Proposal4–AffirmNon-ConferenceApprovedLiterature Submitted byIG729, WeAgnostics Virtual IG
Issue:Change and affirm language in the Operating Policy and Procedures Manual (OPPM) regarding usage of outside literature. OPPM to read: “It has always been accepted that ACA should remain eclectic in choosing literature. That is, ACA meetings may draw from various sources without censorship. Each group is cautioned to be extremely careful in selecting materials, reviewing them against the 12 Traditions that govern our fellowship. This policy is subject to change only per Conference approval.”
Background:The current literature policy in the OPPM (p. 29), only addresses ACA’s open literature policy in passing. This policy has a history in our fellowship that is intimately intertwined with the identity of our fellowship. While both the BRB and the literature trifold provide more information about this policy, the authors of this proposal believe it is expedient to include a clear commitment to ACA’s open literature policy in the OPPM.
Adding the phrase, “without censorship” allows meetings to use their group conscience process in accordance with Tradition 4 and ensures no censorship from outside the meeting regarding the group’s choices. Eclectic means deriving ideas, styles, or choices from a broad and diverse range of sources. This would allow all groups to choose appropriate outside literature based on their individual group’s needs.
Many members and meetings value the literature ACA has produced. Due to the complexity of the ACA condition, this literature will never be able to meet all the needs of every adult child. This proposed open literature policy allows individual members and meetings to choose the resources that best serve their recovery.
Per Concept 6, the “annual business conference… traditionally has the final decision respecting large matters of general policy” such as changes to the literature policy. The authors of this proposal believe that making this explicit in the OPPM benefits the fellowship as a whole.
Implementation/Resources:
Implementation: This would be implemented by a well-informed group conscience vote of the Conference with the results of this vote distributed to the fellowship and the proposed changes implemented in the OPPM.
Resources include:
- Big Red Book (BRB) pp. XXXVI, 510, 612
- Tradition 4 – https://adultchildren.org/literature/traditions/
- ACA Literature Committee Policies trifold –
https://adultchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/Literature/Literature_Policy_EN_US_LTR. pdf
WSO Analysis:
Response:
ACA’s Literature policy says groups can use non-conference approved literature if it is in alignment with the Twelve Traditions. Page 612 of the BRB says “Each group is asked to be extremely careful in selecting outside material.” It goes on to cite several of the Traditions and questions to consider when making literature choices. There is similar wording in the Literature Policy tri-fold (see link below).
To add the words “without censorship” could suggest a group’s autonomy outweighs the needs of the fellowship to ensure a level of consistency in meetings – a consistency that distinguishes an ACA meeting from any other type of meeting.
Factors to consider:
The BRB recognizes that individual members may need literature from other sources to aid their recovery and are free to do so. All meeting groups are autonomous and can already choose eclectic material, as per group conscience. And outside literature should not contradict our foundational literature.
As stated in the BRB on page 612:
- Each group needs to evaluate what effect the use of outside literature might have on the newcomer seeking recovery in ACA.
- ACA members may use various books and literature in aid of their recovery.
- The non-ACA literature also should not promote an atmosphere of therapy in the meeting or promote a given author.
If this proposal is approved for the ABC agenda, the discussion could include consideration for further broad consultation with all meeting groups on this change and its impact.
Resources(for more background information) https://acawso.org/bpc/
A “no” vote – not enough value for the administrative burden.