Proposal 2 – Literature ProjectsSubmittedbyMA047, Cambridge, MA, USA

Issue:We propose that all WSO literature projects, new or in development, must pass ABC motions initiated by group ballot proposals to start or continue development (publication not guaranteed). Proposals should detail the unmet need(s) the literature addresses and its synergy with existing ACA literature, and ideally provide all ACAs access to a 25-50 page review draft 20 days before any ABC vote. Exception: literature approved by the Literature Evaluation Subcommittee before 6 October 2023.

Background:Requiring WSO literature projects to undergo an ABC motion vote initiated by a registered group’s ballot proposal promotes the efficient use of WSO resources by limiting projects to those with broad fellowship support. Proposals from WSO Committees, the WSO Board of Trustees, Regions, and Intergroups can be perceived as having more authority and weight. To address that perception, this proposal requires that literature proposals start at the group level to ensure more balanced decision-making. It strengthens #1 on the Commitment to Service, “Affirming that the true power of our program rests in the membership of the meetings and is expressed through our Higher Power and through group conscience.” (See page 601 of the ACA Fellowship Text).

Reviewing a sample draft, if available, allows the fellowship to check if the proposed literature aligns with ACA principles and 12 Traditions. This proposal does not apply to

conference-approved or published fellowship-review mode literature translations. Literature and proposals that do not pass at an ABC can still be developed outside WSO for future ballot submissions. Such literature can be circulated (as long as it respects the existing literature development policy and displays no WSO logos) per WSO’s open literature policy.

Resources/Implementation:Our group is prepared to collaborate with the Literature Committee and WSO Board of Trustees to draft language for the Operating Policy and Procedures Manual (OPPM, available at http://acawso.org), making the ballot proposal addition to WSO’s literature development process clear. We propose that the Literature Committee implement and ensure compliance with these changes while the Board of Trustees provides oversight.

WSO Analysis:

Response:

This proposal would add an additional step to the existing literature evaluation process by requiring delegates to review and approve each suggestion for a new piece of ACA literature prior to its being developed, therefore lengthening the process for approval of new literature.

Currently new ACA literature can be proposed in any one of four ways, as per the Operating Policies and Procedures Manual:

1. By means of a delegate motion at an ABC
2. By any ACA group that develops it
3. As directed by the Board of Trustees
4. As created by the Literature Committee.
5. Delegates already have the ability to direct the Literature Committee to write new literature at an ABC, as well as the ability to grant final Conference approval for all literature initiated in any of the above four ways.

 Factorstoconsider:

• Adding this additional step
  • Will limit the Literature Committee’s ability to produce new literature.
  • May risk losing volunteers and groups who are interested in working on a specific literature project, since they may have to wait up to a year for approval to begin any work on it.
• There are currently numerous pieces of ACA literature in progress to become conference-approved, after fellowship review, that were not initiated by a ballot proposal. One example is A New Hope, which was developed and used by a meeting group in Florida before being submitted to the Literature Evaluation team as proposed literature.
• If this proposal is implemented, it will result in additional ballot proposals each year requiring additional time for the:
  • Ballot Proposal Committee
  • ACA meeting groups
  • and at the ABC – to go through these proposals.
• Discussion of alternative solutions to the perceived problems with the current literature development and evaluation process raised in the proposal can be done independently of this proposal by gathering broad fellowship input, e.g., surveys, town halls, etc.

Resources(for more background information) https://acawso.org/bpc/