These principles apply to any service committees. What is
set out below is how I have experienced intergroups in London, England. Practices
may differ elsewhere and, provided they accord with the Traditions and
Concepts, may be just as good or even better. The manuals and even the
Traditions and Concepts themselves are suggested: entities may deviate in good
faith in accordance with their own conscience and in the light of circumstances;
the discipline of the groups will usually bring them back into line if they
stray too far.
Intergroups are formed by groups to do what groups cannot easily do alone, e.g.
run local services (literature, telephones, websites) and perform public
information work.
Intergroups are made up of GSRs representing groups. From amongst themselves
they elect officers (chair, treasurer, secretary, PI officer, literature
officer, etc.) Sometimes they accept candidature from non-GSRs for these roles.
This can make sense, so that the individual does not have to discharge the role
of GSR plus the role of chair, PI officer, etc.
Intergroups are directly responsible to those they serve (Tradition IX), namely
the groups, which represent the collective consciousness of the fellowship
(Concept I).
The responsibility and authority are delegated by the groups to the intergroup
to perform these services (Concept II). The members of the intergroup then
perform these services exercising Right of Decision (Concept III). This means
the intergroup gets to decide what to do (as informed by the members of the
groups) and how to do it. The intergroup establishes the scope of each
officer's work and sometimes how the job is to get done. This is written down
as a job description. (The intergroup also writes down how it operates as a set
of procedures: this is its job description.) Officers then discharge their
duties as they see fit, consulting the intergroup on large matters of general
policy and finance (Concept VI). The officer is accountable to the intergroup
for their actions and may be censured, redirected, or replaced. Any
subcommittees to the intergroup may be reorganised (Concept III). Reorganisation
may take the form of reallocating duties. The same principles apply to
volunteers reporting to officers: the volunteer may discharge their duties as
they see fit, consulting the officer where necessary, but the officer, being
the one who is accountable to the intergroup, has the final say; sometimes the
matter raised by the volunteer or the volunteer's conduct requires input from a
higher level: the intergroup itself. In this case, the intergroup has the final
say.
This is therefore the chain of delegation: GSRs, intergroups, officers,
volunteers. Each level is accountable to the level above and may act
freely within but not beyond the scope of the authority and responsibility
given. The delegating level may alter this authority and responsibility as
and when it sees fit.
The intergroup is a spiritual entity, so when it votes on a matter, it is
seeking to create a single mind (Step Eleven, Tradition II) and seek
substantial unanimity (Concept XII).
Being democratic, all its members vote. They are not voting for themselves or
even for the groups they represent but for the benefit of the fellowship as a
whole. As with groups, people with more experience or other virtues are not
given greater voting weight. Officers with greater responsibility are not given
greater voting weight. GSRs and officers vote. Officers, being full members of
the intergroup, vote on all matters, not just those falling within their own
domain. Voting rights are granted at class level (see Concept IV) not
individual level. Officers are given votes (authority) as a class,
because they have responsibility as a class.
All members of intergroup (GSRs and officers) have a custodial responsibility,
which means they are responsible for assimilating all the information and
participating in the process of 'discussion, vote, and substantial unanimity'.
Some officers have specific responsibilities (e.g. for public information).
Such specific responsibilities do not strip them of their custodial
responsibility: as indicated, they continue to vote on general matters.
Volunteers fall outside the scope of the intergroup's decision-making work. A
telephone coordinator, for instance, may have dozens of volunteers across the
month. Such volunteers have no duties at intergroup. They report to the telephone
coordinator, who is responsible to the intergroup for the work of the
volunteers.
Anyone may bring a complaint (Concept V) (filing a minority report / a personal
grievance). Such complaints should be in writing and worded simply, factually,
and soberly, with whatever supporting evidence is required. These should then
be examined at the intergroup meeting, with anyone personally implicated being
given the chance also to present a response (and sufficient warning and
materials to prepare such a response). The complainant and, if relevant, the respondent
briefly present the situation; other members are invited to contribute with
questions and views. The chair's role is then to identify and propose a way
forward. For the sake of unity, the most useful way of doing this is to propose
new procedures or actions for the future. 'Votes of no confidence' in
individuals are last resorts and rarely necessary. A better alternative is to
propose a tighter or different job description for the officer in question and
give the individual the chance to accept or reject this. If they accept it,
they are given the chance to fulfil it. If they reject it, the post falls
vacant and other candidatures are encouraged. All such decisions are made
through discussion, vote, and substantial unanimity. Aim for redirection and reorganisation
ahead of censure and replacement.
Any difficult discussions should observe the following principles: talk about
the substance of the procedures or actions, not the person (principles before
personalities); keep the discussion simple, factual, sober, objective, pragmatic
good-natured, relevant, and respectful; focus on the practical objective sought
not on who is right and who is wrong; disagree without being disagreeable;
avoid repetition: once something has been said it does not need to be
reiterated around the room or indeed by the original contributor; give equal
'airtime' to everyone; have a timer for contributors; and allow
'double-dipping' only once everyone who wants to has contributed once. If things
get heated or resolution seems impossible, postpone the discussion and in the meantime
invite written contributions for collation, anonymisation, circulation, and personal
contemplation. Then take a fresh view next time.
The above procedures should prevent a lot of problems before they arise and
solve many others that do arise.