ACA, as such, ought never be organized, but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.

Tradition Nine Insight

How is any organization expected to function without being organized or structured by rules? Who ever heard of a successful company without some organization? Don't we need some form of governing board keeping the meetings in order? Yet, here is our Ninth Tradition reminding us NOT to be organized. How is ACA supposed to function?

ACA is an exception from the normal rules of how to run a business or organization. Other organizations have governing boards which assert their power onto the rest of the organization. The governing boards put out the directives needed to keep everyone else in line. As a Twelve Step organization, ACA does not have any such directives because experience shows us they don't work for adult children. Too many rules, or any rules, would ruin ACA and its effectiveness in helping adult children.

When an Intergroup or the WSO is asked for direction on a certain matter, these committees typically answer with "We suggest..." or "Our experience shows..." There are no directives. No one can tell ACA groups how to run their meetings. There is no authoritative governance in ACA.

But what about an ACA group facing someone who regularly interrupts the meeting or who makes it unsafe with such behavior? Can't the group organize a committee to keep the meetings safe? Can't the Intergroup be asked to organize a subcommittee dedicated to group safety?

While a committee on group safety might sound like a reasonable idea, the truth is such a committee would lead to unnecessary organization. A safety committee would take away from the power of group members to handle their own affairs. The committee would place group safety in the hands of a few people, when safety is the responsibility of each ACA member.

A committee on group safety would invariably lead to a set of rules that groups could use to expel troublesome ACA members. Bad idea. Our experience shows that we cannot organize committees or create rules to expel anyone unless we want to ignore Traditions Nine or Three. Within ACA we simply don't have that kind of power. The Ninth Tradition reminds us to avoid trying to create such power with rules.

We must remember that disruptive members are not the norm in ACA. Groups only occasionally encounter such individuals who usually change their behavior or move on from ACA. Our groups have demonstrated maturity, compassion, and assertiveness in handling these situations throughout the years.

There are actions the group can take to remain safe without organizing a committee or expelling the errant member. Often, when dealing with a problem person, two or three ACA members with demonstrated recovery will talk to the person after the meeting. In some cases, this can become an opportunity to do a Twelfth Step in the fashion that a sponsor might do it. With such extra effort, disrupters are often enlightened to change their behavior and join the group. If the disruptive behavior continues, then the ACA members can ask the person to take a break from the meetings until he or she is willing to work the program. The group can ask the person to seek counseling help as well.

Each situation is somewhat different. Some disruptive members may refuse a request by experienced group members to set aside and talk it out. The person's behavior is a menace to the meeting while the meeting is in progress. This is the person who continually disrupts others' sharing, even after multiple group consciences asking him to stop. It is clear he or she has no intention to abide by the rules or meeting decorum. Such a person could be asked through another group conscience to leave the meeting until he or she has a change of heart regarding disruptive behavior. The person has a choice. In this scenario the disruptive member decides his or her membership status in ACA, instead of the group banning the person from meetings. If he chooses, he removes himself from the fellowship by his unwillingness to change disruptive behavior.

In a more serious example, the group might be confronted by an individual who continually makes threats against other ACA members. Or a non-member could show up and threaten the group or an individual member. For example at one meeting, the abusive husband arrived at the door for the purpose of accosting his estranged wife. The wife was hiding from him at the time, but he knew about her attendance at ACA meetings. When he refused to leave the meeting voluntarily, the meeting secretary called the police. The man was detained until the wife was able to leave the premises without harm. Such instances are extremely rare. Most ACA meetings will run a lifetime without having to ask anyone to leave.

Many of us arrive at ACA wounded and angry. We hurt, so we want to hurt others. However no one has the right to harm anyone in ACA. We must avoid our misguided attempt to recreate our dysfunctional family system through the ACA group. Angry or disruptive members are usually acting out their family role, unknowingly reconstructing their dysfunctional family setting. Some of us can relate to this claim. We realized that our disruptive behavior allowed us to blame the group. We could avoid working on ourselves by blaming group members for imagined wrongs and slights. The tolerance we found in ACA allowed many of us to change.

Experience shows that our groups have met these situations without forming special committees. The groups have used common sense and assertiveness to handle each situation.