Letter to Michael Alexander, GSB Chairperson – Feb, 1992

(Original on SMAA letterhead)

Please respond directly to: 410 North Orchard St. , Northfield, MN 55057 , (507) 645-6194

February 10, 1992

Mr. Michael Alexander
Chairman
General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous
460 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10022

Dear Michael,

First of all, I want to thank you for the encouragement that resulted in the proposal (Southwest Regional) which was forwarded to the Conference Committee on Trustees. It is simply an extension of the practice begun by yourself two years ago. Therefore, I also thank you for this perspective on the principle of communication which was the basis for the proposal.

The attached proposal "paints with a much broader brush." I initially intended to forward this to you as an individual A.A. member who was concerned about the course on which Alcoholics Anonymous was approaching the future. However, as a responsible delegate I felt it proper to inform our Area Committee of my intent to do so. Mindful that if their perception of the situation was such that they asked me not to do so, I would be bound, by Bills example, to honor their request and group conscience.

Upon presenting this information to a meeting of our D.C.M.s, a decision was made by the District Committee Members to ask the entire Area Committee for their support. It is important, I think, to share with you that the general consensus of the DCMs was that this proposal, should it be implemented, would send a clear, positive message to the GSRs. This message being that the concerns that the groups have been voicing, on an ever increasing basis, will be duly and carefully examined. Also, it was noted, they felt that this should allow for a greater freedom in the flow of communication and information.

Both the impetuous, and hope, for this proposal is that it can be a neutral middle ground from which slow, steady progress toward unity can be made. The makeup of the proposed ad hoc committee insures that each element of our world service structure will have its perspective reasonably considered due to the member representing it. Likewise, the Fellowship can feel that its wishes and concerns are being reviewed in direct proportion to its ultimate authority. I would also like to address the question of "Right of Decision" that will undoubtedly be made mention of by those who do not see this as a positive step. First of all, this proposal does not suggest that the trustees ought to forsake their right to decide on those matters of operation that concern the office and fellowship. In essence, the proposal accepts that the trustees have the Right of Decision, but that the Fellowship also has a responsibility to itself and the trustees to review decisions already made. The end result of this review would be an affirmation of those decisions which are consistent with the Fellowships wishes, as well as suggestions for change regarding those which have strayed to some degree. Also included is a simple inventory to "seek out those flaws and gaps in our communications" which stand in the way of our progress. The trustees traditional Right of Decision will be retained due to the fact that any recommendations which result must be forwarded to the Conference for approval. Upon approval, they will still be subject to the trustees Right of Decision.

Before I relate the reaction of our Area Committee, let me make note of some of the things the DCMs shared with me. First, the groups and their GSRs feel that there is a log-jam in the communication channel. It is their sense, and perhaps a very accurate one, that due to an ever increasing desire for information, there has developed a fear that if the information were shared, the trustees and staff would be hamstrung in their ability to make those decisions necessary for smooth operation of the office. Therefore, only limited amounts of information are forwarded without a prior, strong request for a full information flow.

You may be thinking, as many might, that this is solely connected with the recent general manager situation. While that can be used as an example, it is only a very small part of the total experience upon which the groups are forming this opinion. Also included is information on the office move when it was first decided last year, facts on litigation, response to letters about medallions and questions about matters of policy. I could go on for much longer, but this very short list will need to suffice in order to make the point.

Among the other points the DCMs made, in their talk with me, was that the AA members they heard from in their districts were more and more often having questions about board and office practices and decisions that neither they nor their trusted servants were able to get reasonable answers for. This has been true, I am told, whether they ask me, write the office, or talk to a trustee or director at a forum. I am told that there is a growing perception that the trustees and staff leave the impression that the fellowship (office) belongs to them and that nobody has to listen to the groups anymore.

To say that I am concerned about this situation is an understatement. I also am led to believe that you are equally concerned, but that there is considerable disagreement on the board as to what actions to take. Information has been shared with me that indicates that you may have a proposal of your own which seeks to solve some of our problems. I think, Michael, that we have reached a point at which we need very much to "wipe the slate clean." By that I mean that we, as a Fellowship, are very much in need of a point at which we can leave any possible errors in the past and move forward with a renewed sense of unity. It is only through a proposal as sweeping as this that I think this can be accomplished. If nothing else, it provides a focal point through which the fellowship can forgive any mistakes we trusted servants may have made in our efforts to serve them. There have been those, I am told, that have wondered what I and some others have been "up to." Well, I can't speak for any others, but I have been busy trying to find a positive way by which the concerns of my area, and many of my fellow delegates, can be addressed. What is attached is the end result of my prayers, consultations and guidance from those I serve.

The vote of our Area Committee was, without any opposing votes to forward this proposal as a proposal of the Southern Minnesota Area. In so doing, we recognize that this is essentially a request for an inventory of our service structure. And that, as such, it does not request any particular action other than the review and recommendations for improvement where they may be needed.

I will wait until February 19, 1992 before forwarding this to the Conference Coordinator. Should you have any questions, comments or suggestions please let me know before then. Thank you, Michael, for your service and the time you have taken to read and consider this.