AA SF/Marin Intergroup

Thank you to everyone involved in the discussion around the decision to accept the bequest and set up a special projects fund for our fellowship. We are blessed to have been given the opportunity to be of service to our fellow alcoholics from the beginning of the process. The founders of A.A. were clear from the very beginning that every voice should be heard. One of our greatest challenges is making sure every voice gets heard. Luckily for us, the founders also did a great deal of the heavy lifting in this regard and we have an organization with a service structure that supports this goal.

At the Special Projects Fund Meeting on Wednesday, Oct 21 we heard from over 20 of the roughly 80 participants and compiled their questions/comments/concerns. Here is a list of what we heard:

• How seriously did we consider the traditions/concepts/principles?
• Why wasn’t this brought to the groups before accepting the money?
• How come it wasn’t more readily disseminated to the groups/members?
• Members expressed a desire to return the money, or return all but 10k.
• How is the money to be spent?
• Was there precedent, were other entities (Intergroups/CO/GSO) consulted?
• What will happen with the second bequest?

How seriously did we consider the traditions/concepts/principles?

The experience, strength and hope present at the monthly business meeting of Intergroup representatives is overflowing with knowledge and appreciation for the service structure of A.A.: years of experience in dealing with matters concerning the traditions, concepts and principles; the strength of the representatives comes from the trust their groups’ members place in their decisions; and the hope incumbent in the gift of sobriety as the ultimate goal for all those who have a desire to stop drinking. We fully understand and share the concerns expressed around the dangers of accepting a considerable sum of money from a deceased member of our Fellowship. We considered the long form of Tradition 7 which states: “acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries, which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds with no stated A.A. purpose.” The Special Projects Fund was set up with a specifically stated purpose and through the decision making process as it exists in our business meetings, a summary of the circumstances can be found here. 

Some members expressed their belief that it did not matter how strongly Intergroup believed in the usefulness of the projects to assist our fellowship’s capability to help the still suffering alcoholic as it clearly violated the traditions and was harmful to A.A. as a whole. A.A. as a whole is constantly facing challenges that require our careful consideration in an ever changing environment. Sometimes the solutions to those problems may involve decisions that cause discomfort and unease within our membership. This has been the case since the beginning, and the structure built by those who have gone before us was tested repeatedly and came out stronger on the other side. The traditions, concepts and principles emerged out of what Bill W. termed the “Constructive Use of Trouble.” He states, “This trouble is now converted into an educational process. It is something for growth, and progress becomes our most important product – and trouble is the touchstone, the stimulus, to the perfection of that progress.” However the results of the decision to institute a Special Projects Fund turns out, A.A. as a whole will be stronger for the debate and loving discussion that surrounds the process. 

Why wasn’t this brought to the groups before accepting the money? How come it wasn’t more readily disseminated to the groups/members?

The Intergroup Representative (IGR) is the primary conduit through which the business of Intergroup is conducted. At any given time roughly 7% of the groups have an active IGR. This has been the case for many years and increasing outreach to the fellowship is one of our greatest challenges. If your group is not currently represented you can find information on the role and responsibility of the IGR here. Intercounty Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous (IFAA, or “Intergroup”) is a function of the service structure in AA by which the individual groups and members can achieve the primary purpose of helping the still suffering alcoholic. IFAA procedure relies on the participation of its members to operate and maintain the services provided and is consistently aiming to improve and expand the efficacy of both the services provided and the participation of the groups. The establishment of the Special Projects Fund is specifically rooted in assuring the continued dedication to IFAA’s purpose of serving the groups and the still suffering alcoholic. 

Members expressed a desire to return the money, or return all but 10k.

This request has been added as “New Business” to the current agenda at Intergroup.

How is the money to be spent?

You can find details about how the money is being spent and plans for future projects here. 

Was there precedent, were other entities (Intergroups/CO/GSO) consulted?

There have been other service entities that have taken large sums of money and addressed the concerns of their members over the decision. We have heard from a number of other people involved in service expressing their support and interest in how this process came about and in how it develops going forward. GSO was not specifically consulted during our decision making process but responded to our inquiry for their feedback recently. Their response is as follows:

I spoke with our Archivist and also with senior staff and there were a few common themes.  One of them, which you brought up in your email, is that in accordance with Tradition 4, each AA entity is autonomous and develops its own informed group conscience on how to apply the Tradition to its daily operations and activities.  While G.S.O. does currently have a limit of $10,000 for individual bequests, other A.A. entities, guided by A.A. principles and Traditions may certainly have a different threshold.

Another theme was to look closely at Tradition Seven, especially the long form which has more specifics to it: 

The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other 2 outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority.

The Tradition cautions treasuries not to “accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose.”  From what you described, there were clearly defined purposes for the contributions and that they related to carrying the message of A.A.

The long form says “…that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise.”  It is up to the informed group conscience to decide if these contributions carried any obligation and what is the definition of “large gifts.” 

Several of us remembered the discussion at Conference when the bequest limit was raised from $5,000 to $10,000.  Some members spoke about how we should rely on the entire Fellowship for support rather than looking to wealthy members.  They shared that this is another expression of the spiritual concept of anonymity – no one stands out because of the amount of money they give to A.A.  The ideal is that we all get the chance for that feeling of belonging that comes from contributing as well as the spiritual rewards of giving with no reward in mind.  There is the potential for large contributions to engender a feeling of “I don’t have to participate in self-support, it’s covered by a few high rollers.” It’s good to ask if that has happened since the contributions were accepted, or not?

One other theme brought up was that we are a self-correcting Fellowship.  The process you described bears that out:  the fact that the Board at first declined the contribution, then opened it up to a broader discussion (which is in keeping with our Traditions and Concepts) and decided to accept it.  If another correction needs to be made, well that’s just A.A.

As our literature reminds us, “we are not saints” and “it’s progress, not perfection.”  If we do make a mistake, Step Ten instructs us to “make amends quickly if we have harmed anyone.  Then resolutely turn our thoughts to someone we can help.”  

I hope there is something in this hastily gathered experience that is helpful. 

What will happen with the second bequest?

The second bequest is currently under further consideration by Intergroup.

October 21, 2020

1. Introductions – (Alan G)
   1. Open Meeting with the Serenity Prayer
   2. Why are we here? Members have expressed their interest concerning IFAA’s acceptance of a bequest for $140,000
   3. Hope to continue the conversation from last month’s IGR meeting
      1. Information will be posted to the website 
   4. We’re not trying to change minds, this is to provide information, why the decision was made and how it was made
2. Review Decision Making Process
   1. Timeline (Renee)
      1. Early in 2019 IFAA was contacted by an estate that there was a potentially large bequest which was initially declined
      2. Later in 2019 at the October 2019 IG meeting there was a conversation about the individual ($5,000) and moratorium limits ($10,000). At this time we discussed how IFAA was a separate entity and we received unanimous support from IG to continue discussions
      3. IFAA Board discussed options to accept the funds beyond the $10,000 level
      4. In March, 2020 the IFAA Board received consensus from IG to accept the full amount of bequest as a one time exception leaving our limits in place
      5. April, 2020 IFAA accepted the $140,000 bequest where it was recorded as income and then segregated into a Special Project Funds that would not be used to cover general operating expenses 
      6. Note: there is an opportunity for IFAA to provide more detailed meeting minutes moving forward
   2. Review of Decision Making in Intergroup
      1. Address the general principles by which IFAA operates and how decisions get made
      2. Info packets each month provide information on how to get motions onto the agenda and the consensus decision making model which provides IFAA with a more rigorous procedure around the minority opinion and get to a point where we are as close as possible to unanimity
      3. Who gets a vote: Per the Bylaws each IGR is given 
      4. What gets decided at Intergroup vs. the Board?
         1. Inspired by Concept 3 “The right of decision”, the Board is beholden to the lay and Bylaw and beyond that it is a matter of discretion to decide what matters are brought to the entire Intergroup
         2. The authority of the Groups – each representative is allowed to bring forward a motion which is considered by the Board
         3. Approval of the intergroup resolution is by substantial unanimity (⅔ majority) which is different from Robert’s Rules which requires only a majority or 50% +1
3. Use of Special Project Funds
   1. Operational Challenges
      1. Outreach and engagement – a conservative estimate is that we spend about 50% of our time on 
      2. Rotation – Impact of rotation allows for more members to be in service commitments, however, at any given time you lose human capital or 
      3. Communication Channels
         1. Curate content
         2. Assessed connectivity when we went through the transition of the Point to digital from mail at which point a survey was conducted to understand how
      4. Economies of Scale
         1. Number of people involved in service outside the group is minimal so we started to 
      5. Contributions from Individual members
      6. Volunteer membership 
   2. Overview of Special Projects Fund
      1. 7 – 8% of groups had representation at Intergroup
      2. Named Director of a 501(c)3 nonprofit 
      3. Operations committee during the Fall retreat
         1. Lease expiration where a move could be costly
         2. Accounting software transition from desktop to online presented challenges 
         3. Database was a custom database that was managed by a single volunteer and it became clear that we needed to look at purchase of a 
         4. Integration of SMS text messaging for 12th step calls and meeting reminders
   3.  Comments from Fellowship

Raise your hand to share your thoughts, the chat will remain closed. 2 minutes per share.

• Melanie – AA is held to a higher standard than most non-profits. Where is our discussion of the 7th tradition? Are the by-laws more important than the traditions. (If we don’t change our decision, she will not feel comfortable ever providing 7th tradition)
• Thatcher – Questions our decision and our process. Trusted servants should follow the guidelines and traditions, concepts and steps – clearly not the case in this choice. Wants us to pause any more spending of this money, and take it to the groups we serve for consideration. This will harm other intergroups. “No more special money.” What about the second request? This is not good.
• Vanessa H. – Thank you to Maury and Board. This has come up because of discussion at GSR meeting. Traditions and concepts were not being followed. She understands that a lot of consideration was put into this, but she hopes everyone stays civil. This was a decision made in love, and we can disagree in love. 
• Jennifer K.- From Marin. She understands one of our intentions is to share with other intergroups. Have the other intergroups ever had a bequest like this? How have they handled this? Did we speak to GSO? What was their response? Intergroup is autonomous – *except where it affects other groups or AA as a whole* — how might this affect aa as a whole?
• Karen C. – This is the biggest issue to hit local AA since she’s been sober. The purpose of the money is irrelevant. All sounds like wonderful projects. But the 12 and 12 talks about this, and that money was probably for a good reason too. We have a principle of corporate poverty. We need to admit we made a mistake. Not spend more than $10K. Until we can give a thorough airing and let groups decide. We should be grateful for $20k. Need to keep principles.
• Fiona – Thank everyone for service. Has experience in service at IG. Just found out about this last week. Concerned about this. Concerned that very little was mentioned in the IG minutes (she lists various month’s meeting minutes). How many IGRs are actually telling their meeting this information? Who are the consultants? What is the cost breakdowns? More transparency. Let the groups make the decision. More discussion is needed. Put money on hold.
• John R. – Decision has been made and this meeting is after the fact, and he is troubled. Couldn’t find anything in minutes. Bylaws do not trump traditions. Need does not give us the right to circumvent the traditions. Understand that COVID made things difficult. Was not at March meeting – was it a 2/3rds vote to accept the fund? He’s a long time member. Let’s rethink – not spend any more money than $10k and take back to groups to have a new vote.
• Kathleen – IGR for Coconuts Meetings. She cites the concepts for why we should be using consultants and get the best for our fellowship. But she is concerned that we went against our policy of limits. Breakdown in the communication. March 2020 was a very small meeting, not well represented. She doesn’t feel like there was a real vote. It was a chaotic time to communicate a big decision.
• Brian – He would like to know the mechanics for getting a motion on the next IG meeting to put a vote on the floor to return all but 10K of the bequest. We are in a leadership position – our board is great, the tech is great – but we need to return money.
• Alex – Appreciate the report. He has served on tech committee – more happening in the last nine months than last many years combined. What Patrick said in his report – single point of failure – is true. He wants to acknowledge the good work. Wants Jennifer’s questions answered (what are those questions? See notes above). 
• Michael M. – Thank you to Board. The fellowship is upset that they were not addressed before violating traditions. He knows Dallas has taken a large bequest. He knows it is not unusual. But we should have come to the fellowship and ask. He knows we have the best intentions. Groups could have provided the money we needed.
• Jaime – Intentions don’t matter. Now we have money. He would like us to give it back. Was the deceased a member of AA (alcoholic?)? Wants us to refuse the second bequest.
• Liz – Thanks everyone! Everyone is participating tonight, not everyone was around back in March. She is passionate about finding a common solution. We have to fix the technology solutions, otherwise we waste volunteers time. Discussion was lengthy and slow at the Board. Time will tell what will happen next, but she hopes that people will be as informed as they can be and not be emotional.
• Marie – Some of us have taken Central Office for granted. This has sparked a desire to be more involved with Central Office. We are first and foremost part of AA. We have to follow traditions. Board has the right to make decisions. Fellowship has the right to appeal a decision. Do the right thing – make amends – give the money back and say sorry. We have not been trustworthy.
• Julie S. – Thank you for the presentation. Thinks we should give the money back! Ask the groups for the money we need to update our systems. In favor of righting this wrong and looking at our communication and the breakdown. (also a problem at General Service). What can we do to fix that?
• Leslie – Thank you everyone. 1) idea of helping other intergroups – actually causes concern. She’s not sure why, but that we should be taking care of our local area and not other areas. 2) She is GSR and they have an IFR – She doesn’t like that it was brought as a decision and not a discussion
• Paul – We see a lot of people are passionate about AA. We need better communication in terms of the bigger issues we’re facing. Was hoping that more of tonight would be around the decision – not the need for the money – but why we accepted it.
• Chip – Thank everyone involved. As we can see from tonight’s comments, most people are just learning about this. Surprised by the Board’s decision. Perhaps groups have to take responsibility for that because they are not involved enough. But blame is not important. It would be a good idea for the Board to step back, get the group’s more involved and take a new consensus.
• Gareth – Works on H&I committee. New to AA. Cares about the traditions. Tradition 7 is important. This issue has come up before and AA has learned from its mistakes. We are not supposed to become rich, or for-profit. We should decline “outside contribution.” He would like to vote to send money back.
• Rob – Echoing Chip. He has attended meetings that have IGRs, and he’s fortunate in that respect. This is a lesson to get involved, and report back to groups so that everyone will know what’s going on.
• Hunter – Thank you for the special meeting. He is in favor of the Board’s decision to accept bequest. He believes the main thing here is don’t drink. And AA has changed his life. AA and steps have been around longer than traditions – we’re still learning. He does believe we need to keep transparent about the use of funds.
• Judy – Thank you to the Board for getting everyone up to speed. She agrees with most of the concerns everyone has voiced tonight. She mentions a previous discussion about raising contribution limits – but it needs to be a discussion. Go back to the groups and get their input. We’ve done more to respond during COVID than most.
• Cathy – Thank you for service. Learned a lot. Cites the Rockafeller dinner as example. Intergroup did a fantastic job during pandemic getting info out. Contribution amount comes up every year at the general service conference. Personally, she’d like us to return the money and ask the members of the fellowship for what we need.

Wrap Up and adjournment. Info will be posted at aasfmarin.org/10212020.

To our SF/Marin Fellowship:

Central Office has recently received inquiries regarding a bequest accepted by IFAA (Intercounty Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous of San Francisco and Marin Counties) earlier this year. The IFAA Board of Directors would like to provide background around how this opportunity came about, the decision-making process, and our plans for the funds. Please note all of this information was made available via our monthly Intergroup Meetings and their corresponding minutes.

In 2019, we received notice from two (2) separate estates of deceased AA members that IFAA had been named as a beneficiary and that the amount was unknown, but expected to be greater than our contribution limits (close to $100k). IFAA’s policy is to observe the same contribution limits as those observed by AA General Service Office (GSO) – currently, $5,000 limit for an individual member (annually) and $10,000 limit for a bequest (one-time). 

For several months, our Board discussed the pros and cons of accepting these bequests in light of AA’s Traditions and our current contribution policy. We also notified the broader Intergroup of this topic and our ongoing deliberation. After several months of deliberation, the Board concluded that accepting these bequests to fund larger scale projects that we otherwise would not be able to fund would enable us to better serve our fellowship and further our organization’s mission to serve the AA groups of San Francisco and Marin and to bring services to the still suffering alcoholic that individual groups cannot provide. Further, our goal is to share the end result of these projects with Intergroups in other areas, to the extent possible, thereby maximizing the reach of these funds.

At the March 2020 Intergroup Meeting, the Finance Committee of the Board presented our decision to accept the bequests and set up a Special Projects Fund. At that time, we opened the floor for feedback/questions and had a healthy discussion. While a few members expressed concern about setting an undesirable precedent, the majority of Intergroup members showed strong support for the decision. We all agreed that accepting these bequests would be viewed as a one-time exception to our policy, rather than changing or amending the policy to increase the contribution limits.

In April 2020, we accepted one estate’s bequest totaling $140,000, and used it to establish the Special Projects Fund. The other bequest is still pending contingent on the settlement of the estate.

The Special Projects Fund is set aside to tackle projects that go above and beyond our traditional capabilities, and is not being used for day-to-day operations of IFAA.

So far, these projects have included:

• Migration of our back-office data systems (in progress) from a custom system to one based on commercial products (Airtable, Zapier, and TypeForm). For this project we engaged the help of a member from New York General Service and intend to develop guidance for other service entities that want to replicate it.

Future projects under consideration include:

• Creating a meeting schedule PDF generator to be shared with other AA service entities
• Software upgrades and implementation 
• Consultant fees for specialized help (accounting/legal/tech)
• Reserve for potential Central Office move (lease expires in October 2021) – while this is not a project, per se, it is an anticipated large expenditure our normal operating funds would not likely cover.

We will continue to provide a quarterly report on the fund financials and progress of the projects underway at future Intergroup meetings. 

If your homegroup does not have an Intergroup Representative, we encourage you to get one so that your group has a voice and stays up to date on all matters concerning IFAA.

In Service,
IFAA Board of Directors