Do you believe an online meeting should continue to receive CoDA recognition while operating in ways that disregard the Traditions and Fellowship Service Manual?
Independent record: This site is not operated by CoDA, Inc., the Issues Mediation Committee, the CoDA Board, or any official CoDA service body. Conclusions expressed here are based on the documented record reproduced on this site.
Terminology: “Governor(s)” is a rhetorical description, not an official CoDA title; CoDA uses “trusted servant(s).”
Questions for fellowship conscience
The issues in plain language
When trusted servants act as governors, should anonymity be allowed to shield their official actions from accountability?
Do you believe personal relationships between trusted servants should shield them from accountability for their actions?
Why I am bringing this to the fellowship
Email to the Board and meeting
This began with meeting #WW11731, but it no longer ends there.
This is now a Board-level and fellowship-wide concern about whether CoDA service bodies are protecting the Traditions, or allowing them to be bypassed under the language of meeting autonomy and without adequate safeguards against bias.
The meeting structure I reported involved an unelected few meeting owners, which used the omission of the 7th tradition in a way that bypassed the 2nd tradition and concentrated control over the fellowship. That concentrated control was then used in ways I believe were abusive toward newcomers and members alike. When I raised this concern with what should have been trusted servants, I was ostracized, browbeaten, and ultimately banned without explanation.
When I brought the matter through CoDA service channels, I expected objectivity, accountability, transparency, and guidance rooted in the Steps, Traditions, and Fellowship Service Manual. Instead, I received apparent bias, avoidance, contradiction, unsupported accusations, frame-shifting, and the repeated mantra that the meeting was healthy and I was the problem.
Autonomy is not a right to abuse.
Autonomy is not a right to silence members, avoid group conscience, remove business-meeting accountability, disregard self-support, practice favoritism, neglect fellowship-wide responsibilities, or treat foundational safeguards as optional “format.”
If a meeting fails to uphold the principles that give it autonomy and thereby becomes abusive, it should not be listed or endorsed by CoDA. It should find another way to advertise itself and its unhealthy, adulterated facsimile of CoDA.
The practical position taken by IMC and HMC is that, when it comes to finding a healthy online meeting, the newcomer and member are simply rolling the dice. The Steps and Traditions become suggestions to be discarded when inconvenient. A meeting may become toxic, unhealthy, and structurally abusive, with members potentially leaving unheard and harmed, while IMC and HMS still endorse the unhealthy meeting as healthy.
The true harm to our primary purpose is as follows:
The newcomer is not being led out of codependence. They are being abused by a CoDA-endorsed version of it, wrapped in false recovery language.
The members working the program are a part of the in-meeting safeguard that makes meeting autonomy trustworthy. Here, that safeguard against institutional abuse was removed, unsupported, and recast as the problem by the very service structure meant to protect CoDA unity.
The trusted servant acting out is not receiving guidance that could strengthen their recovery. Their unhealthy behavior is being labeled healthy, protected by false autonomy, and reinforced by the service structure.
I do not believe the worldwide fellowship would knowingly agree to fund this.
So I am asking the Board to answer plainly:
Does CoDA endorse and promote meetings that fail to practice the Traditions and FSM safeguards resulting in the abuse and disenfranchisement of new comers and members?
Does CoDA endorse the behavior and service-process handling documented in this record?
If a group conscience is taken to issue that response, please provide the date, decision language, and meeting minutes or written record with your response.
As recognized by the FSM I am officially demanding the service records and meeting minutes for the multiple group conscience decisions Gail S. referenced in answering or avoiding my requests and questions.
Sincerely,
Aaron U.
Supporting context
Contemporaneous Communications
Redacted communications from before and during the dispute are available so readers can evaluate later characterizations of conduct against the contemporaneous record.
Documented process record
Process Break Matrix
The record is presented chronologically. Each entry shows the issue or request, the response given, the identified process break, and the CoDA material cited in support.
Meeting and Healthy Meetings process
Back to topRecord 1
- Issue / request
- Access to group conscience was requested, including whether the meeting remained open to modification through current group conscience, whether “us” meant the whole group, and whether the meeting was effectively “like it or leave it.” (Feb. 12)
- Response given
- A leader stated that the format had been decided by those who had shown up for decision-making up to that point, suggested review of CoDA service material, and said there had been recent discussion of regularly scheduled GC meetings with an announcement expected soon; specific items could be emailed for possible agenda placement. (Feb. 16)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The request did not result in a group-conscience discussion or vote. Members were directed to submit specific items to the organizers by email for possible agenda placement.
Record 2
- Issue / request
- A scheduled forum for group conscience items was requested after concerns were raised about unilateral meeting-wide decisions. (Mar. 3, 2026)
- Response given
- It was stated that the meeting does not hold business meetings because Zoom is privately funded, and that concerns should be sent to the organizers’ email. (Mar. 3)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- 7th Tradition break: Private platform funding was used as the reason no regular business forum exists, while meeting-wide issues were redirected into a private channel rather than a group process.
Record 3
- Issue / request
- Request made on Mar 4th for a brief GC at the beginning of the Mar. 10 meeting on one narrow item: whether the meeting would establish a recurring, scheduled GC check-in, and when it would occur. Confirmation was also requested that the item would be placed at the beginning of the meeting and facilitated by discussion and vote. (Mar. 4)
- Response given
- Null: No response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- 2nd Tradition break begins; "trusted servant(s) become governor(s). The member submitted the request by email as instructed. The governors did not place the issue before the group. The Mar. 4 request was bypassed. No vote was held, no minutes, motion, or outcome were produced. The simple Mar. 4 request remains unanswered.
Record 4
- Issue / request
- March 10th very end of the meeting. Asked if my email was read and asked if someone would please respond to it.
- Response given
- a meeting organizer stated that the second half of the meeting was now designated for personal shares only. (Mar. 10)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Governor(s) unilaterally changed the meeting format. What had been a parking-lot discussion was restricted to personal shares, leaving governor(s) to decide what share is or isn't compliant. The result was a meeting that made no provision for an orderly 2nd Tradition discussion and vote, effectively banning 2nd Tradition action within the meeting.
Record 5
- Issue / request
- Guidance was requested of the IMC on what CoDA recommends when an online meeting does not provide a clear forum to bring GC items for discussion and vote by the members present, and whether IMC mediation was available. (Mar. 10)
- Response given
- Request being routed and processed
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- N/A
Record 6
- Issue / request
- March 12th attempted to join the meeting and was immediately banned.
- Response given
- Null: No communication
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The member was immediately banned without warning, written explanation, or any identified process basis.
Record 7
- Issue / request
- IMC was notified that the requester had been removed by the host without warning or explanation and appeared blocked from rejoining, which was described as retaliation for requesting access to the GC process. (Mar. 12)
- Response given
- IMC forwards emails from Mar 10th, 12th to Healthy Meetings. (Mar. 12)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- N/A
Record 8
- Issue / request
- Forwarded emails from March 10th and 12th
- Response given
- HMC responds asks what I hope to get from "a recurring, scheduled group conscience check-in". (Mar. 13)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC bypassed the issue presented. The request had already been clearly stated. Instead of addressing the absence of any clear, orderly forum for a members-present 2nd Tradition discussion and vote, HMC treated the right to request group conscience as something that had to be justified in advance.
Record 9
- Issue / request
- Clarification given: The meeting does not provide an accessible forum where members present can raise meeting-wide framework/format items and determine group conscience by discussion and vote. (Mar. 13)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings stated that a committee member attended the meeting, found it in complete compliance with CoDA meeting standards, said it was well run. (Mar. 19)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Healthy Meetings’ response did not show that it tested the actual issue. It did not identify whether the meeting had a regular business meeting or any orderly forum for group conscience, and instead called the meeting compliant without identifying any review of that process.
Record 10
- Issue / request
- Requested Guidance: Restore Access so I can participate (Mar. 13)
- Response given
- HMC states: If another format better meets your needs, finding another meeting on coda.org may provide that for you.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The issue is not whether the member fits a format. The issue is whether CoDA a supports governance and process issue that blocks the 2nd and 7th Traditions, puts governors over members, and permits crosstalk against newcomers who do not share perfectly. HMC’s response did not address the governance and process issues even though that was the subject of the complaint. Instead, it treated the member who made the plain 2nd Tradition request as the problem while calling the meeting that blocks those Traditions “healthy and quite well run.”
Record 11
- Issue / request
- Requested Guidance: to support the meeting in using an accessible group conscience process for meeting-wide matters. (Mar. 13)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings bypasses (Mar 13) stated reason and insists that my feelings/needs for wanting a vote on a scheduled orderly 2nd tradition forum were not explained. (Mar. 19)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The purpose of the requested GC was explicitly stated in writing four times prior. The meeting's governor(s) and now the HMC repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the member had the right to ask for a vote and that the meeting’s "trusted servants" were supposed to place that request before the group. Instead, the governor(s) and HMC treated the blocked vote itself as a non-issue, while the direct fix, a members-present 2nd Tradition vote, remained unacknowledged and blocked.
Record 12
- Issue / request
- Clarification was given that the issue was not meeting format or whether the meeting was healthy, but only access to group conscience as described by the FSM and 2nd Tradition. The requested vote was restated as procedural: whether the meeting should set aside a regular time for GC items affecting the whole meeting. (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- HMC: "Their response is clear that the group endeavored to work with you to no avail" (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC treated replies from three meeting organizers, the meeting governor(s), as though they were the group itself. They are not the group. Nothing needed to be “worked through”; only a 2nd Tradition vote was needed to decide whether the meeting would set aside time for 2nd Tradition issues. No group conscience, motion, vote, minutes, or outcome were produced showing that the members present were even aware of the request, let alone acted on it. HMC then shifted posture and began using accusatory “you” statements.
Record 13
- Issue / request
- Restating that the requested vote was procedural: whether the meeting should set aside a regular time for group conscience items affecting the whole meeting. (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings said a GC had already been held, that the outcome was not the one desired, and that it seemed another GC was being demanded to force the issue. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC and the meeting governor(s) once again bypassed the restated 2nd Tradition request. Instead, they inserted the separate, already-resolved chat issue and recast the matter as dissatisfaction with an outcome. The actual issue was not that chat was closed, but that the governor(s) closed it without group conscience, without minutes, and without any recorded act of the members present. Nowhere in this email thread did the member raise Zoom chat features at all.
Record 14
- Issue / request
- Does a member need a specific, pre-approved reason to request a group conscience? If yes, where is that written? (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings answered that GC is used to make decisions affecting the group, quoted FSM language stating that anyone may ask for a GC, and again said a GC had already been held.(Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC admitted that a member does not need a pre-approved reason to request group conscience, yet still refused to explain why this simple member’s meeting-wide 2nd Tradition request was denied.
Record 15
- Issue / request
- Are online meetings exempt from any Traditions or from the group conscience decision-making process? If yes, where is that written? (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings answered no, and said every group may decide how often to hold business meetings. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC said online meetings are not exempt from the Traditions, yet treated this one as though it were. The meeting governor(s) used private Zoom control as the reason no business meeting exists, which left no current vote on whether one should be held and no orderly, members-present path to 2nd Tradition action. HMC answered “no exemption” while calling that governance and process failure “healthy and quite well run.”
Record 16
- Issue / request
- During the committee member’s visit, did anyone raise a group conscience item and was a vote taken? (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings answered no, and stated that GC is not a function of a regular meeting.(Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC bypassed the actual issue, and its response did not show that the issue had been tested. It admitted that no group conscience item was raised and no vote was taken during the committee visit, then claimed group conscience is not a function of a regular meeting. That directly contradicts its own FSM quote that a group conscience may be requested during a regular meeting when needed.
Record 17
- Issue / request
- Was this even the right committee for this issue? (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings answered yes. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- N/A
Record 18
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings said the chat feature had been disabled after reports of inappropriate private messages, and that members present voted not to reopen chat. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Meeting governor(s) and HMC proxy moved from dodging the 2nd Tradition request to asserting undefined “inappropriate messages” as fact through accusatory “you” statements. The allegation was not defined, no process for testing it was identified, and it was not put to the member for response before HMC repeated it as true. HMC then set up a false frame that the member’s issue was reopening chat, even though that issue had already been settled and was not the request before HMC.
Record 19
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings cited policies on harassment, bullying, 13th stepping, intolerance, safeguarding the Traditions, common welfare, and no crosstalk. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- This language was better directed at the meeting governor(s). The member’s written record shows sincere questions, an amends for an imperfect objection, a plain 2nd Tradition request, and willingness to accept group conscience, not threats or attacks. HMC answered with bullying and harassment language while never correcting the blocked 2nd Tradition process that gave rise to the complaint or the member’s improper, unexplained removal from a fellowship he had attended for appr. 56 meeting.
Record 20
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings said emails were answered until they became badgering. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Only two respectful emails had been sent to the meeting governor(s): the Feb. 12 email stated a “genuine spirit of inquiry, not as an attack,” and the Mar. 4 email included amends, a narrow 2nd Tradition request, and stated willingness to accept group conscience. If HMC read that attached thread, the “badgering” and misconduct framing is unsupported by the written record; if it did not, conclusions were drawn without reading the record.
Record 21
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings said the group reported interruptions during shares, direct crosstalk, anger when corrected, repeated behavior, and attacks on trusted servants and other members. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Again, governor(s) are not the group. HMC answered none of the March 19 questions here. Instead, it replaced answers with a stack of unverified accusations. No dates, no examples, no prior notice, no screenshots, no message copies, no minutes, and no other supporting record were produced. The allegations were just declared true.
Record 22
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings quoted FSM language stating that in extreme cases a group may ask an individual to leave the meeting. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC invoked the FSM’s “extreme cases” language while the member’s documented request remained a 2nd Tradition request for an orderly scheduled vote. No group conscience, motion, vote, minutes, or outcome were produced showing that the members present had asked the member to leave. HMC treated governor(s) accusations as settled fact.
Record 23
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the (Mar. 19)
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings encouraged reflection, referenced sustainable recovery, and noted that there were four other English-speaking meetings in the same time slot. (Mar. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC treated accusations as fact and again shifted the remedy to departure. Instead of directing the meeting governor(s) to hold the requested 2nd Tradition vote or follow FSM guidance, HMC pointed the member to other meetings and left the blocked process untouched.
Record 24
- Issue / request
- Confirmation was requested of one of three things:
1.That the requested procedural vote was taken with minutes, date, time, exact motion, and outcome;
2. that it was not taken; or
3. why it was not held at the beginning of the Mar. 10 meeting as requested.(Mar. 26) - Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The Mar. 26 record request was ignored. HMC did not say whether the requested procedural vote was taken, did not produce minutes, date, time, exact motion, or outcome, and did not explain why the vote was not held at the beginning of the Mar. 10 meeting as requested.
Record 25
- Issue / request
- Clarification was requested as to whether two respectful emails on different topics, one on Feb. 12 and one on Mar. 4, constitute “badgering,” and whether Healthy Meetings had actually read both before using that label.(Mar. 26)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- A serious characterization remained operative without being defined or justified against the actual email record.
Record 26
- Issue / request
- It was clarified that the prior GC regarding chat had been accepted, that the chat issue had not been raised again (Mar. 26, 2026)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The clarification that the chat GC had been accepted as evidenced by all emails, did not receive a response, leaving the substitution of the chat issue for the requested procedural vote unresolved.
Record 27
- Issue / request
- Definition of “inappropriate” private messages was requested, with dated exhibits supported by screenshots or dated message copies. (Mar. 26)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Meeting governor(s) and the HMC proxy never defined “inappropriate.” No screenshots. No dated message copies. No examples. No specifics. The accusation was left hanging without proof and without any chance to answer it. The member still does not know what conduct is supposedly being called inappropriate, and nothing produced so far shows conduct that dishonors himself, other members, or CoDA.
Record 28
- Issue / request
- Identification was requested of what specific behavior was allegedly repeated after amends, and on what dates.(Mar. 26)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- meeting governor(s) and HMC proxy alleged “repeated behavior” but never identified what behavior it meant. No conduct was named. No dates were given. No examples were produced. The allegation was left floating without particulars, so the member had no way to know what was supposedly repeated or to answer it.
Record 29
- Issue / request
- Dated exhibits were requested showing multiple corrections, along with clarification whether any corrections were addressed by name.(Mar. 26)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Meeting governor(s) and the HMC proxy claimed there were “multiple corrections,” but produced nothing. No dated exhibits. No examples. No record of what was said, when it was said, or whether the member was ever addressed by name. The claim was left unsupported. The member cannot recall a single correction on fellowship rules in four years of CoDA and AA participation and service, including roughly 1.2 years in this meeting.
Record 30
- Issue / request
- Confirmation was requested as to whether any emails regarding CoDA conduct had ever been sent, as the personal email to the member was known since early Feb 2026. No such emails appeared in the requester’s records.(Mar. 26)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Leadership had the member’s email since early February, yet no conduct-related email notice was shown. They appear to have used the email only once, and even then did not answer the member’s questions. When asked directly whether any such emails had ever been sent, no direct answer was given.
Record 31
- Issue / request
- The inconsistency was raised between later accusations and the Feb. 16 leadership statement thanking the requester for presence, shares, and reading service over prior months.(Mar. 26)
- Response given
- NULL — no direct answer was given in the Mar. 29, 2026 response.
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- On Feb. 16, a meeting governor thanked the member for his presence, shares, and reading service over prior months. Later, that same member was framed as a conduct problem. The inconsistency was never explained. No direct answer was given, and nothing in the record shows the request was put to the meeting governor(s) for response.
Record 32
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the Mar. 26, 2026 email.
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings explained CoDA as an inverted pyramid, stating that authority, power, and direction reside with the members of groups and flow downward through trusted servants and service structures. (Mar. 29)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC partially quoted CoDA’s “inverted pyramid” language, but left out the part with teeth: trusted servants are not to “govern, coerce, or attempt to control others,” and hierarchy itself cannot adhere to CoDA’s principles. Yet the meeting governor(s) and HMC proxy bypassed the only issue raised by the member: a framework that blocks access to group conscience, with private platform control being used as the reason no business meeting exists.
Record 33
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the Mar. 26, 2026 email.
- Response given
- Healthy Meetings quoted FSM language describing a CoDA meeting as a place of healthy and loving relationships, sponsorship, fellowship, and community belonging. (Mar. 29)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- No such issue was raised in the Mar. 26 email. HMC replaced answers with meeting ideals. It quoted “healthy and loving relationships” but omitted the FSM warning that “it isn’t Higher Power’s will that we go along to get along.” A request for a 2nd Tradition vote is not a violation of that standard. It is the process CoDA says members use.
Record 34
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the Mar. 26, 2026 email.
- Response given
- The Healthy Meetings committee can only advise members and groups regarding the steps to take to solve disagreements. (Mar. 29)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC spoke as though it had authority when accusing and framing the member, but claimed only advisory capacity when pressed on the unresolved procedural break. The inconsistency is in the record.
Record 35
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the Mar. 26, 2026 email.
- Response given
- Each group governs their meetings and are accepted as CoDA meetings under the requirements stated in the FSM. There are requirements to be a CoDA meeting - which this group meets - the rest is guidance. (Mar. 29)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC said no meeting is exempt from the Traditions, then treated this meeting as exempt in practice. It accepted governance and process issues where private platform control was used to block an orderly path to group conscience, while still calling the meeting compliant because it met basic listing requirements. That reduces the Traditions to optional guidance in the very place where they should govern.
Record 36
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the Mar. 26, 2026 email.
- Response given
- Again, as there has admittedly been damage done to the sense of safety and community in this meeting. (Mar. 29)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC pointed to “damage” to safety and community, although the member had made no such admission. The damage identified in the record was the blocked 2nd Tradition process, blocked self-support, absence of a business meeting because of private platform control, crosstalk policing of shares, and repeated pressure to accept the governance and process failures or leave. At the same time, HMC relied on undefined allegations without notice, particulars, or any meaningful opportunity to answer. The result was exclusion without an identified process.
Record 37
- Issue / request
- NULL — no such issue or question was raised in the Mar. 26, 2026 email.
- Response given
- it may not be the place for your continued recovery. (Mar. 29)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- HMC again said no meeting format is exempt from the Traditions, yet left the same break in place: the meeting governor(s) refused to allow the requested 2nd Tradition vote. Rather than address that refusal, HMC shifted the burden to the member and suggested he leave. The unresolved issue was not fit. It was the blocked right of the group to decide.
IMC Process Breaks / Service-Record Avoidance
Back to topRecord 38
- Issue / request
- Board and IMC were asked to restore fellowship access, substantiate or withdraw allegations, review whether HMC acted impartially, and state plainly whether CoDA guidance on business meetings, group conscience, and self-support are binding safeguards. (Apr. 13)
- Response given
- IMC stated that it was reaching out to Healthy Meetings for clarification regarding HMC’s findings and response. (Apr. 13)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- n/a
Record 39
- Issue / request
- IMC was asked to restore the member to fellowship in good standing and uphold a Second Tradition vote. (Apr. 13)
- Response given
- IMC answered that it could not do this because each meeting is autonomous, and suggested finding another meeting or starting a new meeting. (Apr. 24)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The member was not removed through the processes that defines healthy meeting autonomy; the record shows unilateral removal by the meeting host(s) IMC misuses healthy “meeting autonomy” by treating it as immunity from accountability for bypassing or abusing the Traditions, Steps, and FSM. The unresolved issue is whether a CoDA endorsed and promoted meeting can use autonomy/format to justify abusing or bypassing the Traditions, Steps, and FSM.
Record 40
- Issue / request
- IMC was asked to substantiate the allegations or withdraw them. (Apr. 13)
- Response given
- IMC answered: “IMC cannot do this.” (Apr. 24)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC referred the matter to HMC and then relied on HMC’s response, but when asked to substantiate or withdraw the allegations in that response, IMC answered only that it “cannot do this.” No process was identified for substantiating, withdrawing, correcting, or testing the allegations. The member still does not know what specific conduct is being treated as improper.
Record 41
- Issue / request
- IMC was asked to review whether the HMC process was impartial. (Apr. 13)
- Response given
- IMC answered: “HMC follows a process. The process was followed.” (Apr. 24)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC substituted a conclusion rather than declaring the results of an impartiality review. No process criteria, records, participants, conflict check, bias analysis, or review of HMC’s handling of undefined accusations was provided.
Record 42
- Issue / request
- IMC was asked to state plainly whether CoDA guidance on business meetings, group conscience, and self-support are binding safeguards, and whether the documented governance pattern was consistent with that guidance. (Apr. 13)
- Response given
- IMC answered that each meeting is autonomous, that CoDA World makes healthy suggestions, that suggestions are not enforced as rules, and that the only requirement for website listing is reading the four foundational documents. (Apr. 24)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- Again. IMC used autonomy as immunity. It did not answer whether CoDA has binding safeguards for business meetings, group conscience, and self-support. Instead, IMC recast CoDA-issued Traditions/Steps/FSM concerns as the member’s “acceptable terms,” as if the member had invented his own standard. IMC states that CoDA offers “healthy suggestions,” but then treats a meeting that abused the Traditions and ignored CoDA-issued guidance as healthy, compliant, and deserving of continued CoDA endorsement.
Record 43
- Issue / request
- Asked IMC to reconcile its autonomy position with FSM sanction language, reconcile “healthy meetings hold regular business meetings” with the claim that only four documents are required, state whether HMC’s process was proper, answer whether IMC/HMC members personally knew the meeting owners, and provide any corrective guidance sent to #WW11731. (Apr. 26)
- Response given
- no response issued
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- no response issued
Record 44
- Issue / request
- Follow up email sent informing that the issue was still open (Jun 1)
- Response given
- IMC later acknowledged the Apr. 26 email and stated: “IMC’s GC was not to respond to that specific email.” (Jun. 2)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- After approximately six weeks without a written response, IMC stated that its group conscience decision was not to respond to the Apr. 26 follow-up with no notification.
Record 45
- Issue / request
- Asked whether the IMC Chair or IMC/HMC members who handled the matter personally knew the meeting owners involved in #WW11731. (Apr. 26)
- Response given
- IMC did not answer the bias/conflict question. Instead, IMC stated that its GC was not to respond to the email and again offered a Zoom meeting with two IMC members plus one HMC participant. (Jun. 2)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The bias/conflict question was material because HMC’s neutrality was challenged. IMC avoided the question and proposed a private Zoom including a participant from the challenged HMC process, rather than providing a written conflict answer.
Record 46
- Issue / request
- Written follow-up asked IMC to provide the written guidance, recommendations, or corrective direction sent to #WW11731 regarding the Tradition, governance, or crosstalk violations raised in the report. (Apr. 26)
- Response given
- IMC did not provide any corrective guidance or state that none existed. (Jun. 2)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC gave the member guidance to find another meeting or start one, but produced no corresponding corrective guidance to the meeting whose governance and process were challenged. The burden of correction was shifted to the reporting member.
Record 47
- Issue / request
- Because IMC identified its non-response to the Apr. 26 email as a group conscience decision, the member requested the basic service record of that decision: date, minutes/notes/decision language, participants, recusals, prior relationships, and the reason for not responding. (Jun. 3)
- Response given
- IMC acknowledged receipt from a personal/non-CoDA email account, characterized the request as “demands,” and stated the matter would be discussed at the next IMC monthly meeting. (Jun. 4)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- A basic request for the service record of an invoked GC decision was recast as “demands” and delayed into another meeting. A new GC should not be necessary to fulfill a service-record request for records that should already exist and be available to the membership. IMC did not provide the requested date, minutes/notes, decision language, participants, recusals, relationship disclosures, or reason for non-response.
Record 48
- Issue / request
- An official IMC response was sent from a personal/non-CoDA email account, then corrected two minutes later from the CoDA account. (Jun. 4)
- Response given
- IMC apologized and stated that the response should have come from the CoDA licensed account. (Jun. 4)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- n/a
Record 49
- Issue / request
- The member clarified that no demands had been made, that the request was for basic service accountability, and that the 10-business-day timeframe remained unchanged. (Jun. 4)
- Response given
- no response issued
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- n/a
Record 50
- Issue / request
- The current issue before IMC was the Jun. 3 service-record request for the GC decision not to answer the Apr. 26 questions. (Jun. 3)
- Response given
- IMC responded by listing the member’s original Apr. 13 requests and repeating IMC’s prior answers in blue. (Jun. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC answered a prior email rather than the current service-record request. The current request for GC records, participants, recusals, prior relationships, and reasons for non-response was not answered. This substituted an earlier issue for the actual request before IMC.
Record 51
- Issue / request
- IMC invoked another group conscience on Jun. 20 while the prior GC record remained unproduced. (Jun. 20)
- Response given
- IMC stated: “Based on today’s GC, we make this offer one last time,” and again offered Zoom. (Jun. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC compounded the transparency break by invoking a second GC while refusing to provide the basic service record of the first GC. The result was that GC authority was invoked while the requested written accountability and decision record remained unprovided.
Record 52
- Issue / request
- The member requested written answers and declined Zoom because accusations, bias concerns, and lack of transparency made private Zoom unsafe and unsuitable for preserving an accurate record. (Jun. 3)
- Response given
- IMC again offered a private Zoom with two IMC members and one HMC participant. (Jun. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC treated private Zoom as a substitute for written service records and direct written answers. A Zoom meeting would not cure the missing GC record, unresolved bias question, unanswered FSM questions, or lack of corrective guidance to #WW11731.
Record 53
- Issue / request
- The member requested whether any IMC member had a prior personal, sponsorship, friendship, service, or other meaningful relationship with meeting owners, organizers, or trusted servants involved in #WW11731. (Jun. 3)
- Response given
- IMC did not answer. (Jun. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- The conflict/bias question remained unanswered after being asked directly in both Apr. 26 and Jun. 3 correspondence. The record therefore leaves unresolved whether the matter was handled through a neutral service process.
Record 54
- Issue / request
- The member requested the reason IMC chose not to respond in writing to questions regarding FSM compliance, group conscience access, healthy-meeting standards, possible bias, HMC process, and corrective guidance to #WW11731. (Jun. 3)
- Response given
- IMC did not provide the reason. Instead, it repeated prior responses to original requests and again offered Zoom. (Jun. 20)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC declined to explain the basis for its non-response while using GC language as authority. The decision affected an unresolved Traditions/FSM concern but the reason, record, and decision language were not provided.
Record 55
- Issue / request
- The member noted that IMC had again avoided the current service-record request, declined to provide the requested records, and failed to answer material Traditions/FSM questions in writing. (Jul. 10)
- Response given
- IMC responded only: “Email received,” with BCC to the full IMC committee and CoDA Board liaisons. (Jul. 11)
- Break from CoDA guidelines / process
- IMC acknowledged receipt but did not cure the record. No service records were provided, no bias/conflict answer was given, no corrective guidance was produced, and no written answers were supplied to the material Traditions/FSM questions.
Source correspondence
Actual Emails
The correspondence below is a text transcription of the source emails. Repeated quoted copies of earlier messages are omitted when that message already appears separately. Redactions are shown in brackets.
Redactions: the publisher’s email address, last name, and phone number are redacted. A private non-CoDA email address and the surname inadvertently exposed through that account are also redacted. Official CoDA and meeting service addresses remain visible.
February 12, 2026, 11:59 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Hi, this is Aaron U. (WA). Thanks to everyone who helps facilitate. Because tone has been a concern recently, I want to be explicit: I’m asking these questions in a genuine spirit of inquiry, not as an attack. I’m trying to understand the meeting’s framework and decision process. I’d appreciate your responses and rationales. Please consider the following. 1. Was the format of the meeting permanently defined by the original (past) group consciousness and is not open to modification through new (current) group consciousness? 2. I was instructed to send my questions or suggestions to "us". Who is "us". Is this the entirety of group consciousness? 3. Does a literature group format benefit from a different set of guiding principles than the twelve steps and twelve traditions? 4. What is a group? What is a meeting? Is it the format, is it the collection of people, a combination of both? 5. What instructions and provisions does CODA give the collection of people who are benefiting from each other in recovery and wish to adjust the format? 6. Are the "governing" members taking the position that this particular meeting is in the "like it or leave it" format? 7. If the answer to 5. is "no". How specifically then can group consciousness be accessed in a manner that includes the collection of people while preserving the safety and health of those that serve? Most Sincerely, Aaron [REDACTED] [REDACTED PHONE]
February 16, 2026, 1:33 PM Coda Reading Meeting <codareadingmeeting@gmail.com>
Hi Aaron, I am a trusted servant of the Tuesday/Thursday CoDa Literature Meeting and will attempt to respond to your inquiries best I am able. The group conscious that decided the format of the meeting consists of all those who have shown up for the decision making process up to this point. Names obviously aren't given for sake of anonymity, as stated in our traditions. I'm unclear regarding some of your questions but would like to suggest researching coda,org under the meeting/service tabs as there is a wealth of information on service concepts, service manuals, and meeting structure all specific to Codependent recovery and CoDa. We appreciate your inquiries and you have been heard. Your presence, shares and taking part in reading are in fact service and for that we thank you for your service in being part of the CoDa Reading Meeting! There has been recent discussion of regularly scheduled Group Conscious Meetings as our meeting continues to evolve and there should be an announcement soon of this occurring. If you have specific suggestions or items you'd like addressed please reply with the items you'd like added to the agenda and we'll try to get them on. Thank you for your patience in the length of time to reply as this is a service position and depends upon the availability of a trusted servant. Sincerely, NAB
March 4, 2026, 6:59 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Hi Amy, Bill and Nicole, "During the group conscience process, we reveal our commitment to CoDA by assuming responsibility for our behavior and accepting accountability for our actions. If we slip back into codependent attitudes and behaviors during this process, we admit it and make amends to those we have harmed. Thus, we gain a greater understanding of our Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions, and CoDA’s spiritual principles." (FSM Part 1, p. 24) As I reviewed and considered my notes, I decided it was important to work Steps 4 through 10. I recognized that I hurt Nicole by labeling particular actions as codependent behavior. I am not God, I do not have that authority, I was working the program for "others." I also claimed that Nicole responded to an email and that was incorrect. I should have asked who specifically responded instead of guessing. Nicole, I take responsibility and apologize for the harm I caused and will endeavor not to repeat this behavior. "We do not attack an individual's point of view. Instead, we accept what the person says as true for them. In turn, we respectfully express our differing point of view. In this manner, we can share our experiences in a constructive way." (FSM Part 1, p. 24) I accept that others may experience my requests as uncomfortable or unnecessary; that can be true for them. My differing point of view is that meeting-wide decisions should be handled through the group conscience process as CoDA defines it, with the members at hand. "A group conscience may also be asked for during a regular meeting, if a decision is needed right away and can’t wait for the regular business meeting. Anyone may ask for a group conscience at any time during a CoDA meeting, if and when immediate attention is needed…" (FSM Part 2, p. 9 / Group Conscience Process) Because this meeting does not hold scheduled business meetings, there is currently no defined forum to “wait for.” The current approach of sending concerns to an email reaches only a subset of members, and it does not allow "members present" to raise items and participate in discussion and vote in an agreed-upon time and place. "To begin the group conscience process, members present raise issues OR items of business… When discussion ends, we determine the group conscience by taking a vote. A majority determines the group conscience." (FSM Part 1, p. 23) While it was explained to me repeatedly that a long-past group conscience set the framework of the meeting, and that the meeting does not hold business meetings because the Zoom account is privately funded, no current group conscience has been taken on whether the meeting should set aside a regular, scheduled time to address group conscience questions or concerns. I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask that this question be brought to the members present for discussion and a vote. For that reason, I am requesting that we take a brief group conscience at the beginning of the March 10th meeting on one narrow item: whether the meeting will establish a recurring, scheduled group conscience check-in (monthly/quarterly/etc.), and when it will occur (for example, after fellowship for a defined amount of time). I’m willing to be guided by group conscience. My request is simply that the group have a structured way to express it. Please confirm that you will place this item at the beginning of the March 10th meeting and facilitate the group conscience process (brief discussion and a vote by those present). “The group conscience process is our decision making process. Failure to honor this process may violate Traditions One and Four and a sanction may be imposed.” (FSM-Part-1-Structure-and-General-Information, p. 9) "Many of us are more familiar with "hierarchies.” Imagine a hierarchy as a pyramid. The people at the top of the pyramid have power, and it flows down from them through various levels. By the time power reaches those at the bottom of the pyramid, it is so diluted that the people at the bottom have little power at all. CoDA is about self-empowerment, so a hierarchical system cannot adhere to our Steps, Traditions, and spiritual principles. CoDA structure is an inverted pyramid. The broad pyramid top represents the members of CoDA, and authority, power, and direction resides with them. Members of groups may exercise power through the group conscience." (FSM-Part-1-Structure-and-General- Information, p. 11) Sincerely, Aaron
March 10, 2026, 11:00 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Hello IMC,
I’m requesting guidance on a process issue in an online CoDA literature meeting.
Issue (process, not outcome):
I have asked for a group conscience process to be available for meeting-wide framework/format questions, but I have not been able to access
a forum where “members present” can raise items and determine group conscience by discussion and vote.
Timeline:
Feb 12, 2026: I emailed the meeting with questions about the meeting’s framework and how group conscience is accessed.
Feb 16, 2026: A trusted servant replied that questions/suggestions should be sent to the meeting email, and stated there had been
recent discussion of regularly scheduled group conscience meetings, with an announcement expected soon. (Thread attached.) I
attend consistently and there was no meeting-level discussion or announcement about adding regularly scheduled group conscience
meetings.
March 3rd: I raised concerns about unilateral meeting-wide decisions and asked for group conscience on establishing a scheduled
forum for group conscience items. I was told the meeting does not hold business meetings because Zoom is privately funded, and that
concerns should be sent to the organizers’ email.
Mar 4, 2026: I emailed the organizers requesting that a brief group conscience be taken at the beginning of the March 10 meeting on
one narrow item: whether/when the meeting will establish a recurring, scheduled group conscience check-in.
March 10, 2026: I received no response to my email. At the end of the meeting, after a long silence, I asked whether my email had
been read. I was told I had been invited to a separate breakout/side meeting, but I could not see any invitation because the host had
disabled chat. Since it was the end of the meeting, I did not have time to stay and troubleshoot. I asked again whether my email had
been read and was told the second half (“fellowship”) is only for personal shares, which I understood to mean group conscience items
are not taken there. I reiterated that I needed to leave and requested a response to my email.
What I’m asking IMC for:
1. Guidance on what CoDA recommends when an online meeting (approximately 2 hours) does not provide a clear forum to bring group
conscience items for discussion/vote by the members present.
2. If appropriate, please advise whether IMC mediation is available, and what steps you recommend to align the meeting’s process with
CoDA guidance.
I value the meeting and the people in it. My request is strictly about having an agreed-upon, scheduled way to access group conscience for
meeting-wide matters, not forcing a particular outcome.
Thank you,
Aaron
Attachment: Email thread with meeting organizers (Feb 12, Feb 16, Mar 4)
Gmail - ID_WW11731 For your consideration.pdf
151K
March 12, 2026, 11:24 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Update: On 03/12/2026 I joined the meeting and was removed by the host. I did not speak or post in chat. I received no warning or explanation. I attempted to rejoin but appeared to be blocked. This appears to be retaliation for requesting access to the group conscience process. In that time slot, this was the only open meeting I could access; the others were private. Being removed effectively left me without a meeting option at that time. ID: WW11731 DAY: Thursday LANGUAGE: English (Ingles) MEETING FOCUS: CoDA Literature TIME: 07:00 AM (GMT -10:00) Hawaii CONVERTED TO YOUR TIMEZONE: 10:00 AM (Pacific Time (US & Canada)) TYPE: Online Meeting CATEGORY: Open, Open ONLINE INFORMATION TYPE: Video URL: https://us04web.zoom.us/j/77735071289?pwd=lCRG04SGh5ZfaSJiK8ElLdOjWA3Mep.1#success PRIMARY CONTACT BAN codareadingmeeting@gmail.com Meeting details are listed below. Sincerely, Aaron
March 12, 2026, 2:18 PM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Hi Aaron, I am forwarding your email request to our Healthy Meetings subcommittee of our Communications Committee. They are more appropriate to respond to your email concern(s). Gail S Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC) Progress, not perfection. https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/ https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
March 12, 2026, 5:07 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! Sincerely, Aaron
March 13, 2026, 8:59 AM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
You are very welcome. Gail S Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC) Progress, not perfection. https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/ https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
March 13, 2026, 9:08 AM HealthyMeetings@coda.org <HealthyMeetings@coda.org>
Good Morning Aaron - We are in receipt of your email to the IMC. Can you please provide more detail on your issue with this meeting? What are you hoping to get from "a recurring, scheduled group conscience check-in". In service, Volunteer CoDA Healthy Meeting Subcommittee
March 13, 2026, 1:33 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Thank you for taking the time to explore and respond to my email, “Can you please provide more detail on your issue with this meeting?” I’m happy to answer any specific questions, but I’d like to avoid re-stating the full thread unless you believe a particular detail is missing. The details are in my prior email and attachments. In one sentence, the issue is that the meeting does not provide an accessible forum where members present can raise meeting-wide framework/format items and determine group conscience by discussion and vote; instead, meeting- wide concerns are routed to a private email channel, in my case, I received no response, and I was removed from the meeting after raising this process concern. “What are you hoping to get from ‘a recurring, scheduled group conscience check-in’?” What I’m hoping to get is not the check-in itself. I’m requesting that the meeting allow the members present to decide—by discussion and vote—whether the meeting should set aside any regular, scheduled time for group conscience items that affect the whole meeting (framework/format decisions). In other words, I’m asking that this single question be brought to group conscience at the beginning of a meeting (when attendance is highest). I will accept whatever the group conscience decides, even if I disagree. Related: I’m requesting guidance on the CoDA-aligned next step to (1) restore access so I can participate, and (2) support the meeting in using an accessible group conscience process for meeting-wide matters. Thank you, Aaron
March 18, 2026, 6:58 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Good morning, Following up on my email sent March 13th regarding guidance for the online literature meeting process issue. Do you have a status update on next steps (or any additional information you need from me)? Thank you, Aaron
March 19, 2026, 11:09 AM HealthyMeetings@coda.org <HealthyMeetings@coda.org>
Hello Aaron - A member of the committee attended this meeting today. The meeting was found to be in complete compliance with CoDA meetings standards. The meeting is well run, reads the 4 required documents and follows the safety guidelines for meetings. We understand that you wanted the meeting to hold a group conscience. You want to "raise meeting-wide framework/format items". You do not explain what you feel needs to be addressed in this GC. If another format better meets your needs, finding another meeting on coda.org may provide that for you. In our opinion, this meeting is quite properly run. In service, Volunteer CoDA Healthy Meeting Subcommittee
March 19, 2026, 5:38 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Hello and thank you for taking the time to respond and attend the meeting. My issue is not meeting “format” or whether the meeting is well run or healthy. I personally enjoyed the meeting and the people in that fellowship. My issue is and only is access to group conscience as described by the FSM and 2nd Tradition. The vote I requested was procedural: whether the meeting should set aside a regular time for group conscience items affecting the whole meeting. I am genuinely confused about why this is controversial. If you would please answer these questions directly it would be helpful to fill in my gaps: Does a member need a specific, pre-approved reason to request a group conscience? If yes, where is that written (page/section)? Are online meetings exempt from any Traditions or from the group conscience decision-making process? If yes, where is that written (page/section)? During the committee member’s visit, did anyone raise a group conscience item and was a vote taken? Lastly, I was forwarded to this committee, is it even the right committee for this issue? Thank you, Aaron
March 20, 2026, 9:15 AM HealthyMeetings@coda.org <HealthyMeetings@coda.org>
Hello Aaron - The trusted servants of this meeting were able to get back to the committee with their report. Their response is clear that the group endeavored to work with you to no avail. You say - The vote I requested was procedural: whether the meeting should set aside a regular time for group conscience items affecting the whole meeting. I am genuinely confused about why this is controversial. Holding a GC is not controversial. The group held a GC upon your request. The outcome was not the one you wanted, it seems you are trying to force the issue by demanding another GC. Does a member need a specific, pre-approved reason to request a group conscience? If yes, where is that written (page/section)? A GC is held to make decisions regarding the group functions, date/time/location details, and other issues affecting the group. FSM part 1 states - The home group typically has a monthly business meeting to discuss issues affecting the group such as how to address crosstalk, what literature to buy, how to welcome newcomers, etc. A group conscience may also be asked for during a regular meeting, if a decision is needed right away and can’t wait for the regular business meeting. Anyone may ask for a group conscience at any time during a CoDA meeting, if and when immediate attention is needed to ensure the safety of an individual or the group, or to uphold the CoDA Traditions. You asked for a GC and that was held. The chat feature was disabled after many members of the group reported you messaged them privately during meetings with inappropriate messages. All members present for the GC voted down your request to reopen the chat. Are online meetings exempt from any Traditions or from the group conscience decision-making process? If yes, where is that written (page/section)? No, they are not. Every group can decide how often they choose to hold business meetings. During the committee member’s visit, did anyone raise a group conscience item and was a vote taken? No. GC is not a function of a regular meeting. Lastly, I was forwarded to this committee, is it even the right committee for this issue? Yes. CoDA policies - FSM Part 2 states: Co-Dependents Anonymous does not accept harassment, bullying, 13th stepping or expressed intolerance of any kind. No person should be subject to unwanted verbal or physical conduct which intimidates or shows hostility towards that person because of their gender, class, age, appearance, national origin, skin color, disability, language, sexual orientation, pregnancy or for any other reason. It is the meeting’s leadership responsibility to “Safeguard the Traditions.” (Carrying the Message page 9) Foundational Beliefs of our Meeting: CoDA is a 12-Step program of group support. CoDA meetings are not group therapy, but many people who work the program receives therapeutic benefit. CoDA is a program of self-help, self-discovery, and self-definition. (Newcomers handbook p. 10) “Our personal recovery depends on our adherence to the principles of the program including the Steps, Traditions, and the group conscience process.” (Traditionally Speaking page 5) “Someone who does not respect the common welfare of a group can destroy it.” (Traditionally Speaking page 8) “In every CoDA sharing session, there is only one paramount rule: “No crosstalk.” (Newcomers handbook p. 15) “The no-crosstalk rule cannot be suspended. It is an inalienable individual right in CoDA. (Newcomers handbook p. 18) The trusted servants seemed to take appropriate actions try to work with you. Emails were answered until they became badgering. The group reports that you have interrupted during shares, directly cross-talked about other's shares causing pain to other members, responded in anger when corrected, apologized but then repeated the behavior and reacted in anger again when reminded, and then ultimately attacked the trusted servants and folks in the meeting when the GC did not vote to re-open the chat. FSM part 1 also states "In extreme cases, the group may ask the individual to leave the meeting. Each person's right to attend meetings is guaranteed by Traditions Three, Five, and Twelve. Violations of the rights and boundaries of a meeting dishonors Tradition One that says, “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon CoDA unity.” An individual may lose the rights and privileges accorded to them by that group for committing such violations." We encourage you to reflect on the information provided and hope that you are able to use the principles of CoDA to have a sustainable recovery. I do note that there are 4 other English speaking meetings in this timeslot on coda.org In service, Volunteer CoDA Healthy Meeting Subcommittee
March 26, 2026, 3:40 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
I’m going to keep this narrow, and factual. I am also reattaching my email thread with N (nichole) A(amy) B(bill), it doesn't look like that
attachment was forwarded to this committee by the IMC.
My requested remedies are:
1. Reinstatement to the meeting in good standing.
2. To be a part of an orderly discussion and group conscience vote by the members present at the beginning of a meeting on this
procedural question: whether the meeting will set aside a regular, predictable time for meeting-wide group conscience items. This item
has been open since March 3rd.
Please confirm one of the following:
1. The procedural vote above was taken (please provide the meeting minutes with date, time, exact motion, and outcome), or
2. It was not taken.
3. Please inquire with the leadership as to why the requested vote on: "whether the meeting will set aside a regular, predictable time for
meeting-wide group conscience items" was not held at the beginning of the 03/10/2026 meeting, as requested by email six days prior.
(see email thread)
Allegations in the Healthy Meetings response:
1. It was stated that my two emails were “badgering,” please confirm that you read both emails and then clarify whether CoDA considers
two emails on different topics, one with questions (Feb 12) and one after reviewing CoDA service material as instructed (Mar 4), to be
“badgering.”
2. The HMC states “a GC was held upon your request.” This is true, but there were no stated limits on discussion shares and no stated
procedure for moving from discussion to vote. The vote carried against any chat, I accepted that outcome, I did not and have not
raised the chat issue again.
3. It was stated that members reported I sent “inappropriate” private messages. I cannot respond to an undefined allegation, know the
exact nature of my wrongs, if any, or make direct amends. Please define “inappropriate” and provide dated exhibits with content
supported by screenshots or dated message copies
4. It was stated that the wrongs for which I made amends were immediately repeated. Please identify what specific behavior you believe
was repeated and on what date(s). My amends are stated in my March 4th email, and I have not repeated the two errors I addressed
there.
5. It was stated that I was corrected multiple times. I cannot respond to an undefined allegation, know the exact nature of my wrongs, if
any, or make direct amends. Please provide the dated exhibits with content supported by emails, screenshots or dated message
copies and specify whether they were direct corrections addressed to me by name.
6. My personal email has been available to the group since Feb 12, 2026. I have searched my emails and have no record of any
corrective emails or invitations to discuss CoDA conduct issues. Please confirm whether any emails regarding CoDA conduct were
sent to me.
7. Leadership stated in an email dated 02/16/2026: ‘Your presence, shares and taking part in reading are in fact service and for that we
thank you for your service in being part of the CoDa Reading Meeting!’
These allegations appear inconsistent with how my participation over the last 7 months was characterized in earlier correspondence.
Thank you,
Aaron
March 29, 2026, 7:10 AM HealthyMeetings@coda.org <HealthyMeetings@coda.org>
Hello Aaron - Tradition Four states that "Each group should remain autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or CoDA as a whole." When a particular meeting hosts a business meeting is determined by that group and does not generally affect the CoDA fellowship. It is important to note that CoDA is thought of as an inverted pyramid - the groups themselves forming the top of the pyramid. The broad pyramid top represents the members of CoDA, and authority, power, and direction resides with them. Members of groups may exercise power through the group conscience. Authority and power flow down to and through a group’s trusted servants and area Intergroup then on to the Voting Entity’s (VE) Intergroup and the VE's delegates and eventually to the bottom of the pyramid. At the bottom, we find our CoDA boards, committees and service corporations. From the FSM Part 1 - A CoDA meeting is a group of people who come together around their shared desire for healthy and loving relationships. The meeting uses the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions of Co-Dependents Anonymous as the basis for working toward recovery. It is a place to find sponsorship and fellowship as well as the sharing of experience, strength, and hope. A strong sense of acceptance and community makes a meeting attractive both to the newcomer and old-timer. The sense of community and belonging, which are the gifts of our program, begin at the meeting level. FSM part 1 also states "In extreme cases, the group may ask the individual to leave the meeting. Each person's right to attend meetings is guaranteed by Traditions Three, Five, and Twelve. Violations of the rights and boundaries of a meeting dishonors Tradition One that says, “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon CoDA unity.” An individual may lose the rights and privileges accorded to them by that group for committing such violations." The Healthy Meetings committee can only advise members and groups regarding the steps to take to solve disagreements. Each group governs their meetings and are accepted as CoDA meetings under the requirements stated in the FSM. There are requirements to be a CoDA meeting - which this group meets - the rest is guidance. Again, as there has admittedly been damage done to the sense of safety and community in this meeting, it may not be the place for your continued recovery. In service, Volunteer CoDA Healthy Meeting Subcommittee
April 13, 2026, 4:47 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Board and IMC,
I am flagging what appears to be a considerable break from CoDA guidance in an online meeting that Healthy Meetings
nevertheless deemed healthy and well run. Attached is my report and supporting record.
Issue:
My fellowship and I were denied access to 2nd Tradition group conscience. My request was simple: that the members
present be allowed to discuss and vote on whether this meeting should set aside a regular, scheduled time for meeting-
wide group conscience items. Had that vote been held and the group decided "no", the issue would have been settled.
Observed process:
That request was not placed before the group. Instead, it was redirected to email then bypassed by the meeting
governor(s). Rules were then changed by meeting governor(s) so group conscience itself could be treated as out of
"format". Once HMC became involved they appeared to act as a proxy for the meeting governor(s): HMC required me to
justify the vote, treated the request as unclear after repeated clarification, deemed a meeting without a business meeting
and self funding as "healthy", and then shifted away from the process/governance issue into undefined accusations,
safety language, and my supposed unfitness for the format.
Conduct:
I have been a trusted CoDA member for over four years, a trusted member in AA for approximately 1.5 years, and
attended this online meeting more than 50 times and have never once been disciplined for misconduct, and after all of
these emails, I still do not know what specific conduct I am being accused of. I asked for definitions, dates, examples,
exhibits, and supporting records. Those particulars were not provided. By contrast, I can produce contemporaneous
records of respectful, boundary-focused, program-oriented communication with people mainly from this meeting and a
prior meeting. I am confident that my communications were well within CoDA conduct.
My requests:
1. Restore me to my fellowship in good standing and uphold a 2nd tradition vote as described.
2. Substantiate the allegations or withdraw them.
3. Review whether the HMC process was impartial.
4. State plainly whether CoDA’s guidance on business meetings, group conscience, and self-support are binding
safeguards, and whether the governance and process pattern documented in the attached report is consistent with
that guidance.
I appreciate your service.
Sincerely,
Aaron
Process_Governance Break Report.pdf
779K
April 13, 2026, 4:48 PM CoDA Board <Board@coda.org>
Thank you for contacting the CoDA Board. The Board or the appropriate Committee will respond to you within 5 days. Yours in Fellowship, CoDA Board of Trustees 2026 The Year of Love and Acceptance
April 13, 2026, 7:51 PM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Dear Aaron, IMC is reaching out to the Healthy Meetings subcommittee to request clarification from them regarding their findings and the response that they sent to you on March 29th. We will get back to you. Please be patient. Gail S Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC) Progress, not perfection. https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/ https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
April 24, 2026, 2:36 PM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Dear Aaron,
IMC hears and recognizes your concerns regarding your experience with meeting #WW11731.
We recognize that each meeting is autonomous to make their GC'd decisions. CoDA World makes
healthy suggestions regarding creating and running a meeting, including business meetings. We do
not enforce our suggestions as rules for the individual meetings. The only requirement of the meeting
is that they read the four foundational documents in order to be listed on our CoDA.org website.
If it is your preference, IMC is willing to set up a Zoom meeting with two members of IMC for you. One
of the members that processed your concerns within the Healthy Meetings subcommittee of the
Communications Committee will participate as well.
Restating your requests: Please see IMC response to your requests in blue:
1. Restore me to my fellowship in good standing and uphold a 2nd tradition vote as described.
IMC cannot do this. Each meeting is autonomous. There are a number of online meetings
held nationally and internationally, many of which should fit your personal schedule. Another
option is to start a new online meeting.
2. Substantiate the allegations or withdraw them.
IMC cannot do this.
3. Review whether the HMC process was impartial.
HMC follows a process. The process was followed.
4. State plainly whether CoDA’s guidance on business meetings, group conscience, and self-
support are binding safeguards, and whether the governance and process pattern
documented in the attached report is consistent with that guidance.
Each meeting is autonomous. If this meeting, as well as their current business meeting
practice do not fall within your acceptable terms, there are a number of online meetings held
nationally and internationally, many of which should fit your personal schedule. Another
option is to start a new online meeting.
Gail S
Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC)
Progress, not perfection.
https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/
https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
April 26, 2026, 11:19 AM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
This is to confirm receipt of your email to Issues Mediation Committee (IMC). We will reply as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and there are times when a GC on the email response is warranted. Progress not perfection...
April 26, 2026, 11:19 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Gail, I appreciate your service, truly, I have a few more questions. Given the undefined and unsubstantiated accusations already made against me, I believe email is the safest format for all parties. Please respond in writing. The FSM states: “The group conscience process is our decision making process. Failure to honor this process may violate Traditions One and Four and a sanction may be imposed. The harshest sanction Conference can impose on an individual or group is to no longer recognize it as belonging to CoDA…” How does IMC reconcile its current position with that language? FSM Combined states clearly “Healthy meetings hold regular business meetings.” But IMC states that the only requirement for a healthy meeting is to read the four foundational documents. How does the IMC reconcile this obvious contradiction? My record shows that HMC did not act neutrally. It bypassed the process issue I raised, adopted leadership’s framing, and shifted the matter into allegations and safety language rather than restoration or mediation. To be clear, is IMC stating that this is the process HMC is to follow? IMC did not answer my question about bias. Please answer directly: Do you, or the IMC/HMC members who handled my matter, personally know the meeting owners involved in #WW11731? I received written guidance to find another fellowship or start one. Please forward the written guidance, recommendations, or corrective direction, that was sent to meeting #WW11731 regarding the tradition, governance, or crosstalk violations raised in my report. Sincerely, Aaron
June 1, 2026, 9:44 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
This issue remains open. My initial request to the board was April 13th. My last email to the IMC was April 26. Sincerely, Aaron [REDACTED]
June 2, 2026, 3:58 PM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Dear Aaron, I do acknowledge that you sent a follow-up email on April 26th, that can also be seen below. IMC's GC was not to respond to that specific email. Our offer still stands: IMC is willing to set up a Zoom meeting with two members of IMC for you. One of the members that processed your concerns within the Healthy Meetings subcommittee of the Communications Committee will participate as well. Gail S Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC) Progress, not perfection. https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/ https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
June 3, 2026, 3:10 PM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
CoDA’s FSM states that every member has the right to know what is happening within the organization
and that CoDA publishes and distributes group conscience decisions, such as minutes. Because IMC has
identified its non-response to my April 26 follow-up email as the result of a group conscience decision, I
am requesting the basic service record of that decision.
Please provide the following:
1. The date of the IMC group conscience decision.
2. The meeting minutes, notes, decision language, or other written record reflecting that decision. If
no written record exists, please state that directly.
3. The IMC members who participated in that decision, identified by first name and last initial, or by
service-role identifier, consistent with CoDA anonymity practice.
4. Whether any IMC member recused themselves from the discussion or decision.
5. Whether any IMC member who participated had a prior personal, sponsorship, friendship, service, or
other meaningful relationship with the meeting owners, organizers, or trusted servants involved in
meeting #WW11731.
6. The reason given for not responding in writing to my April 26 questions regarding FSM compliance,
group conscience access, healthy-meeting standards, possible bias, HMC process, and whether
corrective guidance was sent to meeting #WW11731.
I am not requesting private recovery information, private contact information, or internal deliberations. I
am requesting the basic service record of an official IMC group conscience decision that affected an
unresolved Traditions/FSM concern.
False accusations and the handling of this matter have already caused me harm. The apparent bias and
manipulation from the beginning, combined with IMC’s failure to address these facts in a manner
consistent with the Steps, Traditions, or FSM, does not give me confidence that a Zoom meeting would be
fair or safe. I will not join a Zoom meeting with parties whose bias remains undenied, nor subject myself
to further manipulation and harm. For my own safety and to preserve an accurate record, I will keep all
communications in writing.
Because it took approximately six weeks to receive the last response, I would appreciate receiving this
service record as soon as reasonably possible. Absent a substantive response within 10 business days of
this email, I will proceed with an orderly and respectful escalation of this matter.
Sincerely,
Aaron U.
June 4, 2026, 9:32 AM Gail [REDACTED] <[REDACTED PERSONAL EMAIL]>
Your email request has been received. Your demands will be discussed at our next IMC monthly meeting which is currently scheduled for June 27th. Gail S, IMC Chair
June 4, 2026, 9:34 AM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Apologies, the email response should have come from this CoDA licensed account. Gail S Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC) Progress, not perfection. https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/ https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
June 4, 2026, 11:20 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Gail, Thank you for confirming receipt. It appears private identifying information was inadvertently sent from a non-CoDA account. I will respect and protect your anonymity by redacting personal identifying information in my record. I also want to clarify the characterization of my request as “demands.” No demands were made. My request is consistent with CoDA’s service principles and basic service accountability. It is unclear why a basic request for the service record of a past IMC group conscience decision requires another group meeting, but I acknowledge that IMC intends to discuss it on June 27. My 10-business-day timeframe remains unchanged. Sincerely, Aaron U.
June 20, 2026, 4:41 PM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Hi Aaron,
IMC members reviewed and discussed your most recent email request, along with a review of the history of
our email correspondence with you.
Based on today's GC, we make this offer one last time:
IMC is willing to set up a Zoom meeting with two members of IMC for you.
One of the members that processed your concerns within the Healthy Meetings subcommittee of the
Communications Committee will participate as well.
This is the list of your original requests and our responses (in blue):
1. Restore me to my fellowship in good standing and uphold a 2nd tradition vote as described.
IMC cannot do this. Each meeting is autonomous. There are a number of online meetings
held nationally and internationally, many of which should fit your personal schedule. Another
option is to start a new online meeting.
2. Substantiate the allegations or withdraw them.
IMC cannot do this.
3. Review whether the HMC process was impartial.
HMC follows a process. The process was followed.
4. State plainly whether CoDA’s guidance on business meetings, group conscience, and self-
support are binding safeguards, and whether the governance and process pattern
documented in the attached report is consistent with that guidance.
Each meeting is autonomous. If this meeting, as well as their current business meeting
practice do not fall within your acceptable terms, there are a number of online meetings held
nationally and internationally, many of which should fit your personal schedule. Another
option is to start a new online meeting.
Gail S
Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC)
Progress, not perfection.
https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/
https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
July 10, 2026, 10:54 AM Aaron [REDACTED] <[REDACTED EMAIL]>
Gail, Your response is noted. Primarily, I note that IMC, under your leadership, has again engaged in dishonest conduct by avoiding my current service- record request, declining to provide the requested service records, and failing to answer the material Traditions/FSM questions in writing. I will proceed based on the written record. Sincerely, Aaron U.
July 11, 2026, 9:00 AM IMC Chair <IMCChair@coda.org>
Email received. BCC: IMC full committee, CoDA Board Liaisons Gail S Chair, Issues Mediation Committee (IMC) Progress, not perfection. https://coda.org/service-info/issues-mediation-committee-main-page/ https://coda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMC-Disagreemen-Process.pdf
For a printable archival copy, use your browser’s Print command and choose “Save as PDF.” The print layout expands all correspondence automatically.
Anonymity and redaction
Privacy without changing the record
Private email addresses, phone numbers, personal addresses, unrelated recovery disclosures, and unnecessary personal identifiers are redacted where possible. Names are limited where possible to service-role identifiers. Some identifying information may remain where necessary to preserve the integrity of the service record.
No harassment request
This site is not a request that anyone contact, confront, pressure, or harass any individual trusted servant, meeting member, or service body. Its purpose is fellowship review of a service-process issue.
Corrections and clarifications
Accuracy matters
If a factual statement in this record is believed to be inaccurate or materially incomplete, the exact statement and supporting documentation may be submitted for review. Substantiated factual errors will be corrected, with the correction noted in the record.
Contact address: add the dedicated domain email here after it has been configured and tested.