1300 222 222
Member Opinion
Click here to read Conference Topics #33 <LINK>
This article is intended to be a resource for those less familiar with ‘Guideline No. GL- 39: AA Guideline for Virtual Area’ and how virtual areas fit into our service structure.
Hopefully the information in this article will allow for a more informed group conscience discussion about Topic #33 of the 2025 Australian Conference topics.
Article Summary (TLDR)
- Topic #33 isn’t asking that we allow another virtual area to be created – our policy in GL-39 already allows this.
- GL-39 says that new virtual areas can either join an existing in-person region (option A) or come under National Remote Communities (option B).
- Creating a new virtual area under option A will put it in direct competition with inperson areas and lead to duplication of services.
- The strength of virtual areas is carrying the message to alcoholics that can’t get to in-person meetings or groups: remote and housebound alcoholics.
- Virtual Area A already serves remote communities, if a second virtual area were to be created, then it should serve housebound alcoholics (Accessibilities).
- GL-39 needs updating anyway because the Trustees’ committee structure has changed since the policy in GL-39 was approved.
Who is at online AA meetings?
Whether you prefer in-person or online meetings in AA, there is one thing that is undeniable – online meetings have allowed us to do something that has been difficult in the past: bringing AA to alcoholics that don’t have access to in-person meetings.
There are a few reasons why an alcoholic can’t get to a local meeting, but a big chunk of the alcoholics that we see online now fall into two categories.
- Alcoholics that live or work in regions of Australia where there are no in-person meetings.
- Alcoholics that can’t leave the house to get to a meeting.
The first group of alcoholics are people that live in smaller remote townships and/or are employed as FIFO workers, remote community teachers, work on cattle stations, are long haul truckers etc. Online meetings are a way for them to get access to our vital message of hope and sobriety, fellowship, sponsorship and the twelve steps in a way that AA struggled to do pre-Zoom. Many of them find sobriety for the first time online and integrate into the in-person fellowship at the first opportunity.
The second group are different. These are alcoholics with carer obligations, disabilities, agoraphobia, immunity issues and other circumstances that prevent them from leaving the house. They are also our aging but incredibly valuable old-timers that are now too dependent on care to get to in-person meetings. This second group, the housebound AAs, are much larger than the first group, and they are where the online fellowship gets most of its wisdom and guidance. Zoom has enabled our elder statesmen and women to stay connected to our fellowship for longer, and gives those earlier in sobriety instant access to their experience, strength and hope.
Extending AA’s PI reach and providing a three legacy recovery option online As the result of Advisory Action #009/2020, a Conference Policies & Admissions Committee working group drafted ‘Guideline No. GL- 39: AA Guideline for Virtual Area’, which stipulates two possible avenues for the formation of virtual areas:
A. Become part of an existing region (NE, N, E, S, C or W)
B. Come under the umbrella of the Trustees’ Remote Communities Committee
In 2022, a collection of interested online groups applied to the Conference Policies & Admissions Committee to form a virtual area under option B.
Virtual Area A was subsequently approved and the first delegate attended Conference in 2022.
Currently Virtual Area A contributes a significant amount annually to the National Remote Communities working group, hosts their webpage, and both the delegate and PIPA coordinator attend its monthly meetings.
Virtual Area A can be considered our National Remote Communities online arm, and is in the process of launching a paid social media campaign targeted at the alcoholic that doesn’t have access to in-person meetings due to their remote location.
In addition to extending AAs PI reach though online channels, Virtual Area A provides a way for AAs to engage in valuable service opportunities despite not having access to inperson groups.
Perhaps the most important lesson that has been learned from choosing to form a virtual area under National Remote Communities (option A) as opposed to an existing region (option B) is this:
Virtual Area A doesn’t compete with in-person meetings, groups and areas for service opportunities, access to service-oriented alcoholics, and PIPA.
Virtual Area A only goes where other areas can’t go – no duplication of service!
How is Topic #33 relevant?
There are two main reasons for this topic.
Firstly, and according to a member of that original working group that formulated GL-39, “Virtual Area A was never intended to be the only virtual area”. In fact, GL-39 allows for the formation of multiple virtual areas already, so long as the applicant online groups comply with the requirements of pathway A or B.
So, Topic #33 then isn’t asking for another virtual area to be allowed. This is already the case! What the topic is really asking for is if a second virtual area were ever to be created, then let’s make sure it serves a useful purpose in our service structure. Like Virtual Area A, lets ensure any other virtual area is not competing with in-person groups and areas for services like, PIPA, H&I, Corrections etc., and access to willing alcoholics to do them.
Secondly, our service structure has changed since Virtual Area A was formed under the Trustees’ Remote Communities Committee. This committee no longer exists and has been replaced by the Trustees’ Services Committee. There is still a National remote communities coordinator and a remote communities working group remaining, and Virtual Area A has integrated successfully with this new structure.
So GL-39 has to be changed anyway. Topic #33 is just asking for Conference to do what we do in AA, i.e. adapt our service structure and materials based on the lessons of experience.
And in this case:
- Remove the provision to form future virtual areas within existing in-person regions.
- Find the right place in our service structure if another virtual area was formed given that Virtual Area A is already servicing our remote communities successfully.
Connection with National Accessibilities?
The second (and larger) group of alcoholics you find online are those that are housebound. They are a diverse group with a breadth of experience, wisdom and motivation to do service for AA as part of a three-legacy recovery. Although no one would argue that carrying the message to remote alcoholics and giving them access to service opportunities isn’t important, the cohort of housebound alcoholics is much larger and motivated to use their own experience to help others in the same predicament. These members fall squarely under the responsibility of National Accessibilities—whose role is to support AAs facing barriers to participation due to disability, illness, age or other access challenges.
The ability of Virtual Area A to service remote communities, both financially and in terms of available and motivated trusted servants, is due to its singleness of purpose.
Groups that send their GSRs to assemblies and contribute 7th tradition funds know exactly what the area does and how it does it. Just as AA is so effective at providing recovery to the hopeless alcoholic because it doesn’t try to cure the worlds many other problems, Virtual Area A is effective because of the single-minded focus on alcoholics that live and work where there are no in-person meetings.
Amending GL-39 to specify National Accessibilities as the correct structural home for any future virtual area (instead of in-person regions) would provide a more logical placement and prevent duplication of service. It would also align any new virtual area with the most under-served group in online AA: housebound alcoholics.
Virtual Area A Steering Committee
