LETTER from BERNARD B. SMITH of New York NY, a non-AA Trustee,
Bern was Chairman of the General Service Board for many years
is now a member of the Study Committee and Procedures
and Structure and also the Nominating Committee
Dear Jack:
You will recall that I wrote Bill on October 23, 1961, outlining forth to him my initial reactions with respect to his recommendations for the strengthening of the General Service Board for the future. A good deal of the comments hereinafter set forth are simply re-statements of the contents of that letter.
At the outset, I would like to say that I agree entirely with the principle of increasing membership to the General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous by addition of three or more AA Trustees I am persuaded, however, that additional Trustees should be elected on an area basis to provide greater area representation.
I do not believe, however, that wisdom dictates creating a situation where the General Service Board arrogates to itself the right to appoint so-called AA Trustees at large. We cannot anticipate the future of AA much as we might like to. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that on a future Board of Trustees there may not be those who will be prompted consciously or unconsciously by political considerations and a desire for power in the designation of such AA Trustees at Large. So far as the need to have the benefit of the views of specialists such as bankers, lawyers, publishers or public relations experts, I see no reason why the Board cannot designate a consultative group to advise without necessarily seating them on the Board.
The fact is that AA has managed to do very well up to now without too much expertise and with the limited funds that are controlled by the General Service Board and its modest income and the precept of corporate poverty. I would hesitate to have a concept of financial, legal, publishing and public relation expertise constitute the motivating factor in the designation of Trustees, as against a group of men primarily dedicated to the socio-spiritual foundation upon which AA rests.
I would rather suggest that initially, if the General Service Board or the Conference should reach the conclusion that the operations of the General Service Board require specialists drawn from the areas to serve on the Board, this conclusion should be communicated to the area in the hope that some of the areas may decide, on the basis thereof, to elect area Trustees having the type of experience that either the General Service Board or the Conference regard as advisable in the best interests of AA. If this procedure does not result in attracting the kind of specialists the Conference or the Board have indicated to the areas would be helpful in the operation of the affairs of AA the Board can then solicit the areas to suggest men of the type Bill has described to serve as consultants to the Board who could then be asked to come to New York for the quarterly meetings of the Board without disturbing the basic approach of area elections of all area Trustees, a procedure that I would hesitate to see disturbed.
Frankly, I do not believe that the business which the General Service Board must transact is so complex as to warrant creating a Board that is more suitable for a large business corporation than for a Service Board dedicated to the preservation and expansion of AA as a society based on socio-spiritual concepts.
I would now like to refer to Bill's proposal that the Chairman of the General Service Board should be required to be an AA Trustee. There is, as you know, under the Amended By-Laws which I prepared, no provision which requires the Chairman to be a non-alcoholic member of the Board. The fact is, however, that possibly by tradition the only three men who have served as Chairman have been non-alcoholic members. I would urge that it should be made clear that this practice of electing a non-alcoholic Trustee as Chairman does not constitute a tradition and that the General Service Board should not regard the Chairmanship as open only to non-alcoholic Trustees.
Up to now, we have had no alcoholic members of the Board serve as chairmen only because this happened to be the will of the AA members of the Board and indeed, until Bill's recommendations were circulated, no one in AA had to my knowledge suggested that an AA Trustee should serve as Chairman. I would strongly urge that it be made clear that just as there is no requirement under our By-Laws that the Chairman be a non-alcoholic Trustee, there is similarly no requirement that he must be a non-alcoholic Trustee. (ed. Should this read AA Trustee?)
I believe that with the Board augmented by at least three Area AA Trustees, so that AA Trustees are in the majority, it will be in effect for the AA Trustees to determine whether wisdom would dictate electing from their membership a nonalcoholic Trustee as Chairman or an AA Trustee as Chairman, in keeping with their views as to the nature of the individual under conditions existing at the time of the election who could best serve AA generally by acting as Chairman of the General Service Board. Experience over the years may prove that AA would better be served by establishing a tradition that the Chairman be an AA Trustee and not a non-alcoholic Trustee. I would rather prefer to see such a tradition evolve out of experience in the future rather than to decide now that the Chairman of the General Service Board must at all times be an AA Trustee. The By-Laws of the General Service Board ensure maximum flexibility within AA and I believe you will find they are adaptable to any situation with which AA may be presented in the future If at some future time they are found not be so adaptable, they can be amended.
I also must indicate that I cannot agree with the concept that the Chairman of the General Service Board should be given a status of leadership in all AA. In a socio-spiritual society such as AA leaders cannot be appointed or elected, they can only emerge and when they emerge, the processes of AA are such that such an individual would inevitably be elected as Chairman. Moreover, I am not personally persuaded that AA will necessarily require a leader whether in a spiritual sense or in any other sense after Bill's death. So long as Bill remains among the living, he will remain the spiritual leader of AA.
Based on my almost twenty years of experience in AA, apart from the two founders, Dr. Bob and Bill, the leadership in AA will forever remain implicit in the principles of recovery set forth in the twelve steps and the principles of operation set forth in the twelve traditions. In my view, everything should be done to insure that AA continues for the foreseeable future to operate under the leadership of these principles and not under the leadership of any one man for the twelve steps and the twelve traditions are the foundation of leadership from the General Headquarters in New York through every area and AA group. Bill, as the remaining surviving founder, will in his lifetime continue to serve to the extent such leadership is required as the spiritual leader of AA. I have indicated that I do not believe that following Bill's death, AA will require leadership in either the spiritual or earthly sense, However, whether such leadership will be necessary at all can be determined only at some future time after Bill has ended his earthly existence.
Again, I cannot emphasize too strongly, however, that leadership in Alcoholics Anonymous cannot be arrived through a process of election. Indeed, I believe that the socio-spiritual basis of AA is antithetical to the concept of spiritual leadership vested in one individual, once the last of the founders has ceased to exist,
The Society of Alcoholics Anonymous, is I believe, based on individual recovery within the framework of the twelve step and twelve traditions, based on love, friendship and service. I believe that the Society of Alcoholics Anonymous would be embarking on a dangerous voyage if it now decided as a permanent tradition to have a leader elected to stand at the helm. From what I see today, based on my long identification in AA, the captain at the helm should be, not an individual with all the frailties of humankind, but the twelve steps and the twelve traditions which are removed from human frailty. These steps and these traditions are all the leadership that AA will require for the foreseeable future Should I prove wrong, I believe may emerge when necessity requires it. He can only emerge, he cannot be chosen by vote.
I have indicated at the outset of this communication that I agree entirely with the recommendation of increasing the number of AA Trustees and not increasing the number of non-alcoholic Trustees to insure that AA Trustees are in the majority.
It seems to me that the remainder of Bill's recommendations must, by their very nature, be tabled until a decision is arrived at by the Conference on the subject of a change in ratio of AA Trustees to non-AA Trustees serving on the General Service Board.
I do wish to make one point clear on this subject and that is that despite the fact that I have consistently supported the concept of increasing the ratio of AA Trustees to non-AA Trustees, my support must inevitably be conditioned on evidence that such change represents the wish of AA.
To emphasize this point of view, I must go back to the beginning of AA. The founders, as I recall it, decided that the original Alcoholic Foundation (the name of which was subsequently changed to the General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous) should be composed of a board consisting of a majority of non-AA's Their reasons therefore have been the subject of so much discussion at prior conferences that little purpose would be served now in restating them. I do, however, hold to the view that the non-AA's are trustees because AA regards this as a service to the society.
1, who am not an AA, have never seen any reason for not changing the ratio, provided AA regards this change in ratio as in the interests of AA. In all the years I have been a Trustee of the General Service Board, there has never been a single division on any policy decision in which all AA members of the Board take one position and all non-AA members take another. Accordingly, from a practical point of view, as I see it, the addition of several area AA trustees without adding to the number of non-AA trustees is not going to bring about any dramatic change in the operation of the General Service Board. However, AA is a socio-spiritual society which by its nature does not introduce changes unless such changes are regarded as absolutely essential to the society. For when a society which has such a tremendous socio-spiritual impact functions as effectively as AA now functions, we must be forever concerned with changes, so that we can be certain that such changes are calculated to improve the services AA provides to all who can be benefited by it, and must take no risks that changes may have an adverse influence on its effectiveness.
I have stated that my views are that I can see no harm to AA by increasing the ratio of AA Trustees to non
AA Trustees serving on the General Service Board. I have also stated that my views must be subject to the views of AA as a whole.
I cannot, therefore, overlook the fact that at the last meeting of the Board, five of the six AA Trustees, on the Board opposed any change in the ration of AA Trustees to non-AA Trustees on the Board at this time. Assuming, as I must, that the views of these AA Trustees reflect the views of AA as a whole, I would be bound to come to the conclusion that this is probably not the time to change the ration of AA Trustees to non-AA.
My own view is that until such time as at least two-thirds of the AA members of a conference decide to change the ratio, it should remain unchanged. Certainly the General Service Board should not arrogate to itself any change in ratio without a mandate of this kind by the Conference. As a matter of practice the General Service Board would never consider a change without such a mandate.
In the light of the fact that five of the six AA Trustees attending the Board meeting were opposed to a change in the ratio, and in the light of the fact that in prior conferences, a change in ratio was voted down, and despite the fact that in prior conferences, a change in ratio was voted down, and despite the fact that at a prior conference I had advocated a change in the ratio by increasing the number of AA Trustees, it is my view now, for all of the foregoing reasons, that the subject of a change in ratio of AA Trustees to non-AA Trustees should be tabled until such a time as there is evidence that it is the wish of AA effect such change. A change in the ratio can only be accomplished through a vote of the Conference. My view is that although the subject should manifestly be discussed at this next Conference, I would hesitate to see it put to a vote unless it is clear from indications of preliminary views that there is a reasonable possibility through the course of discussion that at least two-thirds of the conferees would support such a change. Every time a change in the ratio is voted down, the subject of such change is inevitably tabled for a period of years.
You may recall, Jack, that at the initial conference of AA which I chaired, I introduced a resolution to the effect that there should be no non-AA Trustees on the Board. I made this motion at that time as a means of determining what the will of AA was with respect to non-AA Trustees, for I wished to make it clear that non-AA Trustees do no have any proprietary right to serve; they serve only at the will of the movement. I made this motion, therefore, to determine what the will of the movement was, as reflected by the expressions of views at this initial conference. It will be recalled that my motion was unanimously defeated Some years later, while still Chairman of the General Service Board and of the Conference, again wishing to determine the will of AA with respect to service by non-AA Trustees, I urged that the ratio be changed by increasing the number of AA Trustees of the Board. This, too, received no support, and the preservation of the existing ratio was overwhelming supported.
After I resigned as Chairman of the Board, and therefor ceased to be Chairman of the Conference, a motion was once again made to change the ratio to provide for a majority of AA Trustees. When this motion, as I recall it, was defeated, I moved that as an initial step the Board be constituted of the same number of AA Trustees and non-AA Trustees. This motion did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority.
Some ten years ago in addressing a conference with my profound recognition of the socio-spiritual foundation on which AA rests, I stated that with respect to any issue of any major significance we should seek not compromise but certainty. Nothing that has happened to AA since then would prompt me to change this view. It is because we seek certainty that we should try to be sure that a change in the ratio of AA Trustees to non-AA Trustees is the overwhelming desire of Alcoholics Anonymous and I would hope that this next Conference and the Conferences that follow will follow this precept with respect to this issue or any other issue of significance that it may be called upon to consider.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Bernard B. Smith