meetings are just that! Closed to anyone who is not an alcoholic or doesn't have a desire to stop drinking. If someone refuses to declare their alcoholism, or at least a desire to stop drinking, they don't belong at a closed AA meeting. There are "open" meetings for those folks.

As far as the music is concerned, meetings are autonomous and can set rules governing what goes on at that particular meeting as long as other meetings or AA as a whole aren't affected.

Bottom line is, if you don't like what goes on at a meeting, go to another meeting.

who asked to be a member?

they were ATTENDING a meeting. Perhaps to see if they were alcoholic? Perhaps not...but which tradition gives authority to any member to call out and question ANY human being regarding ANY issue and force them to say they are alcoholic?

I will wait for your reply.

PS..there is NO group conscience in this meeting that permits this, it was the insanity of one lone sick alcoholic.

[collinsmi]

they were ATTENDING a meeting. Perhaps to see if they were alcoholic? Perhaps not...but which tradition gives authority to any member to call out and question ANY human being regarding ANY issue and force them to say they are alcoholic?

I was a little confused at first what you were driving at, but I think I see it now. If I understand you correctly, you feel that closed meetings, or anyone enforcing the attendance requirements of a closed meeting is against the traditions.

[jimhere]

It is not my business how a group conducts its meetings. There are several in my area I won't attend, mostly because they are loose with Traditions and only vagulely resemble AA. If I don't like your group's conscience, I can either not attend your meeting or honor the group conscience. It is a matter of respect.

My home group's meeting is a closed meeting and that is clearly stated. We have greeters at the doors. Part of the duties of our greeters consist of letting people know that this a closed AA meeting. Women with small children have been sent down the street to an open meeting. Part of our group conscience is that a group member will actually give some one a ride to the nearest open meeting.

One night, our greeters turned away a van load of treatment center people. The driver asked why she couldn't come in since she was an AA member. The reply was "Tonight you are not here as an AA member, you are here as a paid employee. You are being paid to drive these people here." We recieved a nasty letter from the treatment center. We sent a letter back stating our reasons for the above mentioned incident. Number 1: AA meeting attendance is voluntary and not compulsary (Third Tradition). Number 2: Some of the clients are not alcoholics, they are drug addicts and our meeting is closed, except to alcoholics or people VOLUNTARILY seeking help for THEIR drinking problem. Number 3: See the aforementioned reply to the van driver. We never recieved a reply from the treatment center.

One other incident comes to mind. One night when the secretary asked if there were any newcomers, a young man introduced himself as an addict.
He didn't know any better. He was sent by his counselor in treatment.

A few of us took him aside and gently explained to him what a closed AA meeting was. Then, since he came for a meeting, we took down to Denny's for coffee and had a meeting with him. We talked about alcoholism and drug addiction and the differences. After that he was clear about where it was he needed to go. We gave him an NA schedule and I even took him to an open NA meeting. I also explained that he would be welcome at an open AA meeting, but made it clear that since he couldn't identify as an alcoholic, he could never be a member of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Jim

[Music]

Originally Posted by BigGirlPanties

who asked to be a member?

they were ATTENDING a meeting. Perhaps to see if they were alcoholic? Perhaps not...but which tradition gives authority to any member to call out and question ANY human being regarding ANY issue and force them to say they are alcoholic?

I will wait for your reply.

PS..there is NO group conscience in this meeting that permits this, it was the insanity of one lone sick alcoholic.

BGP, what is it about "CLOSED AA MEETING" you don't understand? When I had six months sober and was looking for a meeting to go to one night, I stumbled upon a "women only" group and was told I wasn't allowed to sit in. Which brings up the the point about "AUTONOMY." Every AA group can make it's own rules. If someone doesn't like the rules, there's another meeting down the street. Same reason there's a Burger King in case you don't like McDonald's.

[NoelleR]

Hey BGP, you wrote: "...Perhaps to see if they were alcoholic? Perhaps not...but which tradition gives authority to any member to call out and question ANY human being regarding ANY issue and force them to say they are alcoholic?" ...... well ....

Perhaps you might want to visit the official AA website and read up on what they say about 'closed meetings' .........:

"CLOSED MEETINGS: These meetings are limited to alcoholics. They provide an opportunity for members to share with one another on problems related to drinking patterns and attempts to achieve stable sobriety. They also permit detailed discussion of various elements in the recovery program."

"In most places, anyone interested in A.A., whether a member or not, is welcome at open meetings of A.A. groups."

"Singleness of Purpose and Problems Other Than Alcohol
Some professionals refer to alcoholism and drug addiction as “substance abuse” or “chemical dependency.” Nonalcoholics are, therefore, sometimes introduced to A.A. and encouraged to attend A.A. meetings. Anyone may attend open A.A. meetings, but only those with a drinking problem may attend closed meetings."

These are just a few of the things there regarding who may attend 'closed meetings,' and regarding your question about which tradition....? that would be Tradition 4, as partly stated below by someone else: "4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole."

Hope this has helped a bit....

NoelleR

[BigGirlPanties]

Originally Posted by Music

BGP, what is it about "CLOSED AA MEETING" you don't understand? When I had six months sober and was looking for a meeting to go to one night, I stumbled upon a "women only" group and was told I wasn't allowed to sit in. Which brings up the the point about "AUTONOMY." Every AA group can make it's own rules. If someone doesn't like the rules, there's another meeting down the street. Same reason there's a Burger King in case you don't like McDonald's.

Rules? What rules?

AA has no rules. Havent you been around for like 30 years or so? Howd you miss that?
what is it about no person has to clear thier alcoholic status with the chair in order to attend a meeting that you dont understand?

Do you know why the person was in a closed meeting? Neither do I, nor is it my business to ask. I am not the AA police nor is that woman who chaired, nor you.

Again, many al-anons find their way to AA as a result of attendance in al-anon.

it certainly is possible the person thought they had a problem with alcohol, eh? Isnt it possible it was none of the chair persons business why that person was there?

You need to do some brushing up on AA history, or at least re-read the traditions. And please re-read my postings as this partciular group HAS NO group conscience permitting ANY member the right to question a persons qualification for being there, hence there aint no rule anyhow.

And anyone who doesnt challenge a harmful behavior of a dominating member who is clearly violating a tradition should be ashamed...all my opinion of course.

But its ok, I'll let you be right if you really need to be.

[jimhere]

There are many that would make AA into what they THINK it should be, rather than what it really is. These are the people that either purposely remain ignorant of vital principles or blatantly disregard them. And this group includes AA members, non-alcoholics who want to be AA members (think about that-you'd have to be pretty screwed up to want to fit in in AA!), and professionals in the "field." One big reason why the recovery rate is 3-5% fellowship wide. Even though there are more people coming to meetings and there are more meetings than ever, AA membership has actually flat-lined over the last decade or so.

As for group consciences-if there is not an informed group conscience, the group will die or cease to be an AA group.. It may continue to meet, but it only vaguly resemble an AA meeting. Been to any of those lately?
Jim

[jimhere]

The 4th Tradition of group autonomy has been mentioned.

Many take that to mean "do what you want."

Groups that don't adhere to the principles found in our Steps, Traditions, & Concepts DO affect AA as a whole. But most of us are so selfish the only thing we care about is that there is a meeting here for ME.

Well, if we don't practice these principles as a individuals and as groups, there probably won't be a meeting for our kids and grandkids.

[BigGirlPanties]

I keep thinking about the very young woman attending her first meeting...what she heard was "If I dont admit out loud I am an alcoholic, I need to leave and am not allowed here".

How friggin sad.

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by BigGirlPanties

I keep thinking about the very young woman attending her first meeting...what she heard was "If I dont admit out loud I am an alcoholic, I need to leave and am not allowed here".

How friggin sad.

All I can say is that she either heard wrong or some misinformed fool told her wrong. And that is sad.

The only circumstance that I could think of where a person would be asked to leave is if that person identified themselves as a non-alcoholic in a closed meeting or they were being disruptive.

Even in my group, which is a fundamental, orthodox, by-the-book structured AA group, people don't get asked to leave, except in the above mentioned instances.

A person doesn't have to even acknowledge their own presence, or make themselves known to be at an AA meeting. There are many who come to AA and never even introduce themselves. That is why at my group's meeting some of us make a practice of looking for the person who has been to the meeting before but not introduced themselves, or maybe we've never seen them before and we introduce ourselves and make them welcome. It is called the principle of hospitality, which to my way of thinking is part of the 5th Tradition of our group carrying IT's message by creating a place and an environment for recovery to happen.
Jim

[NoelleR]

Originally Posted by BigGirlPanties

I keep thinking about the very young woman attending her first meeting...what she heard was "If I dont admit out loud I am an alcoholic, I need to leave and am not allowed here".

How friggin sad.

Well......although not so young....I was that woman....at my first AA meeting and challenged with 'was I an alcoholic?' as it was a 'closed meeting' and if I wasn't an alcoholic, there was an 'open meeting' just down the hall that I could attend.....and I stayed!!!

....and 20+ years later I'm still sober.....and the group is still around, at the same time....open to those who are willing to profess their alcoholism.....I guess we all must be doing something right..... (o:

NoelleR

[Time2Surrender]

2nd tradition.