LETTER from ALLAN BACHMAN of Stanford, CT.
an AA General Service Trustee Chairman of the Public Information
Committee, and a Director of AA World Services, Inc.
Dear Jack:
I have reviewed the revision of The Twelve Concepts with a great deal of care and deep appreciation of the time and effort which Bill has devoted to this project. Drawing on the experience of the past, he has formulated guidelines which can be of inestimable value to the Fellowship in determining sound service policies and procedures.
As such, I believe they should be received by the Trustees and the Conference.
At the same time, I think it should be recognized that many of the views expressed, while phrased as statements of fact, are actually expressions of opinion. I know this is not the trend in many large corporations
Proctor and Gamble, for example. However, in a small operation like ours, I don't really know that it makes much difference whether the work is done by corporations, divisions or committees. I dunk any one of these vehicles can be made to run satisfactorily with the right kind of personnel, lacking which any of them can break down.
RECOMMENDATIONS
About some of the proposals advanced, I have serious reservations. I am not opposed to change if it can be shown that the present system is operating badly. I have no reason to believe that this is the case, nor am I aware of any substantial dissatisfaction with the preset setup among the Groups with which I have been in contact, except for a desire to have more Area Trustees.
Even so, I am not opposed to change if it can be shown that the proposed changes will materially improve what is, I believe, an already smoothly functioning operation. On this basis:
1) 1 favor the addition of 2 more AA Area Trustees and 2 more non-AA Trustees, thereby retaining the present Trustee ratio.
2) 1 do not favor the addition of Trustees-at-large.
After care study and consideration of the recommendations, I am convinced that the "flaws" and "deficiencies" cited are largely imaginary or speculative. I believe that tinkering with the present structure on the scale proposed could, in fact, "lead to serious malfunction and damage later on."
To comment more fully:
Recommendation I - I am opposed to any change in the present Trustee ratio which, I firmly believe, is one of AA's greatest assets. Media and other influential people whose good opinion of AA is important to our future growth cite the traditional Trustee ratio as convincing evidence that we actually practice humility as well as preach it. Perhaps I am old fashioned, but to me theorizing that we have become so "mature" that we no longer need to be humble is not very mature reasoning.
I am not impressed with the arguments for change. How could the presence on our Board of a majority of non-alcoholic friends of great distinction be a "sever handicap in the future"? On the contrary, I believe that more Class A Trustees are needed to give representation to groups of major importance to AA, notably the great publishing and broadcasting industries, which are still unrepresented. Since these Trustees would
probably be drawn primarily from the New York area, added expense would be negligible. Yet, if two more Area Trustees are added, the argument of geographic structural imbalance is demolished. The out-of-towners would be in clear majority as far as AA representation is concerned. As to where our Class A Trustees reside, I don't think our members could be less interested.
Recommendation II - I am in favor of adding 2 more AA a= Trustees and 2 more non-AA Trustees. As to the criteria for selection, I fear that there may be too much emphasis on business and professional skills. No one can foresee how practical the suggested election procedures will be but they merit careful study.
Recommendation III - I am opposed to the innovation of Trustees-at-large for the cogent reason set forth in Bernard Smith's letter of October 23, 1961. In any event, the proposals for selecting area Trustees should provide a test of whether the hope of garnering "the finest business and professional talent obtainable" is more than wishful thinking and whether, a practical matter, these men, located long distances from New York, can make significant contributions to the service operation. If not, we can still take consolation in the knowledge that there is a hundred times as much talent outside AA (from whence we draw our Class A Trustee ) as there is within the Fellowship.
Recommendation IV - It seems to me that this is asking more than can reasonably be expected of a non-AA Trustee. It would be quite a burden to place on any volunteer. A more fundamental object to this proposal is that it seems to create a new "boss" of both AA World Services, Inc. and the Grapevine. We have duly elected executive heads of both corporations. To make any one Trustee their overseer would be meddlesome device calculated to sap their initiative, authority and responsibility. These executives are and should be responsible to the Board as a whole and any need for confirmation of their actions by the Board can be determined by consultation with the Chairman. Personally, Im not aware of any serious breakdown in communications between the Chairman and HQ operations at the present time.
Recommendation V - I have been most favorably impressed with the excellence of the candidates selected by the Nominating Committee. The present system seems to be working fine. Why make it more complicated?
Recommendation VI - I don't see the necessity for this. Doesn't the Board already have all the authority necessary?
Recommendation VII - I do not believe that the Chairman should be required to be an AA member and I subscribe to the ideas expressed by Bernard Smith in this connection in his letter of October 23, 1961. 1 think a non-AA Chairman has certain advantages which are not available to any AA Trustee. I have serious misgivings that the designation of any alcoholic as the "number one" man in AA would be a good thing, either for the individual or for the Fellowship as a whole
How do we define the "leadership" which it is proposed to transfer from Bill to an AA chairman, or to a troika, more specifically, those leadership functions now being performed by Bill which need to be transferred to a new "leader"?
I believe that at least some of the functions of leadership formerly assumed by Bill are already being performed by others. I suspect that, with the growth of AA and the enlargement of it services, no single individual, particularly one who could give only part time to the task, could possibly assume all of the leadership functions once performed by Bill. I wonder why, in this unique Fellowship, it is necessary to confer "leadership", however that may be defined, on any single individual or even on a troika
Bill points out that the Headquarters leadership was transferred by him to the GSO General Manager several years ago. As a director of AA World Service, Inc., I can testify that the leadership in this area is still being supplied, and admirably, by the General Manager and by the executive staff members. As is true in almost any association, they are the people who, through daily contact with AA members and the outside world, are especially qualified to exercise leadership in this area of service. They have the experience, wisdom and time which are the requisites of such leadership.
To cite another example, I understand that for many years Bill handled AA's public relations personally and exercised leadership in formulating AA's public information policy. That policy is still in process of evolution but in recent years the leadership in its formulation has been supplied by the Public Information Committee. Based on my personal knowledge of the experience and wisdom of the members of that Committee and of the amount of time which they devote to their deliberations, I seriously question that any new "leader" would be qualified to provide equal leadership in this field of service.
It would seem that, of his own choosing, Bill's present leadership is less active than it is symbolic of his unique position as co-founder to which must be added the great love, gratitude and respect which AA's everywhere feet toward him. I doubt that Bill can transfer these qualities to any designated successor, alcoholic or other, any more than former President Eisenhower has transfer his personal popularity to other candidates for public office. Nor am I satisfied that AA needs or would welcome a new individual "leader". I suggest that the necessary leadership is already being provided by the staff, committees and the officers and directors of the corporate boards, subject always in the oversight and final approval of the Trustees. I suggest that this may be the best way to hum continuing leadership in AA.
Sincerely,
Allan Bachman
February 7, 1962