LETTER from Dr HARRY M. TIEBOUT of Greenwich, Conn.,
a non-AA Trustee, Harry is a member of the Poky Committee
and the Study Committee on Procedures and Structure
Dear Bill:
This letter comes after long consideration. It is written without firm conviction and only after I found myself finally forced to stand up and be counted. My vote will be cast in opposition to the proposed change in trustee ratio.
My reasons are three, first, I find no crying dissatisfaction with the present setup from most of the AA's with whom I have had contact. To be sure, they have had no reason to think much about the issues involved but most of them have shown little unhappiness with the current arrangements and doubt if much is to be gained by the ratio change. And most of them are not impressed by the need to grow up. Of course, my sampling is perhaps biased but it has been a long time in the taking.
My second reason is that the system of checks and balances now in practice is better than a situation in which one alcoholic is battling another. That would be the situation if the head of the Central Office remained, as he should be, a member of AA. A marriage is always healthier when two people can stand up as separate entities. Then each serves as an effective and necessary balance wheel. The marriage in which one partner is the dominant figure is seldom a sound and ongoing one. It takes conflict between two people and two groups who respect each other and are friendly to promote thought and growth and thus prevent rigidity.
My third reason is distrust of the factors which apparently motivated the pressure to change. The original problem to be faced was leadership and its succession. That concerned you and had nothing to do with the Board picture except as the Board is part of the leadership. In struggling with the problem of succession of your personal leadership. I thought your mantle would have to fall on someone else. Bern Smith made me realize my error in that connection. As a result, I now see that leadership in the eyes of the movement does not necessarily rest in one person. It can also be invested in a group. As far as AA goes, that group can be the persons who collectively form the New York office and the Board of Trustees.
In other words, I am now saying that leadership will naturally be centered around and spring from the functions of the Central office and the Board of Trustees.
The probable accusation that the New York group is running things does not bother me. If they do the job well that is enough. The charge of being despotic will always be levied against any headquarters. It is the visible target of all gripes and, while no headquarters group can afford to ignore suggestions and complaints which may be well-founded, the Central authority must be able to stick to its responsibilities which are to make the leadership decisions in the fight of all the available facts. The decisions may be wrong but they will not go too far astray if sufficient time to get the facts is taken.
The net result of this new thinking has led me to question your original interest in having an AA as the Chairman of the Board. I think now that that could be a mistake and that to have a Board with a majority of AA's would only compound the possible problems.
Incidentally, may I again stress what I noted in passing; I am not very much moved by the emphasis on growing up. Most adolescents are very conscious of having grown up. The trouble is that they do not know that they still have a lot to learn.
This apparent shift in position on my part is not as great as it may seem. When last I talked to you, I agreed that your proposals should by all means be submitted to the Board. Beyond that I did not go. I could see the merit in the recommendations advanced but I continued to have reservations about the essential need for the ratio shift. My doubts still remain and have become firm enough to determine my vote.
I await with interest the decisions of the others. I personally had hoped to avoid being pressed but, in the light of recommendation as finally formulated, I had no choice. Some decision had to be made if I were to exercise responsible leadership on my part.
Believe me, Bill, when I finally decided to write as I have done, I did so with great reluctance. Before, I had hoped that the issue would die down and I would not have to reach a conclusion. I really was torn, mostly I now realize, by my sincere regard for your thinking and my own lack of conviction in the other manner.
The statement that those who opposed the change did so from fear distressed me from the first. I spend every working day of my life trying to get people to change. So I am not afraid of change. That's the way I make my living. I am, however, opposed to change for changes' sake and have just as much regard for those who resist change as I have for those who propose it. It takes the same amount of courage to resist as it does to propose. The argument of fear of change simply does no hold water.
Other items in your thinking did, however, leave an imprint, but, as so often happens, time helps thinks to jell. I am sorry the jell was in the direction it was but I want you to know that my profound respect, admiration and gratitude toward you are in no way lessened by the fact that I must differ with you on a matter which I know is of great importance to you. I just happen now to think that you are barking up the wrong tree, but that you have made a mistake in pushing for the change. I may be wrong and so may you. Time alone will tell.
This long letter has not been easy to write. When I finally realized that I was going to vote in the negative, I thought a long time about how this letter should be composed. The issues involved are grave and of great significance. I can only hope that I am acting wisely. I know you will see my decision in this light.
My very best regards to you.
As ever,
Harry Tiebout
December 28, 1961