legna

Spinning off the third tradition (in any and all twelve step programs) thread, what do you do with a person who openly refuses to honor the twelfth tradition. They break anonymity and when spoken to about this 'transgression' is not only non-repentant but insists that they will continue to do so.

The third tradition of course states that the only requirement is a desire to stop drinking, using, gambling, etc., so they cannot be asked to leave if they have communicated such a desire but one might think about invoking the first tradition as well, "Our common welfare comes first..."

Thoughts?

Alraihani

Traditions aren't bylaws. AA is a libertarian society at the end of the day.

legna

Let us say that a member of AA shares something at a step meeting about having stolen some food from a local grocery store a year or so back while he was still actively drinking and that he plans on repaying that grocery store as per the ninth step. If another member hears this and decides to pre-empt this fellows ninth step and call the police and report the incidence, do I read you as saying that this is acceptable? Should no action be taken to protect the group?

I will be the first to tell newcomers that we share in a general way in meetings and leave the heavy stuff for their sponsors but it seems to me that if such behavior continues then the program will not serve as a safe place for alcoholics/addicts/etc., and people who desperately need help will not feel safe coming to us for help - which is a monumental failure in regards to our primary purpose.

Alraihani

You're right.

legna

I'm right about what?

Alraihani

Everything you think, believe and stand for

Carlotta

Whoa, I am interested to see what the old timers have to say and how your group handle it.
My instinct would be to pull every codie tricks in my book to make them feel overwhelmed and chase them away with kindness and neediness (very easy against a newcomer who probably has her own nagging codie at home) but some days I am just a very sick Al Anon.
I look forward to see how that one gets resolved within the context of our traditions.

venuscat

The only requirement for membership. Yes. But there comes a point where disruptive members lose their right to be a part of the group.
Because our common welfare comes first.

I have been in groups where people have received requests to desist with certain disruptive behaviour, warnings, and have then been asked to leave the group.

Venus xx

legna

Oh I can tell you that quite easily, because we've been discussing it. A good friend and the oldest of the old timers around here was explained the situation and I got to see what he looked like angry for the first time. Really though, we are stymied. Most of the suggestions were venting (I hope). I called World Services today and had a talk with them to try and glean some of their experience in such matters and while they did suggest doing something, the general feeling around here was that the suggested action is too tame. Be that as it may be, we will probably implement it if a better idea doesn't come about by tomorrow at area.

As do I. I'm looking for original ideas and so I'm not going to share what WS said today, but after tomorrow I'll be posting their suggestion.

Carlotta

Cool,
My idea was more along the line of every time she is comes to a meeting, having a few of the women come real close, very friendly and smell her breath while greeting her (gee I wish I could explain how us codies do that), ask her several times if she is ok, call her at home and tell her they are concerned and what is she doing that night, then call back an hour later and say oh you are at home? wanted to make sure you were ok I was concerned ...well you get the drift.

legna

As livid as some of these old timers are, I'm afraid to give them your suggestion! LOL

Threshold

I have nothing to offer about what to do when someone is breaking anonymity, but I do have this to offer.

I feel that most often the offenders against anonymity are individuals sharing way too much about themselves. Meaning that they share details that have nothing to do with recovery. Their entire names, where they live and work, their spouses and kids names, etc etc. Even details about specific incidents while under the influence, that are easily identifiable...are not really necessary to recovery.

I feel that such behavior puts the anonymity of all at risk, and sets an example and sometimes an implied expectation on some newcomers to follow suit. I was shocked when I came into the rooms how little actual anonymity there is. And the fact that other than the pre meeting recitation of traditions the true meaning and spirit of anonymity was NEVER discussed.

Everyone seemed up in everyone's business. I think the weight of protecting anonymity rests on the individual first.

At the top of every page on SR forums is a reminder about internet predators...yet people come into the rooms assuming that everyone there has their anonymity and best interest at heart.

I think we would do newbies a service to remind them to protect their anonymity, that they DO NOT have to put their number on every phone list passed around, or tell people where they work/live, etc. It seems to be assumed that people understand what anonymity is, and I think that many do not. We are not even supposed to mention (call out) that we saw so and so at another meeting etc. And people at meetings sometimes get all sorts of PO'd that I don't care to add them to my FB friends...well, um...anonymity y'all.

soberlicious

I think that newcomers put themselves in jeopardy because they hears so much about "rigorous honesty" being crucial to recovery. What is usually not explained is that rigorous honesty means with oneself first and foremost, and then maybe with a couple very trusted individuals...it does not mean spilling the beans to every Tom, Dick, and Harry sitting in a folding chair. That said, if one were to spill the beans, then it would be logical for a newcomer to assume that a meeting which stresses anonymity would be a safe place to do so. Unfortunately, under the circumstances you are describing, that individual may well be worse off than when they came in.

My dear friend Legna...I don't have to tell you my suggestion for the snitch. Suffice it to say that my solution likely doesn't fall anywhere on the 12 step continuum...not even close

Xo

Boleo

Sounds like like something Clarence Snyder would do or say. For a while he was the senior living member in AA and traveled all around the world saying the only traditions AA needs are the few found in the Forward to the first edition:

"We are not an organization in the conventional sence
sense of the word. There are no fees nor dues whatsoever. The only requirement for membership is an honest desire to stop drinking. We are not allied with any particular faith, sect or denomination, nor do we oppose anyone. We simply wish to be helpful to those who are afflicted."

awuh1

Soberlicious, stating things like “newcomers put themselves in jeopardy” seems to be a bit fear based don’t you think? I believe most people are intelligent enough to figure this stuff out. I know how much you dislike appeals to fear so I’m a bit surprised. Well perhaps not. I think your words might ring more true if you were talking about a program/method that you participate in, or at least endorse.

soberlicious

Oh geez, awuh, dude give it a rest...I usually respond to legna in PM but since this was in the "What is recovery" forum I responded here.

I don't think it's fear based at all. I think a newcomer could easily inadvertently put themselves at risk by coming in, hearing about rigorous honesty (and misunderstanding that), sharing something incriminating because they feel safe in a meeting, and boom, it bites them in the azz...just as legna described in the OP. It takes neither a member of the fellowship nor a rocket scientist to figure that out. Where you got "fear based" out of that, I'm not sure...but no need to explain, seeing as I'm not interested.

It's funny because I get along really well with lots of people in the fellowship here and IRL, one example is legna. We don't work the same program but we have a mutual respect. I like him. He is not a pompous or patronizing. How refreshing.

legna

The whole situation, including this latest disagreement might still come of some good. The fact is that in AA we are to 'share in a general way what it was like, what happened ad what it is like now'. If fear somehow brings meetings more in line with this general principle and away from a group therapy session masquerading as an AA meeting - everyone may be better served.

awuh1

I’m sure you’re right Soberlicious. Fear has nothing to do with a phrases like “newcomers put themselves at risk” (by going to AA and just listening). God knows what they might hear.

Ya know, come to think of it, I just cannot recall ever hearing about fear being associated with going to a first AA meeting. I’m sure that the person who has never attended an AA meeting, and is searching through the “What is recovery” forum would be encouraged to attend an AA meeting by what you have said.

BTW You seem to have sunk to a new low with the thinly veiled characterizations SL. I’m glad to know you don’t find legna pompous and patronizing. Is there anything else you don’t find him?

Boleo

I highlighted the words "in general way" because when people get too specific, what they are really doing is engaging in morbid reflection. Is that the type of breaking the 12th Tradition that you were taking about?

legna

No, although your point is taken. I'm talking about a newcomer coming in, admitting that they relapsed and finding themselves in jail because another member called the newcomers parole officer, told them that they relapsed and they were arrested.

I am still looking for a solution for this. Do we make an announcement before the meeting that such a thing is possible in order to protect others? Do we ignore it, as some have suggested, because some people won't come to AA if we tell them?