everything wrong or more or less so. Tom W.
> > painful to listen to. Filled with inaccuracies.
> > to nothing about AA and/or AA history. More than
Michiana Conference in 2008 when Ernie K. was there. The Book that Started
the Dead Sea Scrolls but being able to read most of the glyphs. It is
fascinating. What a treat and what a gift to AA!
God is near,
From: Bob McK. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/8/2010 12:08:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
From: "Bob McK."
I had hoped for someone with more recent knowledge and/or status (e.g.
attorney) to enter in on this but, lacking that, I will.
While the copyright was unintentionally allowed to expire on the first two
countries. The governing law is called the Berne Convention and is
country.
countries.
registration of these trademarks.
The Conference is prevented by our Concepts from taking personally punitive
view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent
donations to the other service entities. These days it's also wise and
bank account and statements. If a group does not practice these stewardship
should a loss occur.
A group might not want to sue because it could be thought to be
improved; it's something the group may wish to not involve itself in.
Hello all,
I am sorry to say that Area 44, Northern NJ, was forced to press charges
against
its one time Treasurer for embezzling $40,000 from the treasury. At the time
of
the embezzlement, there was no Alternate Treasurer so there was not two
signatures on the checks for ANY expense during that time. The lesson here
is
that ALL members of AA are human, and some still have, after many years of
abstinence, those character defects that we humbly ask god to remove.
Furthermore, because every Area in AA is supposedly a registered non-profit
501c3 corporation, they are businesses, and in ANY business if an
"employee," in
our case "trusted servant," steals from the company, it is the duty of the
other
trusted servants to go to the appropriate authorities to handle the matter,
because in the 12 Concepts it states that servants are responsible and
accountable to those they serve, and must keep the common welfare in the
forefront. I hope this post was helpful to everyone.
Yours in service,
BB Tim
- - - -
From: Patrick Murphy
About 25 yrs ago there was a case on the east coast involving a murder. The
prosecution used a witness that had information that he had heard at a
meeting
where the defendant admitted he did it. It went to the State's Supreme
Court. In
the end it was ruled that "the witness's testimony could be used ... AA is
not
above the law"... the man was prosecuted.
--Pat
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6999. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: A traditions question: using
non-AA speakers
From: Charley Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/9/2010 10:38:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mike, the dissenters have probably been infected with the "Conference
Approved" virus. These folks hold that anything not conference approved
is not fit to be read by an AA member, etc. It would be interesting to
get at the origins of this awful twisting of our Traditions and the
directions in the Big Book. I believe it is mostly based on ignorance,
fear and superstition. Ignorance of AA. Fear and superstition are
probably carry overs from a childhood religion, some of which ban books,
movies, etc. AA is not a religion and must not appear as if it is is
one. See below
First, let me quote from my brand new copy of "The Book That Started It
All" page 72, Manuscript page 44, at the top. "There are many helpful
books also."
That quote is contained in a paragraph with the meager guidance Bill
gave us for meditation, now on page 87, paragraph 2 in the Fourth
Edition of the BB. Looks to me to be clear, unequivocal instruction
that we are to find material for meditation in books. He did not say
'Conference Approved" books. There was no conference at the time.
Please read that whole section on meditation and see if you can
interpret it any other way. Today, in consideration of our younger
members, we must include all forms of media as many of these new members
are not oriented towards print.
I do find that the Literature Committee of the General Service
conference has many times attempted to get some kind of a restriction to
'conference approved literature.' The Conference itself has always
wisely decided against the committee's proposals.
Now for the Traditions:
Tradition One: I see nothing here about restricting us to use of
conference approved stuff only. Do you see anything? Bill says, We
believe there isn't a fellowship on earth which lavishes more devoted
care upon its individual members; surely there is none which more
jealously guards the individual's right to think, act, talk as he
wishes." That sounds to me like the opposite of a requirement for
approval of literature. Can you agree, so far?
Tradition Two does not tell us that the sole authority in AA is the
General Service Conference. The sole authority is outside the Program -
"A loving God as he may express Himself in the group conscience."
Nothing about conference approval that I can see.
Tradition three: The only requirement for membership . . . Nothing here
about conference approved.
Tradition Four: Each Group should be autonomous-I guess a group could
ban all but conference approved stuff, but it would be cutting itself
off from the collected wisdom of all history. Is that reasonable or
appropriate? What would be the purpose of such a restriction? A
restriction to conference approved materials would cause the Fellowship
to more closely resemble a religion, some of which do restrict their
members use of the written word to materials approved by the religion.
AA is in serious trouble as a consequence of too closely resembling a
religion in the eyes of many, including the high courts in several
states. We need to examine everything we do and pull back from this
precipice. AA is a spiritual program, not a religious one.
Tradition Five: "Each group has but one primary purpose -- to carry its
message to the alcoholic who still suffers" Note the _'its_ message.'
Would a group, by group conscience method determine that it would
restrict access to only "conference approved" stuff? Perhaps, but
doubtful. It would be a warped and restricted message, wouldn't it?
Remember, the Grapevine is not "Conference Approved," and never will be
if the editorial freedom Bill Wilson intended is maintained. The
Grapevine's dozens of publications are also not conference approved.
These include many valuable and much loved resources.
Tradition Six: . . never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name. . .
Study, learn, appreciate the writings of all as relates to recovery from
addiction, but endorse, finance of lend the A.A. name to none. (My
interpretation of how to apply Six in this question.)
Tradition Seven: Every group should be self supporting. . . Nothing
about banning non conference approved materials.I was once told that the
'only conference approved' business started because some Central Offices
wanted to lock up the market for Group purchases of literature. They
tend to handle conference approved stuff only, but they could engage in
general book selling, I suppose. They would have a great advantage over
the bookseller down the street who must pay taxes, rent, licenses, and
make a profit. If they sell other than conference approved stuff, the
members who are for restriction are doing the Central Offices a
disfavor, perhaps reducing their sales of non conference approved stuff
and reducing the revenue from sales.. Literature sales can be an
important source of income for Central Offices.
Tradition Eight: AA should forever remain unprofessional. . . This may
be another place where we are cutting ourselves off from the most highly
qualified leader and staff for the GSO, but so far it has worked very
well.. Nothing on conference approved literature that i see.
Tradition Nine: AA, as such should never be organized. Bill lived to
rue the day he relented and allowed this sentence. He seems to have
just ignored it and gone ahead and completely organized AA, but he never
to my knowledge excluded non conference approved books. Look at the
Grapevine's Catalog of unapproved books and such
http://store.aagrapevine.org/
Tradition Ten: AA has no opinion on outside issues.. . . Certainly so.
Since AA itself cannot speak and no one is designated to speak for it,
no opinion could be expressed, except possibly by actions such as suing
someone. If A.A. has no opinion on outside issues, doesn't that mean
that non conference approved material is not to be banned or excluded,
but is included if we want it? Bill points out how important it is to
not judge outside issues with his very short history of the
Washingtonians. So let's use non conference approved stuff, but never
offer 'an A.A. opinion' of it. Our own opinion is fine, but we cannot
speak for the Fellowship. Of course, that goes for me, too.
Tradition Eleven: Our public relations policy is based on attraction
rather than promotion. . . . Anonymity and all that. Nothing banning
any books here, is there?
Tradition Twelve: Anonymity, the Spiritual Foundation of our
Fellowship. i can't find book banning here, either. Can you?
I could find numerous other places in the BB where I could justify use
of non conference approved stuff, such as page 84 "We have ceased
fighting anything or anyone --" even non conference approved books.
Some of these would be an amusing strretch, so I'll leave them out for
now. I think you have enough to take care of those infected with the
"Conference Approved virus
There is another place where Bill tells us to consult professionals,
doctors, lawyers, but I cannot find it right now.
Good luck on your meditation workshop. I tried one once and it
flopped. Be sure your local expert does not start with no explanation
but a five minute period of silent meditation!
- - - -
On 11/8/2010 4:26 AM, Mike wrote:
>
> I have a traditions question. I believe that meditation is one of the
> most misunderstood tools in our AA toolbox, so, I'd like to put on a one
> hour 'meditation workshop.' I have a non-alcoholic workshop trainer
> who is a Ph.D. in theology and teaches at a local seminary. He's also
> worked with alcoholics over the years.
>
> On the flyer I have a disclaimer stating that he is not endorsed or
> approved by AA, and that he is volunteering his help. A couple of
> people have said that doing this is against our AA traditions, I'd like
> to hear what this group has to say.
>
> Mike
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7000. . . . . . . . . . . . 11th step meditation
From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/10/2010 10:10:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The original question from message No. 6996 said in part:
"I believe that meditation is one of the most misunderstood tools in our AA
toolbox, so, I'd like to put on a one hour 'meditation workshop.'"
THE FOLLOWING THREE ARTICLES TALK ABOUT MEDITATION IN A.A.
"Twelve-Step Meditation in the A.A. Big Book and the 12 & 12"
http://hindsfoot.org/medit11.doc
"Practicing the Presence of God: the path to soul-balance and inner calm"
http://hindsfoot.org/hp5rw.html
"The God-Shaped Hole in the Human Soul"
http://hindsfoot.org/godsha.html
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7001. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: A traditions question: using
non-AA speakers
From: gadgetsdad . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/8/2010 8:38:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
From gadgetsdad, Jon Markle, Mike Cullen, Baileygc23,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, Bill Walker, Dougbert, john wikelius,
Jim L in Columbus, Lynn Sawyer, John Kenney, Jared
Lobdell, Elisabeth D, and Laurie Andrews
- - - -
From: gadgetsdad
My Area has had Class A Trustees and non-Alcoholic board Chairs at Area
Workshops. We, as an Area, felt it was appropriate and not a break with the
Traditions.
- - - -
From: Jon Markle
In my understanding, "workshops" are not AA, per se, and as such do not fall
under the Traditions. They may be put together by people who are AA members,
but
that does not qualify them as affiliated under AA. Just like conventions and
other gatherings, like club-houses, for example.
And, if we look at our history, there were a lot of people involved with AA
in
an advisory role, who were not alcoholics. Doctors and preachers and other
community leaders.
Hugs for the trudge.
Jon M (Raleigh)
9/9/82
- - - -
From: "Mike Cullen"
Hi Mike,
If you are putting on a meditation class , in your home or someplace else
and
you aren't claiming to be Alcoholics Anonymous then there is no reason not
to
hold it. If the attendants happen to be recovering
alcoholics that's cool.
I go to 12 step retreats that have nothing to do with Alcoholics Anonymous
yet
everyone there is from AA ............. as long as you aren't claiming this
is
an AA meditation group.....
shalom
Mike
- - - -
From: Baileygc23@aol.com
As long as you do not claim it as an AA workshop, it should not be any
problem. Our traditions contain no "You musts" "Plenty of we oughts, but no
you
musts". Tying mediation and religious mediation is kind of tricky, but, "Our
quarrels haven't hurt us one bit".
- - - -
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Whether this is a violation of traditions or not depends on details
you have not disclosed!
You are putting on the workshop. If you are claiming that AA is
putting on the workshop, you would be, indeed, violating the traditions.
Don't use the AA name on the flyer, don't imply that AA is sponsoring
this. You are putting it on. You can suggest that it might be useful
to alcoholics. You can even suggest that it might be useful for
"working the 12 steps." (Which have become generic, lots of people
follow that as a general program.)
Now, can you announce it at an AA meeting? You can certainly tell AA
members about it, individually. You can even mention it in a share,
that you are going to attend it, or you organized it, or the like,
but here you are pushing the edges. If you are going to mention it in
a meeting, keep it to a minimum. Let people ask you about it if they
are curious.
Don't use the AA meeting to *promote* the workshop.
My suggestions.
There is another possibility. AA *can* sponsor an open workshop on
some aspect of the steps. Can a non-alcoholic speak at such a workshop?
I'm not an alcoholic, I cut my teeth in other 12-step fellowships,
but I did at one time choose a sponsor who was active in AA, and I
used to go to an *open* AA daily lunchtime meeting that was
convenient to me. And once my sponsor suggested that I speak. So I
did. I introduced myself as a "dry drunk," that I was qualified for
membership in AA because I had a desire to stop drinking (your
drinking! -- my first program was Al-Anon), but I was quite clear
that my primary addiction wasn't to alcohol, and, in fact, I never
did drink. I wasn't going to say what program had become my main
program, but ... I did say that it could be found in the phone book
under "sex."
Essentially, I had fun and people laughed and it was fine. Nobody
said "Boo!" about tradition violations.
Whether or not a local group or intergroup approaches the edges of
the traditions, or even crosses them, is up to group conscience, my
opinion, *unless it affects other groups or AA as a whole.*
What we say here on this list has no authority, though many here
certainly have great experience, worthy of respect. "For our group
purpose there is but one authority ...." That's the authority to
respect! Ask your local group or intergroup.
- - - -
From: Bill Walker
I think we need more information.
You ought not seek to affiliate your AA group with a private practitioner.
If
the flyer states the workshop/class is "sponsored" or a similar word or
thought,
then that's affiliation.
There are often workshops, seminars, round-ups, retreats, etc., that are
"promoted," and they meet with little resistance. But they're clearly not
seeking to affiliate themselves with AA as a whole, or any particular AA
group.
There are often inconsistencies. For example our local big-time fellowship
doesn't let any "non-AA-related" material get posted on its bulletin boards,
and
they police that to keep the group "clean" of outside issues. However, 20 of
the
200 members just voted 16-4 to hang an American flag outside the front door.
So
as with anything else in AA, opinions vary.
I think many participating in this group would be inclined to agree
meditation should be more widely discussed during meetings. That same
fellowship I mentioned has had an "11th-Step" meeting for at least 15 years.
I
came 'round in 2000 and not once have they meditated: it's a candlelight
meeting
discussing the essay on the 11th step in the 12&12, "or anything else you
have
on your mind." I no longer attend regularly, having memorized the essay and
no
longer needing to hide in the dark at an AA meeting!
Good Luck, my friend, you're no doubt doing good work!
Bill
- - - -
From: Dougbert
Mike,
The use of the word meditation was originally used in a Christian context,
e.g.,
reciting a passage in the Bible. Or repeat the Serenity Prayer as a western
style mantra. If you really want to help the Fellowship embrace meditation,
you
need to go to the source of true meditation . . . that would be Buddhism.
That
won't fly in our evangelical Christian A.A. dogma. You will get the idea by
reading page 223 of as Bill Sees It, to understand how Buddhists were
talking to
Bill W. But, he was trolling for an answer that was not there and as usual
would
not validate his preconceived answer, thereby not validating his
narcissistic
need for ego inflation! Your approach will go over as well as public denial
that
alcoholism is not a disease, but a behavioral disorder.
Metta,
Deep Bows,
Dougbert
- - - -
From: john wikelius
If it is a non AA function, there is no problem.
- - - -
From: Sober186@aol.com
To me, this whole question would be more appropriate or an AA discussion
group.
In the past, I have been told by the moderator that we try to stay away from
that format, because there are already so many of them, even though the
questions which are debated and discussed are often very interesting.
Jim L in Columbus
- - - -
From: Lynn Sawyer
Dear Mike,
IMHO, maybe it's against Trad. 8, which states that '... A.A. should remain
forever non-professional ...' Have you asked these individuals which Trad.
they
think it's violating?
Lynn S.
Easy does it
Sacramento, CA
- - - -
From: JOHN KENNEY
Mike, There are only 12 Traditions and the only one that I can see that
applies
is number 5. The group must carry its message to the Alcoholic. It sounds
like a
good aid to recovery. After thirty years of Sobriety I still attend retreats
to
help with Step 11. We have two non AA retreats each year and they are booked
solid. Your local AA's do not have to attend if they wish. I presume you are
not
holding this at a designated time and place of a usual AA meeting but as a
supplemental meeting either before or after or a wholly separate function.
Keep
up the good work! It is always a success if you stay sober. Take this from
one
who has been on the firing line! YIS, John
- - - -
From: "J. Lobdell"
Fwiw anyone can put on a Meditation Workshop provided A.A. doesn't come into
it.
But as soon as A.A. is in anyway linked with an outside enterprise -- as I
understand it, that becomes in violation of the Traditions against
affiliation
etc. There is no such thing as an A.A. Retreat or an A.A. Dance or an A.A.
Meditation Workshop led by non-AAs. As I understand it, your flyer should
make
no mention of A.A. nor should the workshop be sponsored by any A.A. entity
or
entities. It is true that in the area of the history of A.A., in the
Multi-District History and Archives Gatherings in Central PA from 2003,
there
has been adopted the almost forgotten format of the Public Meeting (not Open
or
Closed but Public) so that historians in attendance who are not AAs and who
have
questions can have them answered -- though the speakers and panelists are
all
AAs. It is also true that at International Conventions non-alcoholic experts
(judges for example, speaking on Courts and A.A.) take part in specialized
panels, and of course non-alcoholic Trustees speak at the GS Conference and
at
the General Sharing Session on Trustees' Weekends -- but they have legal
responsibilities at AAWS and the AAGrapevine. I don't know if they can speak
at
the Trustees' Weekend "1728" meetings -- those may also be Public Meetings
since
they are at least partly held for the Class A Trustees' benefit.
- - - -
From: "Elisabeth D"
It is no different than having an Alanon or Alateen speaker speak at an AA
dinner, which happens all the time.
- - - -
From: Laurie Andrews
"If individual AA's wish to gather together for retreats, Communion
breakfasts,
or indeed any undertaking at all, we will say 'Fine. Only we hope you won't
designate your efforts as an AA group or enterprise'." (Bill W's essay on
Concept 12, warranty five).
Did the pioneers get their idea for meditation in Step 11 from the Oxford
Group
quiet times? "The technique and system followed (by the original Akron AA's)
...
No 4: He must have devotions every morning - a 'quiet time' of prayer and
some
reading from the Bible and other religious literature. Unless this is
faithfully
followed, there is grave danger of backsliding." (Frank Amos's report on the
Akron AA group; Dr Bob and the Good Oldtimers, page 131).
- - - -
ORIGINAL QUESTION
On 11/8/2010 4:26 AM, Mike wrote:
>
> I have a traditions question. I believe that meditation is one of the
> most misunderstood tools in our AA toolbox, so, I'd like to put on a one
> hour 'meditation workshop.' I have a non-alcoholic workshop trainer
> who is a Ph.D. in theology and teaches at a local seminary. He's also
> worked with alcoholics over the years.
>
> On the flyer I have a disclaimer stating that he is not endorsed or
> approved by AA, and that he is volunteering his help. A couple of
> people have said that doing this is against our AA traditions, I'd like
> to hear what this group has to say.
>
> Mike
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7002. . . . . . . . . . . . 15th National AA Archives Workshop
From: gerrynmt . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/9/2010 2:10:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
September 22-25, 2011 in Helena, Montana
15th National AA Archives Workshop
Their website at
http://www.aanationalarchivesworkshop.com/
has a conference flyer, registration information,
etc. Additional features will be added as time
goes on so keep checking back.
Hope to see everyone in Helena, Montana in 2011!
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7003. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Who wrote Living Sober?
From: Tom V . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/9/2010 2:16:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
A follow up question: was a publication like
"Living Sober" vetted throughout the fellowship?
Or are decisions to publish books made by a
committee?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7004. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Who wrote Living Sober?
From: Chris Budnick . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/9/2010 1:06:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I read an exchange of letters contained in Dr. Bob's collection at Brown
University. Here are highlights from these correspondence.
MARCH 7, 1982
Barry L. writes George Dorsey, Chairperson A.A.W.S., Inc. (cc: Robert
Pearson)
"I feel mistreated more and more by A.A. World Services because they
continue to
not pay royalties on Living Sober as they do on other books."
"When first asked to take on Living Sober in 1974, I asked for a small
royalty
in lieu of a lump sum. But I received only $4,000, half of what it cost to
write
the book, with no agreement on royalties."
"It is hard to believe that past and present Conference members would ever
want
A.A.W.S. to take advantage of A.A. members this way."
"Who would say, for example, that Niles P. did not deserve as good treatment
from A.A. as Bill W. did? If it is just and fair for one member to be paid
royalties for writing, it seems equitable for other writers to receive
similar
compensation. On that basis, it is hard to justify one author's receiving
royalties on books when three others do not. What do you think?"
MARCH 25, 1982
John K. Bragg, Chairperson of A.A.W.S. Board responds to Barry
He apologizes for not responding sooner, but needed to become familiar with
the
circumstances surrounding Barry's work on "Living Sober."
"I am sorry you feel exploited or that A.A.W.S. has taken advantage of you
by
not paying you royalties on continuing sales of Living Sober. I really don't
see
any analogy between the agreement to pay royalties to Bill Wilson to support
him
for his lifelong work with Alcoholics Anonymous as its cofounder and
agreements
made with you, Ralph B., Niles P., Mel B. or many other writers engaged by
A.A.W.S. for specific jobs. And I daresay the General Service Board and the
General Service Conference would have this same view, perhaps even more
strong."
"As I'm sure you know, Bill Wilson negotiated his own royalty contract
directly
with the General Service Board. I believe that no other persons have
received
royalties for A.A. writing and I doubt strongly that anyone will in the
future."
"As I understand it, Bob Hitchins offered you $4,000 in 1974, to write a new
draft of the booklet which became Living Sober and turned over to you the
unsatisfactory first draft by another writer together with other research
material. Surely your acceptance at that time must be regarded as agreement
that
the payment was satisfactory."
"Please don't take any of the above as diminishing my admiration (and that
of
thousands of A.A. members) of your good work in carrying the message through
speaking, and you Grapevine articles, and for your devotion to the
Fellowship."
FEBRUARY 14, 1983
Letter to General Service Board Members from Barry L.
"Just before I completed the manuscript of Living Sober, the Next-to-last
letter
I had from the president of A.A. World Services, Inc., dated 17 November
1972,
indicated the royalty arrangement we had been negotiating could not be
worked
out at the present time."
"Under pressure to complete Living Sober quickly, naturally I took the
A.A.W.S.
letter in good faith and finished it well before the deadline."
"I never agreed to any lack-of-royalty arrangement and never hesitated to
express to members at G.S.O and elsewhere my dissatisfaction with the token
payment I was given."
"I waited long and patiently before raising the subject again in writing
last
year."
"As of the end of 1981, Conference Reports show A.A.W.S. has distributed
584,017
copies of the book, raking in something like $1,022,000.00 on Living Sober.
A.A.W.S. is now trying to get away with paying the author only $4,000. Is
this
really right?"
"But I do ask myself: reputedly the Board safeguards A.A.'s Traditions and
Concepts. Does it now renege on honoring the principle of its own policy
thrice
re-affirmed (1952, 1957, and 1967) that the worker is worthy of his hire
(Concept XI) - that the fair way for A.A. to pay the author of a book on
which
it makes money is royalties at the commercial publishing world's standard
rate
of 15 per cent of the retail price?"
"I am left no choice. Therefore I hereby formally file this claim for
$153,304.45 in retroactive royalties due me on Living Sober plus interest
compounded annually each April 2 beginning in 1976 at 6 per cent ($38,112.09
as
of April 1, 1983), for a total of $191,416.54."
"I also ask that A.A.W.S., Inc., as indication of good faith and honest
intentions, cease and desist immediately any publication, sale, distribution
or
advertising on Living Sober, Came to Believe, Dr. Bob and the Good
Old-Timers,"
and the forthcoming biography of Bill, until a less exploitative, more
equitable, and non-discriminatory.agreement has been made with each of the
respective authors."
"I should like the sum past due to me, with the interest, paid to me over a
period of six years, which can be negotiated with my attorney. She will also
represent me in arranging a contract for the future concerning Living
Sober."
Chris B.
Raleigh, North Carolina
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7005. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Have AA groups ever pressed
charges against a member?
From: lee . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/11/2010 11:14:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
New York AA Archivist Frank M. and Trustee Michael
Alexander, from Lee Nickerson and Charlie Bishop, Jr.
- - - -
From: Lee Nickerson
(snowlilly12 at yahoo.com)
THE ATTACK ON NEW YORK A.A. ARCHIVIST FRANK M.
I am not a lawyer but I closely followed the German and Mexican situation
that
was an assault on AA members and on the minority opinion that was large,
organized and vocal. We had past trustees, GSO service workers, delegates
and
many knowledgeable folks trying to get AAWS's hands off these two countries.
My
understanding was that AAWS was covertly in the direct background of these
two
shameful pages of our recent history.
The point for me is that GSO and AAWS will eventually get us into a public
controversy at the level of Press, Radio, TV and the internet and a
Tradition
will be broken.
I had weekly meetings with AAWS staff and felt very close to the veil. I
once
had a GSO manager tell me that "If every group and member stopped donating,
GSO
would not be affected because we control the literature." Short-sighted
vision
of corporate agenda?
I was very close to the late Frank M., Past Archivist (the only alcoholic
Archivist) who took over from Nell Wing. We met once a month for a year
spending
time in the office researching Maine history, going out for late dinners and
even later meetings. Frank was forced to resign as the result of his
involvement
with Joe and Charlie's workshop and other movements that disturbed AAWS.
That
was the reason given by AAWS. Most in the minority felt that AAWS wanted a
non-alcoholic archivist who would be more amenable or malleable to the
tricks
forthcoming.
The next trick was when AAWS requested a payment of $150,000 from the city
of
San Diego to hold the 1995 Convention there (which they got). An uproar
erupted
but when every salaried staff worker, director and Grapevine staff is
clicked
down to submission to a larger will, things get murky and undone.
Frank M. started a movement for every AA member to send $5 and we could pay
San
Diego back. It made AAWS retaliate and Frank was soon gone after 30 years of
service to GSO.
We have people at our New York office that wrestle all day between
'fudiciary
responsibility, morality, and sprituality.'If one stacks up the
Tradition/Concept incursions in the last 20 years, one would clearly see
that
they are ready to do anything to protect the bureaucracy they have become.
The
system has taken on a life of its own and will do anything to assure its
survival.
lee nickerson
- - - -
From: Charles Bishop
(Bishopbk at comcast.net)
MICHAEL ALEXANDER QUOTE SHEER HYPOCRISY
Message #6995 said <Trustee, sometime Chairman of the Board, the lawyer who helped Bill write
the
Twelve Concepts (and loaned him a copy of Tocqueville's Democracy in America
in
the process), ideally "in AA we don't go to law, we go to prayer.">>
Lawyer Michael Alexander said what? "in AA we don't go to law, we go to
prayer."
Chairman Alexander was the primary instigator of the lawsuits against the
German
man who was ruined financially and the Mexican group that Spent over
$400,000.
defending themselves against the charge they reprinted the Big Book because
the
other Mexican group was overcharging for it.
I have an article called Spirituality vs. Legalism SHORT version.doc (109KB)
which I will send to anybody who contacts me. My e-mail address is
(Bishopbk at comcast.net)
Servus, Charlie Bishop, Jr.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 7006. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: A traditions question: using
non-AA speakers
From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/13/2010 3:29:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
From: t (tcumming at nc.rr.com)
In message no. 6996 from "Mike"
Dostları ilə paylaş: