====

Self-support is a cherished principle of Alcoholics Anonymous. Without it, we would have collapsed long ago, either through a lack of sufficient contributions from A.A. members or through accepting financial support from sources outside A.A. There’s an old adage that “He who pays the fiddler, calls the tune”. In other words, if some source of funds greatly outweighs all other sources, the larger source of funds might “call the tune” by simply saying, “Do it my way, or I am withholding my financial support”. Has that source of funds provided by the markup on A.A. literature begun to “pay the fiddler”? Do we, as a Fellowship, rely too much on this source of funds? What would happen if this source of funds would cease to exist, if A.A. attempted to match group services with group contributions?

A.A. needs money to pay for its services, that is a given. The topic asks if the groups should pay for all the services the General Service provides the groups, or should we continue to make up the difference with mark-up on A.A. literature? In an ideal world, group contributions to GSO would pay for all group services and allow GSO to maintain a prudent reserve in order to maintain those services in those times when the groups might temporarily fail to fully financially support GSO’s services to the groups. We don’t live in an ideal world, so it is prudent for A.A. to always remember Bill W’s words from page S2 of the A.A. Service Manual, “Concerning any given service, we therefore ask one question, ‘Is this service really needed?’ If it is, then maintain it we must, or fail in our mission to those who need and seek A.A.”. Bill goes on to say, “The most vital, yet least understood, group of services, that A.A. has are those that enable us to function as a whole, namely: the General Service Office, A.A. World Services, Inc., The A.A. Grapevine Inc., and our board of trustees, known legally as the General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous. Our worldwide unity and much of our growth since early times are directly traceable to this cluster of life-giving activities.” I think the first order of business then has to be to find out exactly what those life-giving activities are. What services does GSO provide to the groups? That is the job of those who serve in General Service to find out and inform the groups. Without this information, we cannot have a truly informed group conscience, we will be making a decision out of ignorance. It might be helpful if more detailed information was provided on these services. At the very least, maybe the background material could cite a source where the A.A. member could go to find out what these services are. Until the readers know this information, they can only offer general opinions like, “Yeah, it sounds like a good idea that the groups should pay for all the costs of services provided to the groups by GSO”. Or, “No, it would not be a good idea for GSO to rely solely on group contributions to pay for group services, too many services would have to be cut”.

I think the importance of this discussion is to have an open and informed discussion, but we need to know the types and costs of services provided by GSO in order to add to the discussion. Hopefully this information might be added to the background information.

(Message ID 7.003)    March 15, 2008

====

The present method of financial support makes the best sense to me. The flow of funds received from the fellowship, plus the profits from the sale of literature, coupled with the prudent reserve acting as a buffer to achieve an annual balanced budget is a smart way to manage the finances of a not-for-profit organization.

When trends reflect revenue levels that exceed operational needs, the price of literatures can be lowered to return the prudent reserve to its standard level. Conversely, if the level of fellowship contributions is lowered and over time creates a strain on the prudent reserve, the sale price of literature can raised to return the prudent reserve to its standard level.

In my opinion, to think the fellowship could & would be self-supporting through contributions only, is wishful thinking. Literature would continue to bear a price tag (Cost to produce only). The fellowship needs to be mindful that an estimate of about 55% of the registered groups in the fellowship are currently making contributions. 45% do not contribute. Here's a couple questions:

1. Will the 45% of the fellowship step up and start to make contributions?
2. If the answer to #1 is no, will the 55% reach down lower and double their contribution amount?
3. If the answer to #1 is no; #2 fails to meet their support obligation; and the prudent reserve is exhausted by filling the void between contributions and the operational budget, how will the fellowship continue to pay its bills?

In my opinion, the issue of total self support through contributions would have negative financial impact to A.A. Risk management systems and procedures would need to be created and mandate an ongoing & constant paramount matter for the fellowship's financial committee's to keep abreast of.

My vote is NO! Leave it alone.

(Message ID 7.002)    March 15, 2008

====

It's pretty hard to run a business or organization with the hope that donations will keep it afloat. When the donations dry up or are less than needed then fundraising starts. So with that in mind are we going to start running fundraisers to maintain GSO? Oh, wait a minute, the AA members will donate more if they think that they have to? Will book sales slow and go into the red since there is only so much money to go around and the money is all going to donations to GSO?
Send out a survey to all GSR’s to take to their home group and send the survey to the Central Office’s so they can give it to their reps and then we can get a good idea of what people think. Of course if you don’t have a GSR or Intergroup rep you may never know about this. This is a lot to think about both pro and con. I don’t think it is a good idea but that's just my idea.

(Message ID 7.001)    March 15, 2008