MEMO TO: Southwest Region Delegates
FROM: Dennis Bauer, Area 36/Panel 41
SUBJECT: Proposal discussed at Southwest Regional Forum
First of all, I would like to thank all of you for a very warm welcome to your region. I really enjoyed the weekend. In part this was true because I felt I was at a historic event in the life of Alcoholics Anonymous, but also because I felt a love and dedication for our Fellowship that was extremely refreshing.
Secondly, I want to thank Linda O’Brien for the minutes of our meeting. They came just as I was finishing up the rough draft of the proposal we discussed at our informal meeting. You can imagine my relief to know I had not waited until the last minute.
What got me moving was a call from Jan Whitney. Up until that time I had been waiting from John Quinn (the other half of the “committee” Michael Alexander asked to formulate a proposal) to contact me and get the ball rolling. As of the end of 1991 John, due to a busy schedule, had not been in contact with me about the proposal.
I produced a rough draft and met with Jan (she was speaking in Northern Minnesota the 2nd weekend in January) to review what I had come up with. Jan was happy with the initial form the proposal took. She felt that the placement of the non-similar committee chairs was OK. I think she may also have been in agreement with the idea that it would give the Trustee Committees a better sense of the Fellowships opinion on matters under consideration.
Since I was in another area, I also had a chance to discuss it with Greg Gits, the new delegate from area 35. Several of his past delegates were included in this as well. The general consensus was also positive from these folks.
After the weekend I called John Quinn to discuss it with him. I sent a copy to him in order that we could both have it in hand when we discussed it. Our discussions led to some small modifications. John was very clear that I was free to keep it in the original form and submit it that way. I opted, however, to include Johns suggestions in the final proposal.
Letter - Southwest Regional Delegates - page 2
The changes that were made, as a result of Johns suggestions, had to do with more positive language in one sentence and how the conference committee chairs were paired up with the trustee committees.
John suggested that the board be the final judge of where the non-similar committee chairs would best serve. Also, he thought that the Grapevine chairperson would fit on the Grapevine Board just fine. These changes were incorporated into the final proposal.
The balance of the changes, from the original to the final form, were of a “cosmetic” nature. I cleaned up some language usage and used clearer illustrations where needed.
I will be most happy to forward this proposal as the result of delegate discussions at the Southwest Regional Forum. The proposals composition, as well as it’s actual birth, is the result of your thoughts and concerns and should be so recognized.
Should you have any questions I hope you will feel free to call. I will also be happy to include any suggestions you may have and forward a ‘revised’ proposal to the board, if that is your wish.
Most of all, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to be with you and for your willingness to include me in this effort to improve communication within Alcoholics Anonymous.
Yours in Love & Service
Dennis Bauer
Background Considerations:
As we consider the question of the A.A. message in a changing world in 1992, we also realize that there are really two changing worlds. There is the world in which A.A., as a Fellowship, exists and carries its message. Also, there is the world within Alcoholics Anonymous. It is the world within that actually, through its experience, develops the message to be carried. This proposal addresses how that world communicates.
The first, and most obvious, result of this proposal would be in the area of communication between committees whose focus is identical. As Alcoholics Anonymous has grown, so, too, has the work load on Trustees and Conference committees. One result of this increase in message carrying activities is that it becomes more and more difficult for the Trustees Committee to bring the Conference committee “up to speed” during the conference week. The unfortunate effect of this has been a growing gap of both information and trust between the two committees and their members. The intent of this proposal is to bridge that gap.
Another, and hopefully far-reaching, effect would have to do with the fellowship at large. We are now benefiting, or suffering, depending on ones perspective, from two results of progress. This progress is on the same two fronts as noted in the first paragraph; the world around us and the world within our society.
The “outside” world has developed remarkable means by which communication is possible. Distance is no longer a factor in the ability of any organization to conduct its affairs. Through conference calls, both audio and visual, entire meetings can take place. The use of computer telephone modems and facsimile machines has resulted in almost instantaneous transmission of printed materials.
The world “within” has grown as well. In keeping with suggestions, or perhaps predictions, made by Bill Wilson, Alcoholics Anonymous has continued to experience a growing legion of general service workers who take the time to educate themselves about this fellowship and how it functions. As such, there is an ever increasing A.A. population that wishes to take a more active role in the operation of the fellowships services.
The hoped for results of this proposal are several. First, it is hoped that this would serve as a means by which the fellowship as a whole might feel more involved in the actual implementation of Conference Advisory Actions. The conference committee chairperson would be able to report on how their committees recommendations were carried out. They would also be in an excellent position to communicate the intentions, or concerns, that went into the recomendation.
Second, the possibility that this would serve to narrow any gap between delegates and trustees is extremely good. With this group of delegates being at each board weekend, the opportunity to build trust and improve communication is greatly enhanced. Providing new spiritual soil from which a new harmony could grow. Its first fruits being reflected in a more cohesive conference body.
Third, the conference committee members could be better informed during the months between conferences. The conference committee chairperson is in an excellent position to inform their fellow committee members of committee considerations that would impact on committee deliberations at the Conference.
Finally, it would bring a broader range of perspective to the trustee committee meetings. It is simply more probable that delegates will talk to delegates and trustees to trustees. This proposal accepts that as human nature, and resists attempting to change what it cannot. In so doing, it is then free to suggest that sharing be accepted in the manner it is more easily come by.
Let’s now look at how the Conference Committee chairs might be assigned to Trustee Committees. Since there is not a complete duplication of committees some adjustments must be made. They are as follows:
CONFERENCE TRUSTEES Agenda.................................... ...........................Conference Finance.................................... ...............Finance & Budgetary Treatment Facilities.................... ................Treatment Facilities Correctional Facilities.................. ..............Correctional Facilities Literature................................. .............................Literature Trustees.................................. ............................Nominating C.P.C...................................... ..................................C.P.C. Public Information...................... ..................Public Information Policy & Admissions*.................. .........................International Report & Charter*...................... ...............................Archives Grapevine................................. ...................Grapevine Board1 The committees denoted by an asterisk have been placed in illustrative positions only. It is the intention of this proposal to leave their placement to the discretion of General Service Board. The final alignment which is most proficient is perhaps more easily seen by those who have worked in the committeesThe background thoughts on the illustrated placement of the non-corresponding committee chairs is as follows:
Policy & Admissions: Since this committees scope has to do with the Conference Plan and any modifications in it, it would be in the best position to deal with the matters which come before the International Committee. Not in the sense that we ought to make recommendations on how other Conference Plans work, but with the understanding that comes from looking at the conference as a process by which services are provided.
Report & Charter: This committee would be well served by participation on the Archives Committee. There could be a vital exchange accomplished by this means. The trustees committee members could present the lessons of the past to the conference committee, and the conference committee could present the current experience to the trustees committee. While this may seem a bit simplistic, each comes from that particular
____________________________
1The conference chairperson would attend those board meetings which correspond with the General Service Board Weekends. They would serve in a non-voting, advisory capacity.
perspective and the interaction noted would actually be almost a ‘side effect’ of the meetings.
The final organizational question is: “How will these people would be seated?” It is part of the proposal that they be full members of the committees. That is to say that they ought to have all participatory rights now accorded the non-trustee/director committee members.
Also included as part and parcel of this proposal is that the Conference Committee chairs fill a current non-trustee/director committee member position on the respective committee. This aspect of the proposal is basically a monetary concern. Since adding committee members to the total membership would add a significant expense, simply filling a current position would reduce the overall financial burden.
There are, as one might expect, potential liabilities to this plan. Let’s examine those which come to mind.
Conference Committee “Politics”: Should this proposal become board policy, there certainly exists a potential for the conference committee chairperson elections becoming politicized to some greater or lesser degree. There would be the appearance of both power and prestige in the new responsibilities. The extent to which this remains a possibility rests with each persons assessment of the situation.
Regional over-representation: Here, again, due to each conference committee electing its own chairperson, the possibility that one region might have a significant majority of conference chairpeople is a viable one. Again, the sense of how this might be perceived, and reacted to, lies within the perception of each of us individually.
Delegates role misunderstood: This potential liability stems from the idea that the conference provides guidance to the board during the conference week. However, as a regular member of the Trustees Committee, the delegates would need to redefine their role to more closely conform to a team approach. The possibility that a delegate may assume an adversarial role, on the committee, exists.
Lack of interest or involvement: Since delegates are assigned to their respective committees by being drawn from the hat, there exists some degree of probability that a percentage would be elected because their fellow committee members did not wish to invest the time necessary. This lack of interest might also find its beginning in the fact that the delegate would only serve on the committee for one year.
One year committee member: The final liability which comes to mind is simply the potential disruption that may be caused by having a new delegate committee member each year. While this may be stimulating to the committee, it may also be debilitating as well.
This “background information” has detailed the hoped for “bridge of trust” that might be created between the trustees and delegates, as well as those potential pitfalls toward which this may move us. It is hoped that this proposal will engender a discussion which will point us to the proper course of action. A course that will place us properly, and squarely, on the threshold of the future.