Why I Believe the Concept 2 Revision Conflicts with ACA’s Spiritual Foundation

I want to share my thoughts on the proposed rewrite of Concept 2, speaking simply and from my experience as the Delegate for the ACA Mabuhay Philippines (Asia) Groups. My hope is to offer clarity for all members, especially those in global and emerging groups who often have fewer tools, fewer connections, and fewer ways to participate in service.

The Change Being Discussed

Current Concept 2: “Authority for the active maintenance of our world services is hereby delegated to the actual voice, the effective conscience for our whole fellowship.”

Proposed Concept 2: “ACA groups delegate to the World Service Conference (WSC) the authority to act as their effective voice and conscience, and to represent the fellowship in world service matters.”

The stated intention is to clarify representation. But the proposed wording does more than that. It assigns the WSC the role of being the Fellowship’s “voice and effective conscience,” which is not representation — it is delegated authority. That shift is what raised my concerns.

The amount of authority being delegated here is significant. To be clear, the proposed wording retains the references to “actual voice” and “effective conscience.” These roles already appear in the current Concept 2. The concern, however, is that the revision explicitly assigns these existing roles to the WSC, a centralized body whose composition, scope, and limits of authority are yet to be defined. Furthermore, the proposal explicitly creates a new form of representational authority – one that is entirely new to  ACA’s Concept language: “to represent the fellowship in world service matters.” What are the boundaries of this representation? Concepts are meant to endure, so we must consider not only what the authors say they intend today, but how this wording could be interpreted in the future. Taken together, these changes shift both spiritual and representational authority upward, away from the groups, in a way ACA has never done before.

Another concern is the potential confusion between the roles of the WSC and the WSO. These are not opposing factions; they are parts of one service structure. If Concept 2 assigns new representative authority to the WSC without clearly defining limits or boundaries, it could blur the distinction between the Conference’s delegated authority and the WSO’s operational responsibilities. That lack of clarity could create conflict or overlap in the future.

The Concepts Are Interlocking

As I read the Concepts more deeply, what became clear is that the Twelve Concepts were created as one interlocking spiritual framework. They were not written as twelve separate ideas. They were written to balance each other, support each other, and function as a unified spiritual foundation for ACA’s service structure. When one Concept is changed, the balance of the entire system shifts.

The Proposed Wording Does Not Match the Other Concepts

The proposed wording of the revised Concept 2 is formatted unlike the other Concepts, making it stand out as an outlier. The revision reads more like an administrative directive than a spiritual principle, which is not how the Concepts were originally written or intended.

ACA Is a Spiritual Fellowship

ACA is a spiritual program. We are not a political body, and we are not a corporation in spirit. ACA is registered as a nonprofit in California only because the state requires it — not because our Fellowship is meant to operate like a corporate entity. Our spiritual guiding documents — the Steps, Traditions, and Concepts — are the lenses we use. Through that lens, it becomes clear that the Concepts are not where democratic governance or administrative authority should be defined.

A Structural Fix Does Not Belong in a Spiritual Document

To me, the proposed revision attempts to solve a governance concern by rewriting a Concept. This places a practical fix inside a spiritual document. Administrative problems should be solved through administrative documents. Spiritual foundations should remain spiritual.

Concept 6 and 7 Already Define Trustee Responsibilities

Concept 6 explains how the responsibility is shared between the Annual Business Conference and the Board of Trustees. Concept 7 addresses the Trustees’ legal authority under ACA WSO’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and recognizes their responsibility to manage and conduct world service affairs. Together, these two Concepts cover how Trustees are responsible for carrying out those specific service duties. Because of this structure and coverage already in place, there is no need to change Concept 2 to address legal matters or ABC coordination. The proposed revision shouldn’t be used to expand or redefine what Trustees are allowed to.

Global Equity Matters

From where I stand, Concept 2 protects all ACA groups — especially the lesser-served ones with fewer tools, limited access, and more barriers to participation. In my ACA practice, I see these groups as already holding and claiming full spiritual representation through their own group conscience, wherever they are. They do not need a centralized WSC, unfamiliar with their lived experience, speaking or representing on their behalf. My concern, relating to the proposal, is that when decision-making shifts away from the local groups and toward a centralized body, the WSC – even unintentionally – the groups with the least access will suffer most.

From my perspective, I am not saying that the WSC should not exist. I am confident that a well-defined WSC will provide benefits for the current and the future ACA service structure. What I am saying is that the groups should maintain the Fellowship’s spiritual authority, and the WSC carries out what the groups delegate to them. The clarifying actions – duties, limits, and obligations – belong in our procedural documents or service manuals, not in a revision to Concept 2.

The Revision Does Not Fit ACA’s Spiritual Foundation

When I put all of this together — the interlocking nature of the Concepts, the mismatch in spiritual tone, ACA’s spiritual identity, the global equity concerns, and the shift toward representational authority — it becomes clear to me that the proposed rewrite does not fit the spiritual purpose of the original Concept 2.

My concern is that the Concept 2 revision introduces authority figures in our service structure and leans toward concentrated authority, which does not match how ACA groups actually live their recovery. If the WSO needs clearer guidance to meet nonprofit requirements or improve operations, those adjustments belong in our policy and governance documents — not in the Concepts.

Thank you for allowing me to use my delegate voice, representing an emerging group in Southeast Asia, expressing only my own conscience and concerns as a Delegate.