Overview of Concerns & Issues / 1962 - 1992

OVERVIEW
Of
CONCERNS AND ISSUES
1962 - 1992

“Opposition to this. . .to any. . .kind of growth has emerged at every corner AA has turned. The membership group conscience has usually tipped the scales for growth. It will happen like this again as soon as the membership has the facts and the sooner the better if that leadership is to develop that will carry the message to suffering drunks to come. To say that AA can’t run its own affairs with the help of a minority of our friends will only deny us the final recovery and reason for our faith.”
Don Goddard, General Service Trustee and former Grapevine Editor

CONCERN 1962 1992 #1 - TRUSTEE RATIO ON BOARD That AA members should always have a clear majority over non-AA’s in managing the Fellowships affairs. [Bill] Rejected Alcoholic Board members now outnumber non-alcoholic 2 to 1 That in the Class “A” designation the ‘non-New York’ non-alcoholics should be in a majority [Tom Sharpe - Class “B” Regional] Not acted upon Has been accomplished That any ‘ratio’ requirement in the by-laws has the side-effect of making future changes in Board membership difficult. [Bill] Not acted upon Not applicable - already changed. That AA, as a Fellowship, needs to be willing and able to top-manage its own affairs as a clear demonstration of its maturity, humility, and faith in a Power Greater than itself. [Bill; Leonard Harrison, Class “A”; Don Goddard, General Service (Class “B”); Allan Bachman, General Service (Class “B”) Not acted upon Rarely discussed in AA That all major elements of Society ought to be represented in the Class “A” group of trustees. [Allan Bachman, General Service (Class “B”) Not acted upon Focus on skills perceived as need rather than a cross-section of the major elements of society. That we ought always see our Class “A” trustees as being a guiding force when our Fellowship is being emotionally unstable. [Dan Bancroft, Class “B” - Regional In practice In practice That we ought to seriously consider the cost of any additional trustees in changing the Board. [Pat Cronin, Class “B” - Regional] Considered Considered CONCERN 1962 1992

That non-AA’s ought to be an Advisory Council only, with a voice but no vote. [Leonard Harrison, Class “A”] Not acted upon Not considered That any General Service Board which does not act in a manner consistent with the Fellowships wishes will begin to be disregarded and eventually discarded. [Don Goddard, General Service - Class “B”] Not seen as a
viable possibility. Not seen as a viable possibility. That policies which are unrealistic not be kept in force and ought to be quickly removed. [Austin MacCormick, Class “A”] Noted but not
followed through
on. Not current practice. That the General Service Board Chairperson should be a Class “B” Trustee. [Bill] Noted but rejected Not current practice. That the chairperson of the General Service Board ought not be considered AA’s spiritual leader. [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”] In practice In practice That AA trustees should serve only four years (which tends to make the ineligible for Board Chairperson). [Tom Sharpe, Class “B” - Regional] In practice In practice #2 - WIDER REPRESENTATION Not seriously considered This has been a growing concern among the delegates in recent years. #3 - THREE TRUSTEES-AT-LARGE That three (3) Trustees-At-Large be appointed by the Board, from AA members with significant business experience to provide administrative expertise. [Bill] Rejected as developing a ‘business mentality’ contrary to AA’s spiritual focus. There are currently two (2) Trustees-At-Large that are most often chosen due to their AA experience. That the General Service Board not make appointments (to the Board) without Conference review [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”] In practice In practice That there ought not be too great an emphasis placed on business experience for Class “B” trustees. [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”; Tom Sharpe, Class “B” - Regional] In practice Most often certain kinds of business or professional experience is requested. CONCERN 1962 1992 That too much expertise on the Board would tend to refute a need for the group conscience and reduce the Boards “teachability.” [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”] In practice Expertise is most often sought out.

III

That the Board should concern itself primarily with “Fellowship” concerns rather than “Business” matters. [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”; Bernard Smith, Class “A”] In practice Board seems to focus on primarily business matters. That, once informed of a possible need, the regions should decide, through election of their trustee, just how much business expertise is needed. [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”] In practice Election procedures have changed and do not allow as direct a choice. That any needed expertise left unsupplied by the regions can be acquired through hired consultants. [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”] In practice There is much use made of consultants. That Trustees-At-Large, on an AA member dominated Board, could lead to the development of an “AA Hierarchy” [David Bancroft, Class “B” - Regional] Not considered Not considered That an alcoholic General Service Board Chairperson could come from this group (trustees-at-large) as well as from regional trustees. [Bill] Rejected Not considered #4 - G.S.O. OPERATIONS That there needs to be an improvement in the communication between the General Service Board Chairperson and the General Service Office. [Bill] Not seen as problem Various attempts are being made to find a solution. That a more direct management of the General Service Office by the General Service Board would invite struggles for power. [Pat Cronin, Class “B” - Regional] Accepted as one reason for rejection of the recommendation for a strong Vice-Chair to assist at the GSO. General Service Board currently wishes to put in place. That the General Service Board Vice-Chairperson could act as the “hands-on” representative of the General Service Board Chairman. [Bill] Rejected The current General Service Board Chairman wishes to handle himself. CONCERN 1962 1963 That a strong General Service Board Vice-Chairperson would result in “double-headed” management of the GSO [Dr. Jack Norris, Class “A”] Part of consideration which rejected Bill’s recommendation. Not a current consideration. That a requirement to have the Vice-Chair “oversee” the GSO would be more responsibility than a volunteer could handle. [Allan Bachman, Class “B” - General Service] Part of consideration which rejected Bill’s recommendation. Not a current consideration.

That the central focus/vision for the direction/operation must come from the Board rather than the GSO management. [Bill] Considered but not acted upon as Bill suggested. Current Board viewpoint. That the Fellowship may be better served if the Chair of the General Service Board were non-AA and the Vice-Chair were AA (link between the Fellowship & Board) [Tom Sharpe, Class “B” - Regional] Not acted on Not a current consideration. #5 - NOMINATING That there be a written procedure to insure adequate representation in the selection of Class “A” trustees, AA staff, Directors, an Committee Consultants [Bill] Not acted on A current point of controversy. That it may permit for wider participation from “committee resource people” if some trustee committee meetings were rotated around the continent. [Harrison Trice, Class “A”] Not acted on Not under consideration. #6 - CONFERENCE LEGAL AUTHORITY That the General Service Conference has no written procedure for any attempt to reorganize the General Service Board. [ Bill] Not thought to be necessary. Delegates becoming aware of lack of procedure. That the General Service Conference has no legal authority to reorganize the General Service Board. [Bill] Not thought to be a problem. Delegates becoming aware of liability. #7 - FUTURE LEADERSHIP That AA lacks an overall vision with respect to its primary purpose and world service. [ Bill] Not seen as an accurate viewpoint. Appears to be, in part, responsible for most recent difficulties. CONCERN 1962 1992 That the designation and development of any future “AA spiritual leader” needs to be decided by the AA groups. [ Dr. Harry Tiebout, Class “A”] Acknowledged in rejection of Bill’s recommendations. Not current concern. That there never be an “imposed” leader, or leadership, placed on the AA Fellowship. [Bernie Smith, Class “A”; Dan Bancroft, Class “B” - Regional] Considered in rejection of Bill’s recommendations. Not a current concern. That Alcoholics Anonymous not attempt to replace co-founders with leaders because they really are two different functions. [Allan Bachman, Class “B” - General Service] Considered in rejection of Bill’s recommendations. Not a current concern.

That there needs to be “administrative leadership”, as one of two functions under the chair of the General Service Board, which can be vested in the Vice-Chair of the General Service Board. [Bill] Rejected Not under consideration. That there needs to be “service leadership”, as one of two functions under the chair of the General Service Board, which can be vested in a team comprised of the GSO manager and Grapevine Editor and carried out by the President of A.A.W.S. (GSO Manager) [Bill] Rejected Not under consideration. That the election of a regional/at-large trustee (Class “B”) as chair of the General Service Board could insure that the Boards overall vision is a reflection of, and based on, the “AA experience” as reflected in the attainment and maintenance of sobriety. [Bill] Partial action taken (two out of three elected) We currently have two at-large trustees rather than the three Bill suggested. That a “checks and balance” ought to be in place to moderate any actual or perceived “New York Influence”. [ Bill] Seen as not needed. A growing concern. That the AA Fellowship ought always seek to insure that the AA members viewpoint remains dominant. [Bill] No direct action taken. A growing concern.