LETTER from HARRISON M. TRICE of Ithaca, NY
Harry is a non-AA Trustee and a member of the Literature Committee
Dear Jack:
Three emotions have consistently plagued me as I try to summarize my reactions to Bill's Recommendations: reluctance, frustration, and melancholy.
I am reluctant because of my deep respect and love for Bill. I am fearful that I will hurt or offend a person for whom I have the utmost esteem.
I am frustrated and melancholy because it has only been a year or two since the Board engaged in long and acrimonious debate over the ratio question. At that time it was settled by the Conference in favor of no change. I had hoped it was thereby settled. Yet here it is again.
At that time the issue was, in my judgment, a very disorganizing and disruptive one. Now that it has been reviewed, I believe it is even more so. As an emotionally charged question, it now "has a past"; lines can be drawn more easily than before, and Bill's commitment can be even deeper. This we are on the brink of an unnecessary, unreasonable, and diverting issue that, to my mind, is just plain unimportant. What difference does it really make for AA's basic goals whether or not there is one more non-alcoholic Trustee than alcoholic ones?
My reluctance to comment also grown from the fact that I am a non-alcoholic Trustee. Will some interpret my remarks as a desire to retain a position on the Board? All I can say to you is that I am a scientist first, a member of this Board second. As far as any human is able to understand himself I do not believe it is a bested interest that motivates me. AA, is to me, a movement to be served, not utilized. Nonetheless, there is always a mild feeling of embarrassment that will not leave me when I try objectively make up my mind. The pressure, however, to take a stand has been great just as it was a few years back. At that time I took a definite position and will do so now.
I oppose a ratio change. AA is already in charge of its own affairs even though there is a symbolic ratio difference in favor of non-alcoholics on the Board. The simple trust is that the Board is merely one of a number of influential units in the AA structure. Its own Policy Committee, for example, is far more influential in a practical sense. Here AA's exercise a definite leadership. The same is trust in the other units. No observer, however casual, of the General Service Office, its personnel, and its management, would conclude that AA's are not conducting this operation almost exclusively. Obviously, the Conference itself is completely conducting by AA's with, of course, a few non-alcoholic Trustees sitting in now and then.
In short, the developing leadership in AA affairs is exercised by all of these units. Furthermore, it is my judgment that the Board plays a minor, and to an extent, a ceremonial role in the total picture. Granted it has formal authority, but, for all intents and purposed it is rarely used. Its own Policy Committee is the real repository of influence, along with the office staff and its manager.
Then why all the adrenaline over a ratio change? A long intense debate over the issue will accomplish what? To my mind it will divert us from real issues. For example AA has a tremendous responsibility to the alcoholic who is still "at large". How can AA improve its attraction, induction and retention of many more alcoholics, who are "ready" to affiliate? How can we "export" AA to French-speaking and Spanish-speaking alcoholics? Is AA becoming too identified with organized religion?
Here are real issues. They deal with sick people, not with a "numbers" game. Yet I foresee a tremendous amount of time and energy, plus internal conflict, developing over an insignificant matter, while important matters "go by the Board"! Furthermore, this neglect occurs at a time when these problems are more pressing than usual.
Another basic reason for my melancholy over ratio matters lies in Bill's type of leadership. I foresee a battle between Bill, as a co-founder of the movement, and a strong advocate of trustee change, and many of the Trustees—most of them, I suspect. This is indeed unfortunate. At a time when Bill's leadership is in transition from a personalized one to an administrative, diffused one, it is tragic that it may be blurred by a battle in which he could lose.
This leadership image is widely spread at local AA levels. It is probably the chief tangible symbol that links GSO with many AA's throughout the country. If it becomes deeply committed and loses, AA will suffer from its reduced influence.
What I am trying to say in the simplest way possible is this: drop the ration question in order to avoid the kind of conflict that can badly hurt a social movement such as AA. Whatever we can do to avoid a widespread struggle will be truly constructive.
There remains the question of better AA representation and participation. I agree with Bill that this is desirable, especially professional and business talent. But this can be accomplished without a ratio change. For example, such AA's could be attached to the Policy Committee, without vote, but as resource people. If the Policy Committee were to meet more often, circulate its minutes more widely, such persons could exercise enormous influence. The Policy Committee might try to hold meetings in other sections to permit more of such participation.
Finally, it is my conviction that Bill's leadership cannot be transferred. It can, however, be reflected, diffused and augmented. This is currently in progress. Thus the Staff, the Manager of the GSO, the Conference and the Trustees are coming to reflect and add an administrative pattern to the original personalized leadership of Bill and Dr. Bob. Such a process is inevitable.
Therefore, there is no need to designate a particular individual, or individuals, to leadership roles to replace Bill. There is need, however, to see to it that these points of leadership accumulations communicate accurately with each other. This seems to be the function of the Manager at GSO.
Let me summarize. I am opposed to a ratio change because the question has in it the seeds of real conflict within AA. This is a high rice to pay for an insignificant symbol. AA's are in charge of their affairs. The movement has grown up. Let us get on with the business of conducting grown-up affairs and meeting grown-up problems. If we do this we will put the ratio question in proper perspective, avoid unnecessary internecine warfare from which AA will emerge weakened regardless of who wins.
Sincerely,
Harrison M. Trice
February 8,1962