TWELVE CONCEPTS
FOR WORLD SERVICE
by Bill W.

as adopted by the 12th Annual
General Service Conference of Alcoholics Anonymous
on April, 26 1962

Published by
GENERAL SERVICE OFFICE
of
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS@
468 Park Avenue, South
New York, N.Y. 10016
Mail address: P.O. Box 459
Grand Central Station
New York, New York 10163
Copyright 0 1962
Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.
All rights reserved but excerpts from this publication may be reproduced with the written permission
of the publisher. For information write to A.A. World Services, Inc., P.O. Box 459, Grand Central
Station, New York, N.Y. 10163.
1st Printing 1962
16th Printing 1985
17th Printing 1986
18th Printing 1987
19th Printing 1988

The ‘Twelve Concepts for World Service” were written by Bill W. in 1962. His in-troduction
to that first printing, following this preface, explains its purpose, as rele-vant
today as at that time.
Over the years the size of the Fellowship and the responsibilities of its service
entities have grown immensely. Therefore, some details of the original text have
become outdated and were changed in editions of the Concepts since that time, and
a number of bracketed inserts were added.
Following the recommendations of an ad hoc committee of the A.A. General Ser-vice
Board, the 1985 General Service Conference recommended that future publica-tion
of the Concepts be in the original 1962 version, with required factual changes
provided as numbered footnotes at the end of each chapter. The only exceptions are
certain footnotes written by Bill W. in the years following the first appearance of
the Concepts: these are marked by asterisks that appear on the same pages as the
text they refer to.
A ”short form” of the Concepts was prepared by the 1974 General Service Con-ference
for inclusion in the ”A.A. Service Manual.” It now appears in the Bylaws
of the General Service Board, printed in that Manual.
General Service Office
September I985

CONTENTS
I .
II .
III .
Iv.
V.
VI .
VII.
VIII.
Ix.
X.
XI.
XII .
The Ultimate Responsibility for A.A. World Services
Belongs to the A.A. Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The A.A. Groups Have Delegated Complete Adminis-trative
and Operational Authority to Their Conference
and Its Service Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The ”Right of Decision” Makes Effective Leadership
Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
”Participation” Is the Key to Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Rights of ”Appeal” and ”Petition” Protect
Minorities and Insures That They Be Heard . . . . . . . . . . .
The Conference Acknowledges the Primary
Administrative Responsibility of the Trustees . . . . . . . . . .
How the Legal Rights of the Trustees Are Related to
the Traditional Rights of the Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Trustees Function as the Direct Managers of
Over-All Finance and Policy: Also as the Custodians
but not as the Immediate Managers of the Active
Service Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Good Personal Leadership at All Conference Levels Is a
Primary Necessity. In the Area of World Service, the
General Service Board and Its Leaders Must Neces-sarily
Replace the Founders of A.A. This Is the Most
Critical Structural Problem That We Still Face . . . . . . . . .
Service Authority Should Equal Service Responsibility.
Executive Authority Should Always Be Single:
”Double-Headed Management” Should Be
Carefully Avoided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Description of the Primary Committees and Service
Corporations of the General Service Board:
The Personal Status of Corporate Directors, Executives
and Staff Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Spiritual Foundation for A.A.‘s World Services-”
Article 12” of the Conference Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
10
13
17
22
26 1
29
33
36
43
48
61

The ”Twelve Concepts for World Service” to be described in this Manual are an
interpretation of A.A.‘s world service structure. They reveal the evolution by which
it has arrived in its present form, and they detail the experience and reasoning ,on
which our operation stands today. These Concepts therefore aim to record the ”why”
of our service structure in such a fashion that the highly valuable experience of the
past, and the lessons we have drawn from that experience, can never be forgotten
or lost.
Quite rightly, each new generation of A.A. world servants will be eager to make
operational improvements. Unforeseen flaws in the present structure will doubtless
show up later on. New service needs and problems will arise that may make struc-tural
changes necessary. Such alterations should certainly be effected, and these con-tingencies
squarely met.
Yet we should always realize that change does not necessarily spell progress. We
are sure that each new group of workers in world service will be tempted to try
all sorts of innovations that may often produce little more than a painful repetition
of earlier mistakes. Therefore it will be an important objective of these Concepts
to forestall such repetitions by holding the experiences of the past clearly before
us. And if mistaken departures are nevertheless made, these Concepts may then pro-vide
a ready means of safe return to an operating balance that might otherwise take
years of floundering to rediscover.
There will also be seen in these Concepts a number of principles which have already
become traditional to our services, but which have never been clearly articulated
and reduced to writing. For example: the ”Right of Decision” gives our service
leaders a proper discretion and latitude; the ”Right of Participation” gives each world
servant a voting status commensurate with his (or her) responsibility, and ”Partici-pation”
further guarantees that each service board or committee will always possess
the several elements and talents that will insure effective functioning. The ”Right
of Appeal” protects and encourages minority opinion; and the ”Right of Petition”
makes certain that grievances can be heard, and properly acted upon. These general
principles can of course be used to good effect throughout our entire structure.
In other sections, the Concepts carefully delineate those important traditions,
customs, relationships and legal arrangements that weld the General Service Board
into a working harmony with its primary committees and with its corporate arms
of active service - A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. This
is the substance of the structural framework that governs the internal working situa-tion
of A.A.‘s World Headquarters.
Concern has been expressed lest the detailed portrayal of our internal structure
might not later harden down into such a firm tradition or gospel that necessary changes
would be impossible to make. Nothing could stray further from the intent of these
Concepts. The future advocates of structural change need only make out a strong
3

case for their recommendations - a case convincing to both the Trustees and to the
Conference. This is no more than would be required for the transaction and passage
of any other important piece of A.A. business. Save for an exception or two, it is
noteworthy that the Conference Charter itself can be easily amended.
Perhaps one more precaution ought to be observed when a proposed structural
change is to be specially far-reaching. In such an event, the alteration should for
an appropriate period be labeled as ”experimental.” On final approval, an alteration
of this character could be entered into a special section of this Manual which might
be entitled ”AMENDMENTS.” This would leave the original draft of the Twelve
Concepts intact as an evidential record of our former experience. Then it could always
be clearly seen by our future service workers just what did happen and why.
In other chapters great emphasis is laid on the need tir a high order of personal leader-ship,
on the desirability of careful induction methods fbr all incoming personnel, and
upon the necessity for the best possible personal relations between those who work in
our services. The Concepts try to design a structure in which all may labor to good
effect, with a minimum of friction. This is accomplished by so relating our servants
to their work and to each other that the chances of personal conflict will be minim&l.
In the A.A. services we have always had to choose between the authoritarian setup,
whereby one group or one person is set in unqualified authority over another, and
the democratic concept which calls for ”checks and balances” that would prevent
unqualified authority from running unrestrained. The first approach is that of the
”institutional” or authoritarian type. The second is the method of ”constitutional”
governments and many large business corporations in their upper echelons.
Well knowing our own propensities for power driving, it is natural and even im-perative
that our service concepts be based on the system of ”checks and balances.”
We have had to face the fact that we usually try to enlarge our own authority and
prestige when we are in the saddle. But when we are not, we strenuously resist a
heavy-handed management wherein someone else holds the reins. I’m the more sure
of this because I possess these traits myself.
Consequently ideas like the following pervade the Concepts: ”No group or in-dividual
should be set in unqualified authority over another,” ”Large, active and
dissimilar operations should be separately incorporated and managed, each with its
own staff, equipment and working capital,” ”We ought to avoid undue concentration
of money or personal influence in any service group or entity,” ”At each level of
service, authority should be equal to responsibility,” ”Double-headed executive direc-tion
should be avoided.” These and other similar provisions define working relations
that can be friendly and yet efficient. They would especially restrain our tendency
to concentrate money and power, this being nearly always the underlying (though
not always the conscious) motivation of our recurrent passion for the ”consolidation”
of world service entities. .
Because of the large range of topics which had to be included, these Concepts have
been difficult to organize and write. Since each Concept is really a group of related
principles, the kind of abbreviated statements used in A.A.‘s ”Twelve Steps and Twelve
Traditions” have not been possible. However, these Concepts do represent the best
4

summation that I am able to make after more than twenty years experience in the
creation of our service structure and in the conduct of A.A.‘s world affairs. Like
the earlier written ”Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions,” and the Conference Charter,
these service principles are also the outcome of long reflection and extensive
consultation.
It is much to be hoped that these Twelve Concepts will become a welcome addi-tion
to our ”Third Legacy Manual of A.A. World Service,” and that they will prove
to be a reliable working guide in the years that lie ahead.
5

CONCEPT I
The final responsibility and the ultimate authority
for A.A. world services should always reside in the
collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.
The A.A. groups today hold ultimate responsibility and final authority for our world
services - those special elements of over-all service activity which make it possible
for our Society to function as a whole. The groups assumed that responsibility at
the St. Louis International Convention of 1955. There, on behalf of Dr. Bob, the
Trustees and A.A.‘s old-time leaders, I made the transfer of world service respon-sibility
to our entire Fellowship.
Why, and by what authority was this done? There were reasons of stark necessity
for it, and there were further reasons which have to do with A.A.‘s fundamental struc-ture
and tradition.
By the year 1948 our necessities had become clear enough. Ten years earlier -in
1938 - helped by dedicated friends, Dr. Bob and I had commenced work upon
a world service structure. Our first step was the creation of a trusteeship for A.A.
as a whole. We called this body The Alcoholic Foundation; and in 1954 it was renamed
The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous.
This trusteeship was designed to inaugurate and maintain all of those special ser-vices
for A.A. as a whole that could not well be performed by single groups or areas.
We envisioned the writing of a uniform A.A. literature, the development of a sound
public relations policy, and a means of handling the large numbers of pleas for help
that might follow in the wake of national and international publicity. We thought in
terms of aiding new groups to form and of furnishing them with counsel based upon
the experience of the older and already successful groups. We thought there would
be a need for a monthly magazine and also for translations of our literature into other
languages.
By 1950 nearly all of these dreams for world service had come true. In the dozen
years following the creation of The Foundation, A.A. membership had jumped from
50 to 100,000. The A.A. Traditions had been written and adopted. A confident unity
had pretty much replaced fear and doubt and strife. Our services had unquestionably
played a large and critical role in this unfoldment. World service, therefore, had taken
on crucial meaning for A.A.‘s future. If these vital agencies were to collapse or bog
down, our unity within and the carrying of our message to innumerable alcoholics
without, would suffer serious and perhaps irreparable damage. Under all conditions
and at any sacrifice, we would have to sustain those services and the flow of life
blood that they were pumping into the world arteries of our Fellowship. Among the
A.A. groups it had been proven that we could survive great strain and stress. But
could we stand heart failure at our world center?
6

And so we asked ourselves: What further precautions could we take that would
definitely guard us against an impairment or a collapse? Nevertheless the period 1945
to 1950 was one of such exuberant success that many A.A.‘s thought that our future
was completely guaranteed. Nothing, they believed, could possibly happen to our
Society as a whole, because God was protecting A.A. This attitude was in strange
contrast to the extreme vigilance with which our members and groups had been looking
after themselves. They had quite prudently declined to charge Providence with the
entire responsibility for their own effectiveness, happiness, and sobriety.
When, at A.A.‘s Service Headquarters, some of us began to apply this tested prin-ciple
of ”stop, look, and listen” to A.A.‘s world affairs, it was widely thought that
we must be foolish worriers who lacked faith. Many said, ”Why change? Things
are going fine.1” ”Why call in delegates from all over the country? That means ex-pense
and politics, and we don’t want either.” And the clincher was always, ”Let’s
keep it simple.”
Such reactions were natural enough. The average member, preoccupied with his
group life and his own ”twelfth stepping,” knew almost nothing of A.A.‘s world ser-vices.
Not one member in a thousand could tell who our Trustees were. Not one
in a hundred had the least idea what had been done for A.A.‘s general welfare. Tens
of thousands already owed their chance at sobriety to the little noticed activity of
our Trustees and general services. But few realized that this was true.
Among the Trustees themselves, a sharp division of opinion was developed. For
a long time most of them had strongly opposed calling together a representative con-ference
of A.A. delegates, to whom they would become accountable. They thought
that the risks were immense and that politics, confusion, expense, and fruitless strife
surely would result. It was true that the woes of much lesser undertakings, such as
local A.A. services and clubs, had sometimes been great. Hence the conviction was
widespread that calamity would be in the making if ever a conference representing
all of A.A. were assembled. These arguments were not without merit; they were
difficult to contest.
However, in 1948, there occurred an event that shook us all. It became known that
Dr. Bob was suffering from a fatal illness. As nothing else could, this news drove
home the hard fact that he and I were almost the sole links between our virtually
unknown Trustees and the movement they served. The Trustees always had relied
heavily upon Dr. Bob and me for advice. They had taken a firm grip on money ex-penditures,
but they necessarily turned to us every time that A.A. policy questions
arose. Then, too, the groups of that time did not really rely much on the Trustees
for the management of their service affairs; they were still looking to Dr. Bob and
me. So here was a society whose total functioning was still largely dependent upon
the credit and the confidence which, for the time being, its founders happened to enjoy.
The fact had to be faced that A.A.‘s founders were perishable. When Dr. Bob and
I had gone, who would then advise the Trustees; who could link our little-known
Board to our thousands of groups? For the first time it was seen that only a represen-tative
conference .could take the place of Dr. Bob and me. This gap simply had to
be filled without delay. Such a dangerous open end in our affairs could not be tolerated.
7

Regardless of trouble or expense, we had to call an A.A. General Service Conference
and deliver our world services into its permanent keeping. It took little imagination
to see that future collapse would be the certain penalty if we did not act boldly and
decisively. Thus propelled by events, we did take the necessary action. Now that the
Conference is in its second decade, we find that our former fears of the troubles
a Conference might involve were largely groundless. The results of the Conference
have exceeded our highest expectations. It now stands proven that the A.A. groups
can and will take the final responsibility for their world services.
There were other reasons for this basic shift of ultimate responsibility and authority
to A.A. as a whole. These reasons center around Tradition Two, which declares,
”For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He
may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants;
they do not govern.”
Tradition Two, like all the A.A. Traditions, is the voice of experience, based upon
the trials of thousands of groups in our pioneering time. The main principles of Tradi-tion
Two are crystal clear: the A.A. groups are to be the final authority; their leaders
are to be entrusted with delegated responsibilities only.
Tradition Two had been written in 1945, and our Trustees had then authorized its
publication. But it was not until 1951 that the first experimental General Service Con-ference
was called to see whether Tradition ‘IJvo could be successfully applied to
A.A. as a whole, including its Trustees and founders. It had to be found out whether
the A.A. groups, by virtue of this Conference, could and would assume the ultimate
responsibility for their world service operation. It took five years more for all of
us to be convinced that Tradition Two was for everybody. But at St. Louis in 1955,
we knew that our General Service Conference - truly representing the conscience
of A.A. world-wide - was going to work and work permanently.
Perhaps many of us are still vague about the ”group conscience” of Alcoholics
Anonymous, about what it really is.
Throughout the entire world to&y we are witnessing the breakdown of ”group
conscience.” It has always been the hope of democratic nations that their citizens
would always be enlightened enough, moral enough, and responsible enough to manage
their own affairs through chosen representatives. But in many self-governing coun-tries
we are now seeing the inroads of ignorance, apathy, and power-seeking upon
democratic systems. Their spiritual resources of right purpose and collective in-telligence
are waning. Consequently many a land has become so helpless that the
only answer is dictatorship.
Happily for us, there seems little prospect of such a calamity in A.A. The life
of each individual and of each group is built around our Twelve Steps and Twelve
Traditions. We very well know that the penalty for extensive disobedience to these
principles is death for the individual and dissolution for the group. An even greater
force for A.A.‘s unity is the compelling love that we have for our fellow members
and for the principles upon which our lives today are founded.
Therefore we believe that we see in our Fellowship a spiritualized society char-acterized
by enough enlightenment, enough responsibility, and enough love of man

and of God to insure that our democracy of world service will work under all condi-tions.
We are confident that we can rely upon Tradition Two, our group conscience
and its trusted servants. Hence it is with a sense of great security that we old-timers
have now fully vested in A.A.‘s General Service Conference the authority for giving
shape - through the labors of its chosen Delegates, Trustees, and service workers
- to the destiny that we trust God in His wisdom is holding in store for all of us.
9

CONCEPT II
When, in 1955, the A.A. groups confirmed theper-manent
charter for their General Service Con-ference,
they thereby delegated to the Conference
complete authority for the active maintenance of
our world se&es and thereby ma& the Conference
excepting for any change in the Twelve Tadi-rons
or in Article 12 of the Conference Charter -the
actual voice and the effective conscience for our
whole Society.
It is self-evident that the thousands of A.A. groups and the many thousands of A.A.
members, scattered as they are all over the globe, cannot @themselves actually manage
and conduct our manifold world services. The group conscience is out there among
them, and so are the needed funds. The power of the groups and members to alter
their world service structure and to criticize its operation is virtually supreme. They
have all of the final responsibility and authority that there is. The operation is really
theirs; they really own it. This has been true ever since the groups took over from
the founders and old-timers at St. Louis in 1955.
But an ultimate authority and responsibility in the A.A. groups for world services
- if that is all there were to it - could not amount to anything. Nothing could be
accomplished on that basis alone. In order to get effective action, the groups must
delegate the actual operational authority to chosen service representatives who are
fully empowered to speak and to act for them. The group conscience of A.A. could
not be heard unless a properly chosen Conference were fully trusted to speak for
it respecting most matters of world service. Hence the principle of amply delegated
authority and responsibility to ”trusted servants” must be implicit from the top to
the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.‘s
Tradition Two.
Even from the beginning, large delegations of service authority had to be the rule.
It will be recalled how, in 1937, the Akron and New York Groups authorized Dr.
Bob and me to create over-all services which could spread the A.A. message world-wide.
Those two fledgling groups gave to us the authority to create and manage world
services. Following their action, we held both the final responsibility and the imme-diate
authorization to get this project underway and keep it going. On our own,
however, we knew we could do little, and so we had to find trusted servants who
in turn would help us. As time went by, we found that we had to delegate to these
10

friends a very large part of our own authority and responsibility. That process of
delegation was as follows:
First of all, Dr. Bob transferred nearly all of his immediate responsibility for the
creation of world service to me. In New York we stood a better chance of finding
friends and funds, and we saw that our world service center consequently would have
to be located in that city. I started the search for trusted nonalcoholic friends who
could help, and in I938 The Alcoholic Foundation was formed as a small trusteeship
of A.A. members and our nonalcoholic friends.
At first the Trustees of our new Foundation took jurisdiction over money matters
only. Little by little, however, they were obliged to assume many other responsibilities,
because I alone could not discharge these on any permanent basis. Hence I gave the
Trustees added responsibility and corresponding authority as fast as possible.
For example, in 1940, a year after the book ”Alcoholics Anonymous” was published,
we all saw that this great new asset had to be put in trust for our whole Fellowship.
Therefore the stock ownership of Works Publishing, Inc.* (a publishing corporation
which I helped to separately organize) was turned over to the Board of Trustees.
Nearly all of the income from the A.A. book was then needed to finance the over-all
service office that we had set up for A.A. The Trustees, therefore, presently took
over the primary management of office operation, because they were now responsi-ble
for the funds upon which its support depended. Consequently, so far as financial
decisions were concerned, I became an adviser only. Another sizable chunk of my
original authority was thus delegated. When, in 1941, the A.A. groups began to send
contributions to The Alcoholic Foundation for support of our over-all service office,
the Trustees’ control of our world service monies became complete.
After some time it became apparent that A.A.‘s public relations, a vital matter in-deed,
could not continue to be entrusted to me alone. Therefore the A.A. groups
were asked to give the Trustees of the Foundation complete control in this critical
area. Later on, the Trustees took jurisdiction over our national magazine, ”The A.A.
Grapevine,” which had been separately organized by another group of volunteers.
Thus it went with every one of our world services. I still functioned in an advisory
capacity in our Headquarters operation, but the Board of Trustees was in full legal
charge of all our aftis. As Dr. Bob and I looked to the future, it was clear that
ample delegation to the Board was the only possible way.
Notwithstanding these delegations, Dr. Bob and I did quite properly feel that we
still held an ultimate responsibility to A.A., and to the future, for the proper organiza-tion
and structuring of our A.A. world services. If anything were to go wrong with
them, we would be held accountable, because the groups still looked to us, rather
than to their then little-known Trustees, for leadership in A.A.‘s world affairs.
In the course of these developments the great difference between ultimate and im-mediate
service authority became apparent.
*Works Publishing, Inc. was later renamed A.A. Publishing, Inc. Ibday A.A. Publishing is a division of
A.A. World Services, Inc.
11

As early as 1945 it began to be evident that the co-founders’ ultimate responsibility
and authority for services should never be wholly vested in a Board of Trustees.
Certainly our Trustees must be given a large share of the active and immediate respon-sibility.
But the ultimate and final responsibility which Dr. Bob and I still possessed
simply could not be transferred to a self-appointing Board which was relatively
unknown among A.A.‘s as a whole. But where, then, would our ultimate respon-sibility
for world services finally be lodged? And what would become of my own
leadership in world service matters? A.A.‘s history now shows where the ultimate
authority finally went. At St. Louis it went from Dr. Bob and me to the A.A. groups
themselves.
But the groups’ acceptance of ultimate service authority and responsibility was
not enough. No matter what authority the groups had, they could not meet their new
responsibilities until they had actually delegated most of the active ones. It was pre-cisely
in order to meet this need that the General Service Conference of Alcoholics
Anonymous was given the general responsibility for the maintenance of A.A.‘s world
services and so became the service conscience for A.A. as a whole.
Exactly as Dr. Bob and I earlier had found it necessary to delegate a large part
of our active authority to the Trustees, so have the A.A. groups since found it necessary
to delegate these same powers to their General Service Conference. The final say
- the ultimate sanction in matters of large importance - has not been given to the
Trustees alone. By the Conference Charter, confirmed at St. Louis, this authority
is now delegated to the A.A. groups and thence to their Conference, a body which
is a representative cross section of our entire Fellowship.
Therefore the Geneml Service Conference of A.A. - plus any later formed sec-tions
- has become for nearly every practical purpose the active voice and the effec-tive
conscience of our whole Society in its world affairs.
In making this momentous transfer, we old-timers deeply hope that we have avoid-ed
those pitfalls into which societies have so often fallen because their originators
have failed, during their lifetimes, to properly delegate and distribute their own
authority, responsibility, and leadership.
12

CONCEPT III
As a traditional means of creating and maintaining
a clearly defined working relation between the
groups, the Conference, the A.A. General Service
Board and its several service corporations, st&ffs,
committees and executives, and of thus insuring
their effective leadership, it is here suggested that
we endow each of these elements of world service
with a traditional ”Right of Decision.”
Within the framework of their general responsibilities, whether these be defined by
charter, by resolution, or by custom, it should be the traditional right of all world
service boards, committees, and executives to decide which problems they will dispose
of themselves and upon which matters they will report, consult, or ask specific direc-tions.
We ought to trust our world servants with these discretions, because otherwise
no effective leadership can be possible. Let us consider in detail, therefore, why the
need for a ”right of decision” in our leadership is imperative, and let us examine
how this principle can be applied practically in all levels of our structure of world
service.
We have seen how the A.A. groups, under the concept of the ”group conscience,”
are today holding the ultimate authority and the final responsibility for world ser-vices.
We have also noted how, by reason of the Conference Charter and the ”trusted
servant” provision of Tradition Two, the groups have delegated to their General Ser-vice
Conference full authority to manage and conduct A.A.‘s world affairs.
The Conference and General Service Board Charters in broad terms define the
responsibility of the Conference to act on behalf of A.A. as a whole. In these two
documents a necessarily large area of delegated service authority and responsibility
has been staked out. These instruments, in a general way, describe the relation
between the groups, the Conference, the Trustees, and the active service units. These
broad definitions and descriptions are an indispensable frame of reference, and we
could not function without them.
Nevertheless it has long been evident that these highly important Charter provi-sions
cannot by themselves ensure smooth functioning and proper leadership at the
several different levels of service which are involved. This has become crystal clear,
and we need not seek very far for the reasons.
For example: knowing that theirs is the final authority, the groups are sometimes
tempted to instruct their Delegates exactly how to vote upon certain matters in the
Conference. Because they hold the ultimate authority, there is no doubt that the A.A.

groups have the tight to do this. If they insist, they can give directives to their Delegates
on any and all A.A. matters.
But good management seldom means the full exercise of a stated set of ultimate
rights. For example, were the groups to carry their instruction of Delegates to ex-tremes,
then we would be proceeding on the false theory that group opinion in most
world service matters would somehow be much superior to Conference opinion. Prac-tically
speaking, this could almost never be the case. There would be very few ques-tions
indeed that ”instructed” Delegates could better settle than a Conference acting
on the spot with full facts and debate to guide it. Of course it is understood that
complete reporting of Conference actions is always desirable. So is full consultation
with Committee Members and Group Representatives. Nevertheless the ”instructed”
Delegate who cannot act on his own conscience in a final Conference vote is not
a ”trusted servant” at all; he is just a messenger.
Now the Conference Charter does not actually solve typical problems like this.
It is a broad document which can be variously construed. Under one interpretation,
the groups can instruct the Delegates all they like. Under another, the Delegates and
Trustees actually can ignore such instructions, whenever they believe that to be
desirable. How, then, shall we practically understand and reconcile such a condition?
Let us look at two more illustrations: the Conference, as will be later demonstrated,
is in a state of nearly complete practical authority over the Trustees, despite the legal
rights of the Board. Suppose the Conference Delegates began to use this ultimate
power of theirs unwisely? Suppose they began to issue hasty and flat directives to
the Trustees on matters respecting which the Trustees would be far more
knowledgeable than the Delegates? What then?
This same kind of confusing problem used to beset the relations between the Trustees
and their wholly-owned active service corporations, entities which are nowadays partly
directed by non-Trustee volunteers and paid service workers. But the Board of Trustees
certainly does own these outfits. Therefore the Trustees can hire and fire; their
authority is final. Yet if the Trustees were constantly to exert their really full and
absolute authority, if they were to attempt to manage these operating entities in detail,
then the volunteers and Staff members working in them would quickly become
demoralized; they would be turned into buck-passers and rubber stamps; their choice
would be to rebel and resign, or to submit and rot.
Therefore some traditional and practical principle has to be devised which at all
levels will continuously balance the right relation between ultimate authority and
delegated responsibility. How, then, are we going to accomplish this?
There are three possible attitudes that we might take toward such a state of affairs.
We could, for instance, throw away all corporate charters, bylaws, job definitions,
and the like. This would leave it entirely to each group of trusted servants to figure
out what its authority and responsibility really is. But such an absence of any chartered
structure would be absurd; nothing but anarchy could result.
Then of course we could take the opposite tack. Refusing to give our leadership
any worthwhile discretion at all, we could add to our present Charters great numbers
of rules, regulations, and bylaws that would attempt to cover every conceivable
14

action or contingency. That would be altogether too much red tape-more than we
A.A.‘s could stand.
The right A.A. solution for this problem is to be found, however, in the latter part
of Tradition No, which provides for ”trusted servants.” This really means that we
ought to trust our responsible leaders to decide, within the understood framework
of their duties, how they will interpret and apply their own authority and respon-sibility
to each particular problem or situation as it arises. This sort of leadership
discretion should be the essence of Vze Right of Decision,” and I am certain that
we need not have the slightest fear of granting this indispensable privilege at nearly
every level of world service.
There will always be plenty of ultimate authority to correct inefficiency, ineffec-tiveness,
or abuse. If the Conference does not function well, the groups can send
in better Delegates. If the Trustees get badly out of line, the Conference can censure
them, or even reorganize them. If the Headquarters’ services go sour, the Trustees
can elect better directors and hire better help. These remedies are ample and direct.
But for so long as our world iervices function reasonably well - and there should
always be charity for occasional mistakes - then ”trust” must be our watchword,
otherwise we shall wind up leaderless.
These are the reasons for my belief that we should forthwith invest in all of our
service bodies and people a traditional ”Bight of Decision.” In our structure of world
service this ”Bight of Decision” could be practically applied as follows:
A. Excepting its Charter provisions to the contrary, the Conference always should
be able to decide which matters it will fully dispose of on its own responsi-bility,
and which questions it will refer to the A.A. groups (or more usually,
to their Committee Members or G.S.R.‘s) for opinion or for definite guidance.
Therefore it ought to be clearly understood and agreed that our Conference
Delegates are primarily the world servants of A.A. as a whole, that only in
a secondary sense do they represent their respective areas. Consequently they
should, on final decisions, be entitled to cast their votes in the General Ser-vice
Conference according to the best dictates of their own judgment and con-science
at that time.
B. Similarly the Trustees of the General Service Board (operating of course within
the provisions of their own Charter and Bylaws) should be able at all times
to decide when they will act fully on their own responsibility and when they
will ask the Conference for its guidance, its approval of a recommendation,
or for its actual decision and direction.
C. Within the scope of their definitely defined or normally implied responsibilities,
all Headquarters service corporations, committees, staff or executives should
also be possessed of the right to decide when they will act wholly on their
own and when they will refer their problems to the next higher authority.
This ”Right of Decision” should never be made an excuse for failure to render
proper reports of all significant actions taken; it ought never be used as a reason
for constantly exceeding a clearly defined authority, nor as an excuse for persistently
15

failing to consult those who are entitled to be consulted before an important decision
or action is taken.
Our entire A.A. program rests squarely upon the principle of mutual trust. We
trust God, we trust A.A., and we trust each other. Therefore we cannot do less than
trust our leaders in service. The ”Right of Decision” that we offer them is not only
the practical means by which they may act and lead effectively, but it is also the
symbol of our implicit confidence.
16

CONCEPT IV
Throughout our Conference structure, we ought to
maintain at all responsible levels a traditional
”Right of Participation,” taking care that each
classification or group of our world servants shall
be allowed a voting representation in reasonable
proportion to the responsibility that each must
discharge.
The principle of ”Participation” has been carefully built into our Conference struc-ture.
The Conference Charter specifically provides that the Trustees, the Directors
of our service corporations, (A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine,
Inc.) together with their respective executive staffs, shall always be voting members
of the General Service Conference itself.
Exactly the same concept is borne in mind when our General Service Board elects
the Directors of its wholly-owned active service corporations, A.A. World Services,
Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. If it wished, the General Service Board could
elect none but its own Trustees to these corporate directorships. But a powerful tradi-tion
has grown up to the effect that this never ought to be done.
For example, A.A. World Services, Inc. (which also includes the A.A. Publishing
division) currently has seven directors, only two of whom are Trustees? The other
five non-Trustee directors comprise three volunteers, both expert in office manage-ment
and publishing, and two directors who are paid staff members: the general
manager and his assistant. The general manager is traditionally the president of A.A.
World Services, Inc. and his assistant is a vice president. For communication linkage,
the editor or a staff member of the Grapevine or his nominee is invited to attend
A.A. World Services, Inc. meetings.
Therefore the active management of A.A. World Services, Inc. and its publishing
division is composed of Trustees whose mission is to see that these projects are
properly managed; of volunteer experts who contribute their advice and professional
experience; and of two paid office executives who are charged with getting most of
the work done. It will be seen that each member of every classification, is a director,
and so has a legal vote; that each corporate officer bears a title which, both prac-tically
and legally, denotes what his (or her) actual status and responsibility is.
Such a typical corporate business management easily permits a proper degree of
voting ”participation.” Every skilled element to do the allotted job is present. No
class is set in absolute authority over another. This is the corporate or ”participating”
method of doing business, as distinguished from structures so common to many
17

institutional, military and governmental agencies wherein high-level people or classes
of people often are set in absolute authority, one over the other.
We should also note that the seven2 A.A. Grapevine directors are elected on the
same principle as those of A.A. World Services, Inc. Here too we see Trustees,
volunteer experts and paid staff members acting in concert as the active managers
of that operation. And a world service nominee should be present at all GV meetings,
both corporate and editorial.
The General Service Board, furthermore, rigorously abides by the principle of ”Par-ticipation”
whenever its chairman makes appointments to the Board’s principal
standing committees. Numbers of non-Trustees and paid staff workers are customarily
chosen for these important posts. As with the active service corporations, the same
elements are nearly always present in these committees, viz., representatives of the
General Service Board, non-Trustee experts, and one or more staff members who
must do most of the leg work. All can vote, and therefore all can truly ”participate.”
When the time comes to ballot, there are no ”superiors,” no ”inferiors,” and no
”advisers.”
To this highly effective and unifying principle of ”Participation” at all responsible
levels, there is one regrettable but necessary exception. Members holding paid staff
positions cannot become Trustees. This cannot be permitted because such a practice
would interfere with the four-year rotation of the A.A. Trustees. And if ever the
General Service Board had to be reorganized by the Conference, paid A.A. Trustees
might prove to be a vested interest most difficult to dislodge.
Nevertheless our Trustees of today traditionally invite paid executives, staff
members, accountants, and any others whose reports or advice may be required, to
attend each quarterly meeting of the General Service Board. Thus the Trustees are
put into direct communication with these workers who are thus made to feel that
they are wanted and needed. Although they do not vote, these workers may freely
participate in debate.
The preservation of the principle of ”Participation” in our service structure is,
to those of us who already understand its application and benefits, a matter of the
highest importance to our future. Experience suggests, however, that some of each
new generation of Delegates and Trustees will inevitably try to weaken, modify, or
toss out the principle of ”participation.” Every year, a few Delegates will question
the ”right” of the corporate directors, staffi, and even of the Trustees to vote in Con-ference.
New volunteer corporate directors will ask why any paid woman staff member
should also be a director and thereby have a vote as good as their own. Every now
and then a move will be made to abolish A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A.
Grapevine, Inc. It will be urged that these separate corporations ought to become
”departments” or ”committees” of the General Service Board, mainly managed by
Trustees. To my view, it is so vital that we preserve this traditional ”Bight of
Participation” in the face of every tendency to whittle it down that we should here
bring some of our pioneering experience to bear upon the problem.
In its early days the A.A. Headquarters was run on authoritarian and institutional
lines. At that time the Trustees saw no reason to delegate their managerial powers
18

or to work in voting participation with any others outside their own body. The result
was often grievous trouble and misunderstanding, and it was out of this rough going
that the principle of ”Participation” finally emerged. This lesson was learned the
hard way, but it was learned.
We have seen how Dr. Bob and I had placed our Board of Trustees in full legal
possession of all of our service assets. This had included our book literature, our
funds, our public relations, and our A.A. General Service Office. This is how our
early Trustees came to have all of the authority there was. But most of the actual
responsibility for the conduct of A.A.‘s Headquarters nevertheless fell on me, my
assistant, and her staff. On the one hand we had Trustees who possessed complete
authority, and on the other hand there were founders and office managers who had
great responsibility but practically no authority. It was a kind of schizophrenia, and
it caused real trouble.
It was natural for the Trustees, who had all of the authority and all of the money,
to feel that theirs was the duty to directly manage the office and to actively super-intend
practically everything that was done. To accomplish this, two Trustee com-mittees
were formed, a policy and an administrative committee. We at the office had
no membership on these committees and hence no real ”participation.” Of course
I could go to Trustee meetings to persuade or advise, and the same was true of the
committee meetings. But my assistant, who really carried the greater part of the
office load, couldn’t get inside a Trustees meeting, and she was called into commit-tee
meetings only to make suggestions and reports, answer questions, and receive
orders. Sometimes these committees issued us conflicting directives.
The situation was complicated by yet another wheel in the management machine.
Our publishing company (then Works Publishing, Inc.) was of course wholly owned
by the Board of Trustees. Except in one important particular, Works Publishing, Inc.
had, however, become a pure ”dummy.” It had nothing to do with the active manage-ment
except to issue checks for office and publishing expenses. An old A.A. friend
of mine, its Trustee-treasurer, signed those checks. Once, when he was a bit out of
sorts, he tore up all of our paychecks because my assistant had issued them a couple
of days early so that the gals in the back office could buy Easter bonnets. Bight then
and there we began to wonder how much absolute authority over money and people
any one of us drunks could handle. Also, how much of this type of coercion we alkies
on the receiving end could sit and take. In any case it had become dead sure that
our Headquarters could not be run by two executive committees and a dummy
corporation, each able to issue point-blank nonparticipating directives.
The point may be made that nowadays we drunks can ”dish it out” or ”take it”
better than we used to. Even so, I would sure hate to see us ever go back to a non-participating
setup. Now that we have more service people involved and more money
to handle, I am afraid the result would be much the same and maybe worse. There
was really nothing exceptional about the incident of the tom-up checks. Every time
an absolute authority is created, it always invites this same tendency toward over-domination
respecting all things, great and small.
It was years before we saw that we could never put all authority in one group and
I.9

virtually all responsibility in another and then expect efficiency of operation, let alone
real harmony. Of course, no one is against the idea of fmal authority. We are only
against its misapplication or misuse. ”Participation” can usually stop this sort of
demoralizing nonsense before it starts.
Let us look at another aspect of this participation problem. The final authority
for services must lie in the A.A. groups; but suppose the groups, sensing their great
power, should try to over-exercise it by sending in Delegates irrevocably instructed
as to how to vote on most questions. Would the Delegates feel that they were par-ticipants,
trusted servants? No, they would feel like agents and order-takers.
The Delegates themselves, of course, could also give the Trustees this same treat-ment.
The Delegates’ power is so great that they could soon make the Trustees feel
like rubber stamps, just as the Trustees unknowingly did to workers at Headquarters.
If, therefore, the Conference ever begins to refuse the Trustees vote in it, and if the
Trustees ever again refuse to let corporate service volunteers and staff members vote
at the level of their own corporate and Conference work, we shall have thrown all
past experience to the winds. The principle of allowing a proper voting participation
would have to be painfully relearned.
One argument for taking away the Trustee and service worker vote in the Con-ference
is this: it is urged that there is danger if we allow service people and Trustees
to vote on their own past performance; for example, their annual reports. To a cer-tain
extent this argument is sound. As a matter of tradition, there is no doubt that
Trustees and service workers alike should refrain from voting on reports on their
own past activities.
But those who would do away entirely with the votes of Trustees and service workers
in the Conference overlook the point that such reports of past performance constitute
only a fraction of the business of that body. The Conference is far more concerned
with policies, plans, and actions which are to take effect in the future. To take away
the votes of Trustees and service workers on such questions would obviously be un-wise.
Why should our Conference be deprived of the votes of such knowledgeable
people as these?*
Perhaps someone will object that, on close votes in the Conference, the combined
Trustees and service worker ballots may decide a particular question. But why not?
Certainly our Trustees and service workers are no less conscientious, experienced,
and wiser than the Delegates. Is there any good reason why their votes are undesirable?
Clearly there is none. Hence we ought to be wary of any future tendency to deny
either our Trustees or our service people their Conference votes, except in special
situations that involve past performances, job qualifications, or money compen-*
There&&r very practical reason for not giving Conference Delegates absolute voting authority
over trustees, service directors, and staff members. It should be borne in mind that our delegates can
never be like a Congress in constant session, having its own working committees, elected leaders, etc.
Our delegates cannot possibly function in this manner for the simple reason that they meet for a few days
only, once a year. Hence they cannot have an extensive firsthand acquaintance with many of the problems
on which they are expected to vote. This is all the more reason for allowing the sometimes better-informed
minority of trustees and Headquarters people the balloting privilege in all cases where no self-interest
is involved.
20

pensation, or in case of a sweeping reorganization of the General Service Board itself,
occasioned by misfunction of the Board. However, this should never be construed
as a bar to Trustee vote on structural changes. It is also noteworthy that in actual
practice our Trustees and Headquarters people have never yet voted in a ”bloc.” Their
differences of opinion among themselves are nearly always as sharp and considerable
as those to be found among the Delegates themselves.
There is another good reason for ”participation,” and this one has to do with our
spiritual needs. All of us deeply desire to belong. We want an A.A. relation of brotherly
partnership. It is our shining ideal that the ”spiritual corporation” of A.A. should
never include any members who are regarded as ”second class.” Deep down, I think
this is what we have been struggling to achieve in our world service structure. Here
is perhaps the principal reason why we should continue to ensure ”participation”
at every important level. Just as there are no second-class A.A.‘s, neither should there
be any second-class world service workers, either.
The ”Right of Participation” is therefore a corrective of ultimate authority because
it mitigates its harshness or misuse. It also encourages us who serve A.A. to accept
the necessary disciplines that our several tasks require. We can do this when we are
sure that we belong, when the fact of our ”participation” assures us that we are truly
the ”trusted servants” described in A.A.3 Tradition Two.
‘Currently A.A.W.S. ha nine directory, of which four are ~I-US~W.
2Currently ten.
21

CONCEPT V
llzroughout our world service structure, a trzuli-tional
”Right of Appeal” ought to prevail, thus
assuring us that minority opinion will be heard and
that petitions for the redress of personal grievances
will be carefully considered.
In the light of the principle of the ”Right of Appeal,” all minorities - whether in
our staffs, committees, corporate boards, or among the Trustees - should be en-couraged
to file minority reports whenever they feel a majority to be in considerable
error. And when a minority considers an issue to be such a grave one that a mistaken
decision could seriously affect A.A. as a whole, it should then charge itself with
the actual duty of presenting a minority report to the Conference.
In granting this traditional ”Right of Appeal,” we recognize that minorities
frequently can be right; that even when they are partly or wholly in error they still
perform a most valuable service when, by asserting their ”Right of Appeal,” they
compel a thorough-going debate on important issues. The well-heard minority,
therefore, is our chief protection against an uninformed, misinformed, hasty or angry
majority.
The traditional ”Right of Appeal” should also permit any person in our service
structure, whether paid or unpaid, to petition for the redress of a personal grievance,
carrying his complaint, if he so desires, directly to the General Service Board. He
or she should be able to do this without prejudice or fear of reprisal. Though in practice
this will be a seldom exercised right, its very existence will always tend to restrain
those in authority from unjust uses of their power. Surely our workers should cheer-fully
accept the necessary direction and disciplines that go with their jobs, but all
of them should nevertheless feel that they need not silently endure unnecessary and
unfair personal domination.
Concerning both ”Appeal” and ”Petition,” I am glad to say that in A.A.‘s world
services these valuable practices and rights have alvs been put to good use. Therefore
I am committing them to writing only by way of helping to confirm and enlarge their
future applications.
The Rights of ‘Appeal” and ”Petition ” of course aim at the total problem of
protecting and making the best possible use of minority feeling and opinion. This
has always been, and still is, a central problem of all free governments and democratic
societies. In Alcoholics Anonymous individual freedom is of enormous importance.
For instance, any alcoholic is a member of A.A. the moment he says so; we cannot
take away his right to belong. Neither can we force our members to believe anything
or pay anything. Ours is indeed a large charter of minority privileges and liberties.
22

When we look at our world services, we find that here we have also gone to great
lengths in our trust of minority groups. Under Tradition Two, the group conscience
is the final authority for A.A. world service, and it will always remain so respecting
all the larger issues that confront us. Nevertheless the A.A. groups have recognized
that-for world service purposes the ”group conscience of A.A.” as a totality has cer-tain
limitations. It cannot act directly in many service matters, because it cannot be
sufficiently informed about the problems in hand. It is also true that during a time
of great disturbance the group conscience is not always the best possible guide because,
temporarily, such an upset may prevent it from functioning efficiently or wisely. When,
therefore, the group conscience cannot or should not act directly, who does actfor it?
The second part of Tradition Two provides us with the answer when it describes
I A.A. leaders as ”trusted servants.” These servants must always be in readiness to I do for the groups what the groups obviously cannot or should not do for themselves.
Consequently the servants are bound to use their own information and judgment,
sometimes to the point of disagreeing with uninformed or biased group opinion.
Thus it will be seen that in world service operations A.A. often trusts a small but
truly qualified minority - the hundred-odd members of its General Service Con-ference
- to act as A.A.‘s group conscience in most of our service affairs. Like other
free societies, we have to trust our servants, knowing that in the unusual event that
they should fail their responsibilities, we shall still have ample opportunity to recall
and replace them.
The foregoing observations illustrate, in a general way, A.A.‘s concern for the
freedom and protection of individual members and the whole membership’s will-ingness
to trust able and conscientious servants to function in their several capacities,
for us all. As the longtime recipients of this kind of trust, I am sure that many of
A.A.‘s old-timers would like me to record their gratitude along with my own.
By 1951, when the General Service Conference was put into experimental opera-tion,
these attitudes of trust already were an essential part of A.A. life. In drafting
the Charter for our Conference, therefore, we naturally infused that document with
provisions which would insure protection and respect for minorities. This is ex-emplified,
for instance, inour ”Third Legacy” method of selecting Delegates. Unless
the majority candidate can poll a two-thirds vote of his State or Provincial Assembly,
he must place his name in a hat with one or more of the choices of the Assembly
minority. By thus drawing lots, the minority candidates have an equal chance with
the majority’s choice.
Strictly speaking, a democracy operates on the will of the majority, no matter how
slim that majority may be. So when making special concessions to the feelings and
the often-demonstrated wisdom of minorities, we occasionally may deny democracy’s
cherished principle of final decision by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless we
actually have found that our Third Legacy method of electing Delegates has much
strengthened the spirit of democracy among us. Unity has been cemented, coopera-tion
has been increased, and when the Delegate is finally chosen, no discontented
minority can trail in his wake. To increase the actual spirit ofdemocracy by special
deference to minority opinion is, we think, better than to follow blindly the rule which
23

always insists on an unqualified dominance by a slight majority vote.
-Consider another example: our respect for the minority position, plus a desire for
unity and certainty, often prompts A.A.‘s General Service Conference to debate at
length on important questions of policy, provided there is no need for an immediate
or early decision. On many occasions the Conference has insisted on a continuing
discussion even in certain cases when a two-thirds majority easily could have been
obtained. Such a traditional voluntary practice is evidence of real prudence and
courteous deference to minority views. Unless it has been absolutely unavoidable,
the Conference has usually refused to take important decisions on anything less than
a two-thirds vote.
This same kind of consideration for the minority position can be found in the Charter
provision that no Conference vote can be considered binding on the Trustees of the
General Service Board unless it equals two-thirds o!a Conference quorum. This gives
the Trustees a power of veto in cases where the majority is not great. By reason of
this provision the Trustees, if they wish, can insist on further debate and so check
any tendency to haste or emotionalism. In practice the Trustees seldom exercise this
option. More often they go along with a simple majority of the Delegates, especially
when prompt action on less critical matters is clearly needed. But the choice is always
theirs whether to veto a simple majority or to act with it. Here again is a recognition
of the constructive value of a trusted minority.
If to such a generous recognition of minority privileges we now add the traditional
Rights of ”Appeal” and ”Petition,” I believe we shall have granted to all minorities,
whether of groups or of individuals, the means of discharging their world service
duties confidently, harmoniously, and well.
More than a century ago a young French nobleman named De Toqueville came
to America to look at the new Republic. Though many of his friends had lost their
lives and fortunes in the French Revolution, De Toqueville was a worshipful admirer
of democracy. His writings on government by the people and for the people are classics,
never more carefully studied than at the present time.
Throughout his political speculation De Toqueville insisted that the greatest danger
to democracy would always be the ”tyranny” of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed,
or angry majorities. Only a truly dedicated citizenry, quite willing to protect and
conserve minority rights and opinions, could, he thought, guarantee the existence
of a free and democratic society. All around us in the world today we are witnessing
the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small minorities in-vested
with absolute power. De Toqueville would have neither, and we A.A.‘s can
heartily agree with him.
We believe that the spirit of democracy in our Fellowship and in our world service
structure will always survive, despite the counter forces which will no doubt con-tinue
to beat upon us. Fortunately we are not obliged to maintain a government that
enforces conformity by inflicting punishments. We need to maintain only a structure
of service that holds aloft our Traditions, that forms and executes our policies
thereunder, and so steadily carries our message to those who suffer.
24

Hence we believe that we shall never be subjected to the tyranny of either the ma-jority
or the minority, provided we carefully define the relations between them and
forthwith tread the path of world service in the spirit of our ‘ILvelve Steps, our Twelve
Traditions, and our Conference Charter - in which I trust that we shall one day
inscribe these traditional Rights of ”Appeal” and ”Petition.”
25

CONCEPT VI
On behalf of A.A. as a whole, our General Service
Conference has the principal responsibility for the
maintenance of our world services, and it tradi-tionally
has the final decision respecting large
matters of genercllpolicy andfinance. But the Con-ference
also recognizes that the chief initiative and
the active responsibility in most of these matters
should be exercised primarily by the Tncstee
members of the Conference when they act among
themselves as the General Service Board of
Alcoholics Anonymous.
Just as the A.A. groups find themselves unable to act decisively respecting world
service affairs unless they delegate a great amount of active authority and respon-sibility
to their Conference, so must the Conference in turn delegate a liberal
administrative authority to the General Service Board, in order that its Trustees may
act freely and effectively in the absence of the Conference itself.
This critical need for Trustee liberty of action raises several important questions?
Next to the Conference, A.A.‘s Board of Trustees should be the most influential group
of world servants that we have, and therefore we shall have to consider carefully the
kind and degree of authority, responsibility, leadership, and legal status the Trustees
must possess in order to function at top effectiveness over the years to come. We
shall need to review and perhaps amend somewhat our present methods of choosing
Trustees. We shall need to define clearly the several kinds of professional and finan-cial
skills that will always be required for a balanced trusteeship. Only by doing so
can we permanently insure the Board’s capability of future leadership.
In order to avoid continuous confusion, it will also be necessary to show precisely
how the Trustees ought to be related to the Conference and just how they in turn should
relate themselves to their active service corporations, A.A. World Services, Inc.
(including its division of A.A. Publishing) and the A.A. Grapevine, Inc., our
monthly magazine. In a general way these relations already are indicated in our Con-ference
Charter, and to some extent they have been discussed on preceding pages.
Nevertheless there still remains a real need to interpret and spell them out in detail.
Of course there is no desire to freeze these relations into a rigid pattern. However
*See Concept VIII for a defhition of the Trustees’ powers and activities.
26

satisfactory and right our present arrangements seem, the future may reveal flaws
that we do not yet envision. New conditions may require refinements or even con-siderable
alterations. For this reason our service Charter is capable in most respects
of being readily amended by the Conference itself.
It ought to be recalled, however, that all of our present arrangements, including
the status of A.A.‘s Trustees, are based on a great amount of experience, which it
is the purpose of these writings to describe and make clear. When this is done, we
shall not be hampered later on by such a lack of understanding that we could be tempted
into hasty or unwise amendments. Even if we do someday make changes that happen
to work out poorly, then the experience of the past will not have been lost. These
articles can then be relied upon as a point of safe return.
Let us therefore make a more specific examination of the need of a wide latitude
of administrative freedom for the Trustees of the General Service Board.
As we have seen, the Conference Charter (and also the Charter of the General
Service Board, and its Bylaws) has already staked out a large area of freedom of
action for our Trustees. And we have reinforced these Charter provisions by grant-ing
to all world service bodies, including of course our Trustees, the traditional Bights
of ”Decision,” ”Participation,” and ”Appeal.” A careful review of these legal and
traditional rights can leave little doubt what the actual administrative responsibilities
of the Trustees are; nor can there be any question that their authority in this area
is large indeed.
Why should our Trustees be given this very wide latitude of judgment and action?
The answer is that we A.A.‘s are holding them mainly responsible for all our service
activities: A.A. World Services, Inc. (including A.A. Publishing) and The A.A.
Grapevine, Inc. These entities (as of 1960) have combined gross receipts approaching
one-half million dollars annually! Our Trustees are also responsible for A.A.‘s world-wide
public relations. They are expected to lead in the formulation of A.A. policy
and must see to its proper execution. They are the active guardians of our Twelve
Traditions. The Trustees are A.A.‘s bankers. They are entirely responsible for the
investment and use of our substantial reserve funds. The very wide range of their
activities will be still further seen under ”Concept XI,” wherein the work of their
five2 standing committees is described.
While the Trustees must always operate under the close observation, guidance and
sometimes the direction of the Conference, it is nevertheless true that nobody but
the Trustees and their wholly-owned service corporations could possibly pass judg-ment
upon and handle the very large number of transactions now involved in our
total world service operation. In view of this very large responsibility, they must
therefore be given a correspondingly large grant of authority and leadership with
which to discharge it. We should quite understand, too, that the conduct of our world
services is primarily a matter of policy and business. Of course our objective is always
a spiritual one, but this service aim can only be achieved by means of an effective
business oneration. Our Trustees must function almost exactly like the directors of
any
and
large business corporation
conduct A.A.‘s business.
. They must have ample authority to really manage
27

This is the basic corporate concept on which our structure of world service rests.
- We have deliberately chosen the corporate form rather than the institutional or govem-mental
model, because it is well known that the corporation is a far superior vehicle
when it comes to the administration of policy and business.
From top to bottom, our whole service structure indeed resembles that of a large
corporation. The A.A. groups are the stockholders; the Delegates are their represen-tatives
or proxies at the ”annual meeting”; our General Service Board Trustees are
actually the directors of a ”holding company.” And this holding company, the General
Service Board, actually owns and controls the ”subsidiaries” which carry on our
active world services.
This very real analogy makes it even more clear that, just like any other board
of directors, our Trustees must be given large powers if they are to effectively manage
the principal world affairs of Alcoholics Anonymous.
1 ‘Thereceipts of A.A. World Services and the Grapevine are almost ten million.
*There are now eleven standing committees.
28

CONCEPT VII
The Conference recognizes that the Charter and the
Bylaws of the General Service Board are legal
instruments: that the Trustees are thereby fully
empowered to manage and conduct all of the world
service affairs of Alcoholics Anonymous. It is fur-ther
understood that the Conference Charter itself
is not a legal document: that it relies instead upon
the force of trtulition and the power of the A.A.
purse for its final effectiveness.
This concept may appear to be contradictory; it may look like the collision of an
irresistible force with an immovable object. On the one hand we see a Board of
Trustees which is invested with complete legal power over A.A.‘s funds and services,
while on the other hand we find that A.A.‘s General Service Conference is clothed
with such great traditional influence and financial power that, if necessary, it could
overcome the legal rights of the Board of Trustees. It can therefore give the Trustees
directives and secure compliance with them - practically speaking.
This means that the practical power of the Conference will nearly always be superior
to the legal power of the Trustees. This superior power in the Conference flows from
the powerful traditional influence of the Charter itself. It derives from the large
majority of group-chosen Delegates in the Conference. And fmally, in any great ex-tremity,
it would rest upon the undoubted ability of the Delegates to deny the General
Service Board the monies with which to operate - viz., the voluntary contributions
of the A.A. groups themselves. Theoretically, the Conference is an advisory body
only, but practically speaking, it has all of the ultimate rights and powers that it may
ever need.
When we reflect that our Trustees have no salaried financial interest in their posts,
we can be quite sure that such a Board would never think of legally contesting the
clear and sustained will of the Conference Delegates and the A.A. areas they repre-sent.
If someday the chips were really down, there would be little chance of a stalemate.
The Conference would find itself in complete control of the situation. As the
conscience of A.A., the Delegates would find themselves in ultimate authority over
our General Service Board and also its corporate arms of active world service.
The history of this development is interesting and important. When in 1950 the
Conference Charter was drawn, this question of where the final authority ought to
rest was a very moot matter. Would the Conference have the last word, or would
the Trustees? By then we knew for sure that complete and fmal authority over our
29

funds and services should never continue to reside in an isolated Board of Trustees
who had an unqualified right to appoint their own successors. This would be to leave
A.A. world services in the hands of a paternalistic group, something entirely con-tradictory
to the ”group conscience” concept of Tradition Two. If the Trustees were
to be our permanent service administrators and the guardians of A.A.‘s Twelve Tradi-tions,
it was evident that they must somehow be placed in a position where they would
necessarily have to conform to our Traditions, and to the desires of our Fellowship.
To accomplish this objective, we considered all kinds of devices. We thought of
incorporating the Conference itself, thus placing it in direct legal authority over the
Board. This would have meant that all Conference members would have had to have
a legal status. It would have been much too cumbersome an arrangement, involving
really the incorporation of our whole Fellowship, an idea which the Conference itself
later repudiated.
We also considered the idea of country-wide elections for all Trustees. But this
procedure would have produced a political shambles, rather than the top flight
managerial talent the Board had to have. So that notion was abandoned.
We next inquired whether the Conference itself could not both nominate and directly
elect our Trustees. But how could several scores of Delegates do this? They would
come from all over the country. They would not be too well acquainted with each
other. Their terms would be short and their meetings brief. How, then, could such
a body nominate and elect alcoholic and nonalcoholic Trustees of a top managerial
caliber? Clearly there could be no reliable method for doing this. Very reluctantly,
we had to drop the idea.
It thus became obvious that new Trustee choices - subject to Conference approval
- would still have to be left pretty much to the Trustees themselves. Only they would
be capable of understanding what the Board needed. Except in a time of reorganiza-tion,
this method of selection would have to continue - certainly as to the larger
part of the Board’s membership. Otherwise the Board could not be held accountable
for management results. We might wind up with no effective management at all. For
these reasons, the Conference was given the right to reject, but not to elect, new
Trustee candidates.’
It was out of these considerations that our present Conference Charter was
developed, a structure which clearly gives the Conference a final and ultimate authority
but which nevertheless legally preserves the right of the Trustees to function freely
and adequately, just as any business board of directors must. This arrangement is
in strict conformity with the ”trusted servant” provision of Tradition Two, which
contemplates that our servants, within the scope of their duties, should be trusted
to use their own experience and judgment. Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are
expected to exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of submissive
housekeeping. Of course leadership cannot function if it is constantly subjected to
a barrage of harrassing directives.
Up to the present time our experience shows that this balance of powers between
the Trustees and the Conference is thoroughly workable. We have taken great pains
to reserve final authority to the Conference by practical and traditional means. By
30

legal means we have delegated ample functional and discretionary authority to the
Trustees. We believe this balance can be maintained indefinitely, because the one
is protected by tradition and the other by law.
Now we come to another interesting question often raised by new General Service
Board Trustees. They say, ”We Trustees have certain rights and duties which are legally
established by our Charter. Are we not violating this Charter when we accept a Con-ference
opinion or directive? We should have a per&t legal right to say ‘no’ to anything
and everything that the Conference wants.”
Our Trustees certainly do have this absolute legal authority, but there is nothing
in their Charter that compels them to use alZ of their authority all of the time. They
are quite at liberty to accept advice or even direction from anyone at all. They can
simply refrain from using their absolute legal right to say ”no” when it would be
much wiser, all things considered, to say ”yes.” Just as the Conference should avoid
the overuse of its traditional authority, so should the Trustees avoid overuse of their
legal rights. The President of the U.S., for example, has an absolute legal right to
veto congressional legislation. Yet ninety-nine percent of the time he does not do
it, because (a) he likes a piece of legislation or (b) he does not like the legislation
but believes a veto would nevertheless be unwise or impossible of success. Whether
or not he will exercise his veto is determined by circumstances. It is just like that
with A.A.‘s Board of Trustees.
Clearly, then, our Board of Trustees does reserve a veto power over any Conference
action; this is legally necessary and right in principle, even though the veto will seldom
be used. At certain times, however, the Trustees’ veto could be of important and con-structive
use.
Here, for instance, are three typical examples in which it would be the duty of
the Trustees to veto Conference action:
If, in a time of haste or heavy stress, the Conference should take an action
or issue a directive to the Trustees in clear violation of its own Charter, or
that of the General Service Board; or if the Conference were to pass any measure
so ill-considered or so reckless as to seriously injure, in the judgment of the
Trustees, A.A.‘s public relations or A.A. as a whole, it would then be the duty
of the Trustees to ask for a Conference reconsideration. In event of a Con-ference
refusal to reconsider, the Trustees could then use their legal right to
veto. And, if desirable, they could appeal the issue directly to the A.A. groups
themselves.
I
Although traditionally the Trustees never should substantially exceed a
Conference-approved budget without consulting the Conference, they should
feel entirelyfiee to reduce the Conference budgetfigure during any fiscal year,
even though such an action might curtail or cancel special plans or projects
initiated and directed by the Conference itself.
If, by reason of unforeseen conditions, any particular plan, project, or direc-tive
of the Conference should become impractical or unworkable during a fiscal
year, the Trustees should, without prejudice, be able to use their right of veto
and cancellation.
31

If, therefore, in the years ahead, the Conference will always bear in mind the ac-tual
rights, duties, responsibilities, and legal status of the General Service Board,
and if the Trustees in their deliberations will constantly realize that the Conference
is the real seat of ultimate service authority, we may be sure that neither will be serious-ly
tempted to make a ”rubber stamp” out of the other. We may expect that in this
way grave issues will always be resolved and harmonious cooperation will be the
general rule.
‘Trustee&ions are now held during Conference week for regional and at-large trustees; to that extent
the Conference now chooses trustees according to the procedure described in the ”Service Manual.”
32

CONCEPT VIII
The Tncstees of the General Service Board act in
two p&nary capacities: (a) Wuh respect to the larger
matters of over-all policy and finance, they are the
principal planners and administrators. They and
theirprimary committees directly manage these af-fairs.
(b) But with respect to our separately incor-porated
and constantly active services, the relation
of the Trustees is mainly that of full stock owner-ship
and of custodial oversight which they exercise
through their ability to elect all directors of these
entities.
Since our Trustees bear the primary responsibility for the good conduct of all our
world service affairs, this discussion deals with the basic concepts and methods by
which they can best discharge their heavy obligations. Long experience has now proved
that our Board as a whole must devote itself almost exclusively to the larger and
more serious questions of policy, finance, group relations, public relations and leader-ship
that constantly confront it. In these more critical matters, the Board must of
course function with great care and deliberation. Here the Board is expected skillfully
to plan, manage, and execute.
It follows, therefore, that the close attention of the Board to such large problems
must not be subject to constant distraction and interference. Our Trustees, as a body,
cannot be burdened with a mass of lesser matters; they must not concern themselves
with the endless questions and difficulties which arise daily, weekly, and monthly
in the routine conduct of the World Service Office and of our publishing enterprises.
In these areas the Board cannot possibly manage and conduct in detail; it must delegate
its executive function.
Here the Board’s attitude has to be that of custodial oversight; it cannot be the
executive. Hence the Trustees are the guarantors of the good management of A.A.
World Services, Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. They discharge their custodial
obligation by electing the directors of these services, a part of whom must always
be Trustees. By this means, the executive direction of these functions is securely lodged
in the active service corporations themselves rather than in the General Service Board.
Bach corporate service entity should possess its own character, its own working capital,
its own executive, its own employees, its own offices and equipment. Except to mediate
difficult situations and to see that the service corporations operate within their budgets
and within the general framework of A.A. and Headquarters policy, the Board will
33

. seldom need to do more, so f$r as routine service operations are concerned.
This arrangement is in line with modem corporate business practice. The General
Service Board is in effect a holding company, charged with the custodial oversight
of its wholly-owned and separately incorporated subsidiaries, of which each has, for
operating purposes, a separate management. We have demonstrated to our satisfac-tion
that this corporate basis of operation is superior to any other.
This lesson, as we have observed before, has been learned the hard way. When
discussing ”Participation” in Concept IV, we saw that earlier attempts to manage
the A.A. General Service Office and A.A. Publishing Company through a multiplicity
of Trustee committees did not work well. These were really efforts to make our ser-vices
into departments of the old Alcoholic Foundation (now the General Service
Board). It was found difficult to define the powers of these several Trustee service
committees respecting each other and respecting the work at hand. Responsibility
and authority rarely could be kept in balance. Point-blank directives, rather than par-ticipating
decisions, were the rule. In these committees nobody held titles that fully
denoted what individual responsibilities actually were; and, naturally enough, those
who handled money and signed checks assumed the greater authority. The control
of money, therefore, too often determined A.A. policy, regardless of the views of
the workers and volunteers at the office who sometimes understood these matters
better.
But the moment we consolidated our service office function into a single and per-manent
corporate structure wherein officers and directors had legally defined titles
and duties and responsibilities - the moment such a corporation was provided with
its own working capital, employees, and facilities -- the moment its directors could
legally vote in proportion to their actual responsibilities - the moment we were able
in this way to define clearly executive authority - from that moment we began to
see great improvement. More harmonious and effective conduct of our business has
been the result ever since.
We finally learned what the business world well knows: that we could not, at the
level of top management, run a large, active and full-fledged business entity with
loose-jointed committees and departments. For example, how could our Trustees func-tion
today if they were to become a mere ”committee” or ”department” of the General
Conference instead of the legally chartered and carefully defined body that they
necessarily are?
Neither can our General Service Board be made into an operating corporation.
Any corporation conducting a large and active business always must have a single
executive head who is familiar with every department, who is actually on the job
most of the time, and who therefore can directly coordinate the several departments
and mediate their differences. This would mean (if we tried it) that the General Ser-vice
Board ”divisions” would have to report to the General Service Board Chair-man,
as their chief executive. But unless he was an executive in fact, and constantly
available to them, how could they do so? In the very nature of our particular setup,
our Board Chairman can never be such an executive. He is usually a nonalcoholic
and could not give the required time. Nor, as a Trustee, could he be paid a salary
34

for the work that would be required of him as the top executive of all our services.
Suppose, however, that the Trustees engaged a full-time manager who would
actively conduct all three of our service enterprises as departments of the Board.
An immediate difficulty would be that such a person could never be a Trustee and
could therefore never act as the Chairman of the General Service Board. He would
therefore have no real status. He would become a man of all work under the absentee
direction of the Board Chairman. Consider, too, the fact that half of our Board of
Trustees normally live out of town’ and the further fact that we cannot well ask our
nonalcoholic Trustees to give the active services close and continuous supervision.
Altogether, these are weighty reasons why we should never turn the General Service
Board into an operating corporation.
Nor would we be much better off if we formed one big subsidiary service corpora-tion,
wholly-owned by the General Service Board and designed to encompass under
a single top executive all of our active services, including The A.A. Grapevine. This
plan would also create executive difficulties, because it would over-concentrate ex-ecutive
authority. And finally, an individual executive having the many diverse talents
required would be hard to find and hard to replace.
A further consideration is that we have always rigorously avoided any great money
or executive concentration by placing our reserve funds with the Trustees and by
dividing our total working capital between the A.A. World Services, Inc. and The
A.A. Grapevine, Inc., each entity having its separate executive. There is always a
powerful connection between money and authority. Whenever we concentrate money,
we shall inevitably create the temptation for the exercise of too much executive authori-ty,
an undesirable condition for us. Therefore we should strenuously avoid placing
too much money or too much authority in any one service entity. These are potent
reasons for maintaining separate incorporations for each of our active services.
However, experience dating from our earliest days strongly suggests that future
Trustees and service workers, in the supposed interests of accounting simplicity, tax
savings, and hoped-for efficiency, will be periodically tempted to go in for concen-trations
and consolidations of one kind or another. Should this be again attempted,
we know that the risk of making an administrative shambles out of the total opera-tion
will be great indeed.
These observations are not intended to bar any future needful change. It is urged
only that we avoid unnecessary repetitions of those painful experiences and mistakes
of the past which sometimes resulted from too much concentration of money and
authority. It can only be left on the record that we still see no workable way to con-vert
the Board of Trustees into an active, ”all-purpose” service corporation.
‘In 1988, about eighty percent of the trustees live ”out of town.”
35

CONCEPT IX
Good service leaders, together with sound and
appropriate methods of choosing them, are at all
levels indispensable for our future functioning and
safety. The primary world service leadership once
exercised by the founders of A.A. must necessatily
be assumed by the Trustees of the General Service
Board of Alcoholics Anonymous.
No matter how carefully we design our service structure of principles and relation-ships,
no matter how well we apportion authority and responsibility, the operating
results of our structure can be no better than the personal performance of those who
must man it and make it work. Good leadership cannot function well in a poorly
designed structure. But weak leadership can hardly function at all, even in the best
of structures. But once we have created a basically sound structure, that job is
finished, except for occasional refinements.
With leadership we shall have a continuous problem. Good leadership can be here
today and gone tomorrow. Furnishing our service structure with able and willing
workers has to be a continuous activity. It is therefore a problem that in its very nature
cannot be permanently solved. We must continuously find the right people for our
many service tasks. Since-our future effectiveness must thus depend upon ever-new
generations of leaders, it seems desirable that we now proceed to define what a good
service leader should be; that we carefully indicate in each level of service, especially
in our Board of Trustees, what special skills will always be required; and that we
review our present methods of finding and choosing that leadership.
First let’s remember that the base for our service structure rests on the dedication
and ability of several thousand General Service Representatives (G.S.R.‘s), several
hundred area Committee Members, and nearly a hundred Delegates. These are the
direct agents of the A.A. groups; these are the indispensable linkage between our
Fellowship and its world service; these are the primary representatives of A.A.‘s group
conscience. Without their support and activity we could not operate permanently at all.
When making their choices of G.S.R.‘s, the A.A. groups should therefore have
such facts well in mind. It ought to be remembered that it is only the G.S.R.‘s who,
in Group Assembly meetings (or in caucus) can name Committee Members and finally
name the Delegates. Hence great care needs to be taken by the groups as they choose
these Representatives. Hit-or-miss methods should be avoided. Groups who name
no G.S.R.‘s should be encouraged to do so. In this area a degree of weakness tends
to persist. The needed improvement seems to be a matter of increased care, respon-sibility,
and education.
36

As the G.S.R.‘s meet in their Assemblies to name Delegates, an even greater degree
of care and dedication will be required. Personal ambitions will have to be cast aside,
feuds and controversy forgotten. ”Who are the best qualified people that we can
name?” This shuz21d be the thought of all.
Thus far our Third Legacy method of naming Delegates by a two-thirds vote or
by lot has proved highly satisfactory. This system of choosing has greatly reduced
political friction; it has made each Delegate feel that he or she is truly a world ser-vant
rather than just the winner of a contest. In Committee Members and Delegates
alike, our Third Legacy methods have generally produced people of a high level of
dedication and competence. In this area of service we are in good shape. Our Area
Assemblies need only to continue to act with care and in selfless good spirit.
It should be reported that some members still doubt whether choice by lot is ever
a good idea. They say that the best man does not always win. In answer it must be
pointed out that each time we have abandoned the ”two-thirds vote or lot” in naming
Delegates, there has been a sense of defeat and disturbance in the minority camp
which is nowhere nearly offset by the advantage of naming the supposedly best man.
Indeed the second-best man can often be as good a Delegate as the Assembly’s first
choice; he may even be a better Delegate.
We now come to the principal theme of this particular Concept: How can we best
strengthen the composition and leadership of the future Board of Trustees, the Board
which in years to come will have to exercise A.A.‘s primary leadership in world ser-vice
administration, the trusteeship which will in fact have to assume most of my
former duties and responsibilities in connection with A.A.‘s world services?
As previously noted, the actual transference of authority and responsibility from
me to the Trustees has been going on for a long time. I am still around and still
serving as an adviser, and I have also been finishing a few remaining chores (for
example, the development of these Concepts) which were left over from the 1955
St. Louis Convention. But the time approaches when I shall have to withdraw from
nearly all world service activity. This is why I feel a great interest now in doing
everything possible to strengthen the administrative composition and A.A. leader-ship
of our General Service Board, so that future Trustees may be better able to cope
with the problems and dangers which time will no doubt bring.
My admiration for what A.A.‘s alcoholic and nonalcoholic Trustees have done for
us all is boundless. During the time of our infancy and adolescence, nothing could
have been structurally better than the setup we have had. Looking at this record,
many A.A.‘s naturally feel that what was good for the past will surely be good for
the future; that any change in the induction methods, in the Trustee ratio of alcoholics
to nonalcoholics, or in the present composition of our Board will prove dangerous
rather than beneficial.
But change has been pressing upon us right along, and it is still doing so. For ex-ample,
our Board operated in all the years between 1938 and 1951 without the sup-port
of a Conference. But it was finally and reluctantly realized that this relatively
unseen and unknown Board could not continue without a permanent linkage to A.A.,
something that Dr. Bob and I could not give it forever. We did not like to face this
37

change, but we had to. The trusteeship had to be securely anchored to A.A. or it
eventually would have collapsed. The Conference simply had to come into being.
This change profoundly altered the position of the Trustees. Their former authori-ty
was modified; they were firmly linked to A.A. and were thus made directly
accountable to our Fellowship. Nobody today questions the wisdom of that momen-tous
change, because everybody can now see that it has provided an essential protec-tion
for the service effectiveness and security of A.A.‘s future. Experience has refuted
the idea that changes which are needed to meet altered conditions are necessarily
unwise.
We now stand on the edge of still another great change. Though we have already
solved the problem of the Trustees’ authority, their responsibility, and their linkage
to A.A., we have by no means solved, in my belief, the question of the Board ‘sjkture
role in service leadership. Hence it is my deep conviction that the administrative
and A. A. leadership strength of the Board should be considerably increased; that
these and other improvements can place it in a much better position, practically and
psychologically; that such changes are truly necessary to meet the conditions which
will be certain to follow when my own world service leadership has been terminated.
Students of history recognize that the transference of the original leadership of a
society to its successors in leadership is always a critical turning point. This difficult
question of leadership, this problem of transference, must now be faced.
* * *
Let us finally consider what specific personal qualities a world service leader ought
to have. For whatever use it may be to future generations of our trusted servants,
I here offer a discussion on this subject published in a 1959 issue of ”The A.A.
Grapevine.”
LEADERSHIP IN A.A.: EVER A VITAL NEED
No society can function well without able leadership in all its levels, and A.A.
can be no exception. It must be said, though, that we A.A.‘s sometimes cherish the
thought that we can do without much personal leadership at all. We are apt to warp
the traditional idea of ”principles before personalities” around to such a point that
there would be no ”personality” in leadership whatever. This would imply rather
faceless automatons trying to please everybody, regardless.
At other times we are quite as apt to demand that A.A.‘s leaders must necessarily
be people of the most sterling judgment, morals, and inspirations; big doers, prime
examples of all, and practically infallible.
Real leadership, of course, has to function in between these entirely imaginary
poles of hoped-for excellence. In A.A. certainly no leader is faceless, and neither
is any leader perfect. Fortunately our Society is blessed with any amount of real leader-ship
- the active people of today and the potential leaders of tomorrow as each new
38

generation of able members swarms in. We have an abundance of men and women
whose dedication, stability, vision, and special skills make them capable of dealing
with every possible service assignment. We have only to seek these folks out and
trust them to serve us.
Somewhere in our literature there is a statement to this effect: ”Our leaders do
not drive by mandate, they lead by example.” In effect we are saying to them, ”Act
for us, but don’t boss us.”
A leader in A.A. service is therefore a man (or woman) who can personally put
principles, plans, and policies into such dedicated and effective action that the rest
of us want to back him up and help him with his job. When a leader power-drives
us badly, we rebel; but when he too meekly becomes an order-taker and he exercises
no judgment of his own - well, he really isn’t a leader at all.
Good leadership originates plans, policies, and ideas for the improvement of our
Fellowship and its services. But in new and important matters, it will nevertheless
consult widely before taking decisions and actions. Good leadership will also
remember that a fine plan or idea can come from anybody, anywhere. Consequently,
good leadership will often discard its own cherished plans for others that are better,
and it will give credit to the source.
Good leadership never passes the buck. Once assured that it has, or can, obtain
sufficient general backing, it freely takes decisions and puts them into action forth-with,
provided of course that such actions be within the framework of its defined
authority and responsibility.
A ”politico” is an individual who is forever trying to ”get the people what they
want.” A statesman is an individual who can carefully discriminate when and when
not to do this. He recognizes that even large majorities, when badly disturbed or
uninformed, can, once in a while, be dead wrong. When such an occasional situa-tion
arises, and something very vital is at stake, it is always the duty of leadership,
even when in a small minority, to take a stand against the storm, using its every
ability of authority and persuasion to effect a change.
Nothing, however, can be more fatal to leadership than opposition for opposition’s
sake. It never can be ”Let’s have it our way or no way at all.” This sort of opposition
is often powered by a visionless pride or a gripe that makes us want to block something
or somebody. Then there is the opposition that casts its vote saying, ”No, we don’t
like it.” No real reasons are ever given. This won’t do. When called upon, leader-ship
must always give its reasons, and good ones.
Then, too, a leader must realize that even very prideful or angry people can
sometimes be dead right, when the calm and the more humble are quite mistaken.
These points are practical illustrations of the kinds of careful discrimination and
soul-searching that true leadership must always try to exercise.
Another qualification for leadership is ”give and take,” the ability to compromise
cheerfully whenever a proper compromise can cause a situation to progress in what
appears to be the right direction. Compromise comes hard to us ”all-or-nothing”
drunks. Nevertheless we must never lose sight of the fact that progress is nearly always
characterized by a series of improving compromises. We cannot, however, compromise
39

always. Now and then it is truly necessary to stick flat-footed to one’s conviction
about an issue until it is settled. These are situations for keen timing and careful
discrimination as to which course to take.
Leadership is often called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued
criticism. This is an acid test. There are always the constructive critics; our friends
indeed. We ought never fail to give them a careful hearing. We should be willing
to let them modify our opinions or change them completely. Often, too, we shall
have to disagree and then stand fast without losing their friendship.
Then there are those whom we like to call our ”destructive” critics. They power-drive,
they are ”politickers,” they make accusations. Maybe they are violent, malicious.
They pitch gobs of rumors, gossip, and general scuttle-butt to gain their ends - all
for the good of A.A., of course! But in A.A. we have at last learned that these folks,
who may be a trifle sicker than the rest of us, need not be really destructive at all,
depending very much on how we relate ourselves to them.
To begin with, we ought to listen carefully to what they say. Sometimes they are
telling the whole truth; at other times, a little truth. More often, though, they are
just rationalizing themselves into nonsense. If we are within range, the whole truth,
the half truth, or no truth at all can prove equally unpleasant to us. That is why we
have to listen so carefully. If they have got the whole truth, or even a little truth,
then we had better thank them and get on with our respective inventories, admitting
we were wrong. If it is nonsense, we can ignore it. Or we can lay all the cards on
the table and try to persuade them. Failing this, we can be sorry they are too sick
to listen, and we can try to forget the whole business. There are few better means
of self-survey and of developing genuine patience, than the work-outs these usually
well-meaning but erratic brother members afford us. This is always a large order
and we shall sometimes fail to make good on it ourselves. But we must keep trying.
Now we come to the all-important attribute of vision. Vision is, I think, the ability
to make good estimates, both for the immediate and for the more distant future. Some
might feel this sort of striving to be a sort of heresy, because we A.A.‘s are con-stantly
telling ourselves, ”One day at a time.” But that valuable principle really refers
to our mental and emotional lives and means chiefly that we are not foolishly to repine
over the past nor wishfully to day-dream about the future.
As individuals and as a fellowship, we shall surely suffer if we cast the whole job
of planning for tomorrow onto a fatuous idea of Providence. God’s real Providence
has endowed us human beings with a considerable capacity for foresight, and He
evidently expects us to use it. Therefbre we must distinguish between wishful fantasy
about a happy tomorrow and the present use of our powers of thoughtful estimate.
This can spell the difference between future progress and unforeseen woe.
Vision is therefore the very essence of prudence, an essential virtue if ever there
was one. Of course we shall often miscalculate the future in whole or in part, but
that is better than to refuse to think at all.
The making of estimates has several aspects. We look at past and present experience
to see what we think it means. From this we derive a tentative idea or policy. Look-ing
first at the nearby future, we ask how our idea or policy might work. Then we
40

ask how our policies or ideas might apply under the several differing conditions that
could arise in the longer future. If an idea looks like a good bet, we try it on -experimentally
when that is possible. Later we revalue the situation and ask whether
our estimate is working out.
At about this stage we may have to take a critical decision. Maybe we have a policy
or plan that still looks fine and is apparently doing well. Nevertheless we ought to
ponder carefully what its longtime effect will be. Will today’s nearby advantages
boomerang into large liabilities for tomorrow? The temptation will almost always
be to seize the nearby benefits and quite forget about the harmful precedents or con-sequences
that we may be setting in motion.
These are no fancy theories. We have found that we must use these principles of
estimate constantly, especially at world service levels where the stakes are high. In
public relations, for example, we must estimate the reaction both of A.A. groups
and the general public, both short-term and long-term. The same thing goes for our
literature. Our finances have to be estimated and budgeted. We must think about our
service needs as they relate to general economic conditions, group capability, and
willingness to contribute. On many such problems often we must try to think months
and years ahead.
As a matter of fact, all of A.A.‘s Twelve Traditions were at first questions of estimate
and vision for the future. Years ago for example we slowly evolved an idea about
A.A. being self-supporting. There had been trouble here and there about outside
gifts. Then still more trouble developed. Consequently we began to devise a policy
of ”no outside gifts.” We began to suspect that large sums of this kind would tend
to make us irresponsible and could divert us from our primary aim. Finally we saw
that for the long pull, outside money could really ruin us. At this point, what had
been just an idea or general policy crystallized firmly into an A1A. tradition. We
saw that we must sacrifice the quick, nearby advantage for long-term safety.
We went through this same process on anonymity. A few public breaks had looked
good. But finally the vision came that many such breaks eventually could raise havoc
among us. So it went: first a tentative idea, then an experimental policy, then a firm
policy, and finally a deep conviction - a vision for tomorrow.
Such is our process of estimating the future, and responsible world leadership must
be proficient in this vital activity. It is an essential ability, especially in our Trustees.
Most of them, in my view, should be chosen on the basis that they have already
demonstrated an aptness for foresight in their own business or professional careers.
We shall be in continual need of these same attributes - tolerance, responsibility,
flexibility, and vision - among our leaders of A.A. services at all levels. The prin-ciples
of leadership will be the same whatever the size of the operation.
Maybe this seems like an attempt to stake out a specially privileged and superior
type of A.A. member. But it really is not so. We simply are recognizing that our
talents vary greatly. The conductor of an orchestra is not necessarily good at fmance
or foresight. And it is quite unlikely that a fine banker could be a great musical per-former.
So when we talk about A.A. leadership, we only declare that we ought to
select that leadership on the basis of obtaining the best talent we can fmd.
41

While this article was first thought of in connection with our world service leader-ship,
it is possible that some of its suggestions can be useful to anyone who takes
an active part in our Society.
This is true particularly in the area of Twelfth Step work, in which nearly all of
us are actively engaged. Every sponsor is a leader. The stakes are about as big as
they could be. A human life and usually the happiness of a whole ftily hang in
the balance. What the sponsor does and says, how well he estimates the reactions
of his prospects, how well he times and makes his presentation, how well he handles
criticisms, and how well he leads his prospect on by personal spiritual example -these
qualities of leadership can make all the difference, often the difference
between life and death.
We thank God that Alcoholics Anonymous is blessed with so much leadership in
all of its affairs.
42

CONCEPT X
Every service responsibility should be matched by
an equal service authority--the scope of such
authority to be always well defined whether by tradi-tion,
by resolution, by specific job description or
by appropriate charters and bylaws.
Nearly all societies and governments of today exhibit serious deviations from the
very sound principle that each operational responsibility must be accompanied by
a corresponding authority to discharge it.
This is why we have been at such pains in preceding discussions to define the several
authorities and responsibilities of the A.A. groups, the Conference, the Trustees,
and our active service corporations. We have tried to make sure that authority in
each of these levels is equal to responsibility. Then we have tried to relate these levels
one to another in such a way that this principle is maintained throughout.
An outstanding characteristic of every good operational structure is that it guarantees
harmonious and effective function by relating its several parts and people in such
a way that none can doubt what their respective responsibilities and corresponding
authorities actually are. Unless these attributes are well defined; unless those holding
the final authority are able and willing properly to delegate and maintain a suitable
operational authority; unless those holding such delegated authority feel able and
willing to use their delegated authority freely as trusted servants; and unless there
exists some definite means of interpreting and deciding doubtful situations-then per-sonal
clashes, confusion, and ineffectiveness will be inevitable.
The matter of responsibility and its necessary and co-equal authority is of such
urgent importance that we might profitably recapitulate what has already been said,
meanwhile taking a bird’s_eye-view of our entire structure to better envision how this
principle does, and always must, apply in our every activity and attitude.
The first characteristic that any working structure must have is a point, or succes-sion
of points, where there is ultimate responsibility and therefore an ultimate authority.
We have already seen how, for A.A.‘s world services, this kind of final responsibility
and authority resides in the A.A. groups themselves. And they in turn have appor-tioned
some of their ultimate authority to the Conference and the Trustees.
We have observed how the Conference Delegates, directly representing the groups,
are actually in a position of ultimate authority over the Trustees. We have seen fur-ther
how the Trustees are in ultimate authority over the General Service Board’s
wholly-owned service corporations-A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A.
Grapevine, Inc. Likewise we know that the directors of these corporations are in
ultimate authority over their officers who, on their part, are in like authority over
their staffs.
I 43

The principle of ultimate authority runs clear through our structure. This is
necessary, because all of our service affairs and activities have to head up Somewhere
for final responsibility. Ultimate authority is also needed so that each worker or each
classification of servants knows where and who the final boss is.
If however, ultimate authority is not carefully qualified by delegated authority, we
then have the reverse result. Were there no delegated authority, the groups would
be directing their Delegates on every important vote, the Delegates would similarly
turn the Trustees into a timid committee which would receive point-blank direction
on just about everything; the Trustees would then install themselves as the sole direc-tors
of the service entities and would commence to run them by directives. The cor-porate
executives would become small czars, pushing the working staffs about. In
short, such a misuse of ultimate authority would add up to a dictatorship wherein
nearly every classification of A.A. servants would have large responsibilities but no
real or certain authority, and hence no capability of effective decision and leadership
with which to operate. Big or little tyrannies and buck-passing would be the inevitable
penalties.
Therefore it becomes clear that ultimate authority is something which cannot be
used indiscriminately. Indeed ultimate authority should practically never be used
in full, acept in an emergency That emergency usually arises when delegated authority
has gone wrong, when it must be reorganized because it is ineffective, or because
it constantly exceeds its defined scope and purpose. For example, if the groups are
dissatisfied with the Conference, they can elect better Delegates or withhold funds.
If the Delegates must, they can censure or reorganize the Trustees. The Trustees can
do the same with the service corporations. If a corporation does not approve of the
operations of its executives or staff, any or all of them can be fired.
These are the proper uses of ultimate authority, because they rightly discharge a
truly ultimate responsibility. The influence of ultimate authority must always be felt,
but it is perfectly clear that when delegated authority is operating well it should not
be constantly inter$kred with. Otherwise those charged with operating responsibility
will be demoralized because their authority to do their work will be subject to
arbitrary invasion, and because their actual responsibility will be made greater than
their real authority.
How have we structurally tried to restrain the natural human tendency of those
in ultimate authority to usurp and take over the needed operational or delegated
authority? Well, this has been a large order, and several structural devices have been
required. Let us review them, noting how they apply.
In our structure we have tried to create at each level accurate definitions of authority
and responsibility. We have done this (a) by legal means, (b) by traditional means,
and (c) by principles under which doubtful and seemingly or really conflicting situa-tions
can be interpreted and readily resolved.
Take the Conference Charter. It is not a legal instrument, but practically speaking
it is the substance of a contract between the A.A. groups and their Conference. The
Charter makes clear in a general way that the A.A. groups have delegated some of
their ultimate authority and all needed operational authority to the Conference, which
44

includes the Trustees and the active services. It is further suggested, in these present
articles, that each Conference member on a final vote be entitled to cast his ballot
according to the dictates of his own conscience; that the Conference itself also be
granted, under the traditional ”Right of Decision,” the privilege of choosing which
matters it will decide by itself and which it will refer back to the groups for their
discussion, guidance or direction. These are the traditional definitions which can
check the natural tendency of the groups to over-instruct Delegates. This gives the
Conference an authority equal to its real responsibility.
Consider next the position of the Trustees. In previous articles we have made it
clear that although the Conference has the ultimate authority, the Trustees at most
times must insist on their legal rights to actively administer our service affairs. Their
legal rights has been further strengthened and its use encouraged by the traditional
”Right of Decision.” In these articles we also recognize that the Trustees have a legal
right of ”veto” over the Conference when, in rare cases, they feel this should be
used. By these means we have guaranteed the Trustees an administrative authority
equal to their actual responsibility. This has of course been done without denying
in any way the ultimate authority of the Conference, or of the Delegates, should it
really be necessary to give the Trustees directives or censures, or to reorganize the
Board. It should also be noticed that the position of the Trustees is still further
strengthened by their ”voting participation” in the Conference and by the recogni-tion
that they are A.A.‘s primary world service administrators.
Much care has also been taken to guarantee the Directors of A.A. World Services,
Inc. and the A.A. Grapevine, Inc. an ample operating authority that fully matches
their responsibility for the routine conduct of our active services. The Charter provi-sions
of their corporations legally protect their rights; the tradition that the Trustees
must elect non-Trustee experts to these boards strengthens them further. Besides,
the traditional ”Right of Decision” adds still more substance to their position. In
these Concepts the perils of turning the General Service Board back into a ”depart-mentalized”
operating corporation have also been emphasized.
These are the extraordinary precautions we have taken to maintain the operating
authority and integrity of the active services themselves. These safeguards are
necessary because the General Service Board owns these corporations. Therefore the
authority of the Trustees over them is not only ultimate, it is absolute the moment
the Trustees want to make it that way. They can elect new boards of directors at any
time; they control the corporate budget; they can withhold operating funds. All these
powers are needed and right. Nevertheless, so long as things go well, it is highly
important that the Trustees do not unnecessarily interfere with, or usurp the operating
authority of these entities. Hence the care we have taken in constructing these defini-tions
of delegated authority.
To a considerable degree, the standing committees of the General Service Board-Policy,
Finance, Public Relations, and the like-have a similar latitude. Under the
principle of the ”Right of Decision,” each primary committee may choose what
business it will dispose of on its own and what matters it will refer to the Board.
The position of these committees is also fortified by the appointment of a generous
45

proportion of non-Trustee members. Here, too, we try to make the authority of these
committees equal to their responsibility!
Now we come to the matter of conflicting authorities and to the question of how
these conflicts are to be resolved. Most routine conflicts in the active services are
easily settled, because we have provided ready communication between all service
corporations and the committees of the General Service Board. For example: at every
meeting of The Grapevine Boards or staff, a representative of A.A. World Services,
Inc. is present, and vice versa. The General Policy Committee always contains one
or more members of the Finance and Budgetary Committees, and vice versa. Such
interlocking provides easy communication. Each entity knows what the other is
doing. This practical arrangement irons out many conflicts of authority-but not all.
Suppose, for example, that the framing and execution of an important A.A. policy
is involved. In such a case the General Policy Committee naturally assumes the primary
jurisdiction, taking on the job of planning and of making recommendations to the
Board of Trustees.
Let us suppose, however, that a considerable sum of money will be needed. In
such a case, the plan also will have to be placed before the Finance and Budgetary
Committee. If this committee agrees that the expenditure is warranted and is in line
with the over-all budget, it tells the policy Committee to go ahead and make its recom-mendation
to the Trustees. But if the Finance and Budgetary Committee objects, then
it must file its objection with the Trustees, who will settle the issue. Or if they think
it necessary, the Trustees will refer the matter to the Conference.
The principle of a primary and a secondary jurisdiction also works the other way
round. If the Finance Committee, for example, proposes a large expenditure that may
strongly affect A.A. feeling and policy, it must be sure to check with the Policy Com-mittee,
even though the main jurisdiction still lies with the Budget and Finance people.
In all matters of joint or conflicting authority, therefore, a senior jurisdiction must
be established. The junior jurisdiction must be heard and, regardless of the question
involved, there must be an understood point or body where a final settlement can
be had. It is understood that lesser conflicts are not to be loaded upon the Trustees
for final decision. But it should always be clear where the point of JinaZ decision
is located.
A condition to be avoided at all costs is double-headed business or policy manage-ment.
Authority can never be divided into equal halves. Nowhere does such split
authority or double-headed management so bedevil a structure as in its executive
departments. The vital need of avoiding double-headed executive management will
be fully discussed under Concept XI.
In addition to the methods we use to make delegated authority equal to delegated
responsibility, we have two more guarantees-the ”Right of Appeal” and the ”Right
of Petition.” As we know, a bare majority is apt to constitute itself as a pseudo-ultimate
authority on many occasions when it should not do so. Likewise, executives are apt
to over-boss their assistants. Therefore we use the concepts of appeal and petition
to insure that every minority, and every worker doing a job, has an authority and
a status commensurate with the responsibility involved.
46

To sum up: Let us always be sure that there is an abundance of final or ultimate
authority to correct or to reorganize; but let us be equally sure that all of our trusted
servants have a clearly defined and adequate authority to do their daily work and
discharge their clear responsibilities.
All of this is fully implied in A.A.‘s Tradition Two. Here we see the ”group
conscience” as the ultimate authority and the ”trusted servant” as the delegated
authority. One cannot function without the other. We well know that only by means
of careful definitions and mutual respect can we constantly maintain a right and
harmonious working balance.
‘In since Bill wrote on the General Policy Committee (see also p. 52), its fbnctions have changed
markedly. Now known as the General Sharing Session, it meets three times a year for about two hours
on the Sunday preceeding the General Service Board meeting, and considers the long-range plans of board
committees and other topics of special interest. Its membership comprises all the trustees, the A.A.W.S.
and Grapevine directors and staffs, and the appointed members of the board committees.
47

CONCEPT XI
While the Tmcstees hold final responsibility for
A.A.3 world service administration, they should
always have the assistance of the best possible
standing committees, corporxzte service directors, ex-ecutives,
staffs, and consultants. Therefore the com-position
of these underlying committees and
service boards, the personal qualifications of their
members, the manner of their induction into ser-vice,
the systems of their rotation, the way in which
they are related to each other, the special rights
and duties of our executives, staffs, and consultants,
together with a proper basis for the financial com-pensation
of these special workers, will always be
matters for serious care and concern.
The longtime success of our General Service Board will rest not only on the
capabilities of the Trustees themselves; it will depend quite as much upon the com-petent
leadership and harmonious association of those non-Trustee committee
members, corporate service directors, executives, and staff members who must
actively carry on A.A.‘s world services. Their quality and dedication, or their lack
of these characteristics, will make or break our structure of service. Our final
dependency on them will always be great indeed.
Far more than most of the Trustees, these servants will be in direct contact with
A.A. world-wide, and their performance will be constantly on view. They will per-form
most of the routine labor. They will carry on most of our services. They will
travel widely and will receive most visitors at the Headquarters. They will often
originate new plans and policies. Some of them will eventually become Trustees.
Because this group will form the visible image of world service, most A.A.‘s will
measure our service values by what they see and feel in them. Members of this group
will not only support the world leadership of the Trustees; in the nature of the case
they will be bound to share world leadership with them.
Fortunately we already have a sound internal structure of service in which a very
competent group of non-Trustee servants are now working. Only a few refinements
and changes will still be needed in A.A. World Services, Inc. and at The A.A.
Grapevine, Inc., the latter being a comparatively recent comer to our service scene.
The main outlines of this underlying structure are now defined, and the effectiveness

of this arrangement has been well proven. Of what, then, does our underlying struc-ture
of service consist?
It is composed of the following elements: the five’ standing committees of the
General Service Board, plus our two active service corporations, A.A. World Ser-vices,
Inc. (including its A.A. publishing division) and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc.
Let’s have a look at each of these operations.
The standing committees of the General Service Board are Nominating, Finance
and Budgetary, Public Information, Literature, and General Policy - the titles clearly .
denoting the direct administrative responsibilities of the General Service Board. These
committees are appointed yearly by the General Service Board Chairman, and each
committee, as we have seen, includes a suitable proportion of Trustees, non-Trustee
experts in the work to be done, a Headquarters executive, and a staff worker.
?lze Nominating Committee: This committee aids the Trustees in discharging their
prime obligation to see that all vacancies - whether within their own ranks
or among key service directors, executives, staff members - are properly fill-ed
with members and workers of the greatest possible competence, stability,
and industry.
The recommendations of this committee to a large extent will determine the
continuous success of our services. Its members will have the primary voice
in choosing our future Trustees and non-Trustee workers. Careful deliberation,
painstaking investigation and interviewing, refusal to accept casual recommen-dations,
preparation well in advance of lists of suitable candidates - these will
need to be the principal attitudes and activities of this committee. All tempta-tion
to haste or snap judgment will need to be tithfully and constantly resisted.
Another problem that future committees may have to face is the subtle tenden-cy
toward deterioration in the caliber of personnel due to the very natural and
usually unconscious tendency of those who suggest nominees to select in-dividuals
of somewhat less ability than themselves. Instinctively we look for
associates rather like ourselves, only a little less experienced and able. For
example, what executive is likely to recommend an assistant who is a great
deal more competent than he is? What group of staff members will suggest
a new associate whose capabilities are a great deal above their own average?
The reverse is the more likely. Government bureaus, institutions, and many
commercial enterprises suffer this insidious deterioration. We have not yet ex-perienced
it to any extent, but let us be sure that we never do. All of us need
to be on guard against this ruinous trend, especially the Nominating Commit-tee,
whose first and last duty is to choose only the best obtainable for each
vacant post.
Zhe Finance and Budgetary Committee: The main responsibility of this body is
to see that we do not become money-crippled or go broke. This is the place
where money and spirituality do have to mix, and in just the right proportion.
Here we need hardheaded members with much financial experience. All should
be realists, and a pessimist or two can be useful. The whole temper of today’s
world is to spend more than it has, or may ever have. Many of us consequently
49

are infected with this rosy philosophy. When a new and promising A.A. ser-vice
project moves into sight, we are apt to cry, ”Never mind the money, let’s
get at it.” This is when our budgeteers are expected to say, ”Stop, look and
listen.” This is the exact point where the ”savers” come into a constructive
and healthy collision with the ”spenders.” The primary function of this com-mittee,
therefore, is to see that our Headquarters operation is always solvent
and that it stays that way, in good times and bad.
This committee must conservatively estimate each year’s income. It needs
to develop plans for increasing our revenues. It will keep a cold and watchful
eye on needless cost, waste, and duplication. It will closely scrutinize the yearly
budgets of estimated income and expense submitted by A.A. World Services,
Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. It will recommend amendments of the
estimates when necessary. At mid-year it will ask for budget revisions if earlier
estimates have gone too much wrong. It will scrutinize every new and con-siderable
expenditure, asking ”Is this necessary or desirable now? Can we
afford it, all considered?”
This committee, in good times, will insist that we continue to set aside substan-tial
sums to our Reserve Fund. It will pursue an investment policy in that fund
which will guarantee the immediate availability of at least two-thirds of it at
any time, without loss, thereby enabling us to meet hard times or even a calamity.
This is not to say that our Finance and Budgetary Committee constantly says
”no” and fearfully hoards our money. I can remember an earlier day when
we were so intent on building up the Reserve Fund out of book earnings that
we let the office services run down badly for sheer lack of enough help to cope
with our fast growth. Confidence was thereby lost out in the groups, and con-tributions
suffered severely; they dropped by tens of thousands a year. By the
time the office had been reorganized and confidence restored, we had used
all our current book earnings and a large part of our Reserve Funds besides.
This sort of f&e and unimaginative economy can prove very costly - in spirit,
in service, and in money.
Future committees, therefore, will ponder the difference between real
prudence (which is neither fear nor hoarding and which may indeed require
us sometimes to run temporary deficits) and that kind of persistent recklessness
which could someday result in the severe contraction or collapse of our vital
services.
The safe course will usually lie midway between reckless budget-slashing
and imprudent spending.
7Yze Public Inform&on Committee: This one, too, is of top importance. Of course
most of its members should be experts in the field of public relations. But
emphasis should also be laid on the fact that sheer commercial expertness will
not be quite enough. Because of A.A.‘s traditional conservatism, reflected in
the maxim ”Attraction rather than promotion,” it is evident that the profes-sional
members of the committee should be capable of adapting their business
experience to A.A.‘s needs. For instance, the techniques used to sell a big time
50

personality or a new hair lotion would not be for A.A. The committee should
always include a certain number of A.A.‘s who, because of long experience,
really do have ”A.A. sense,” that is, a thorough grasp of our total picture and
what it needs public relations-wise.
At the same time let us not overlook the need for high professional skill.
Dealing with the huge complex of public communications as it exists today
is not a job wholly for amateurs. Skill in this area implies much technical
experience, diplomacy, a sense of what is dangerous and what is not, the courage
to take calculated risks, and a readiness to make wise but tradition-abiding
compromises. These are the skilled talents we shall always need.
We are trying our best to reach more of those 25 million alcoholics who
today inhabit the world. We have to reach them directly and indirectly. In order
to accomplish this it will be necessary that understanding of A.A. and public
good will towards A.A. go on growing everywhere. We need to be on even
better terms with medicine, religion, employers, governments, courts, prisons,
mental hospitals, and all those conducting enterprises in the alcohol field. We
need the increasing good will of editors, writers, television and radio than-nels.
These publicity outlets - local, national, and international - should be
opened wider and wider, always foregoing, however, high pressure promotion
tactics. It is to, and through, all these resources that we must try to carry A.A.‘s
message to those who suffer alcoholism and its consequences.
This accounts for the importance in which we hold the work and the recom-mendations
of our Public Information Committee. It is a critical assignment;
a single large public blunder could cost many lives and much suffering because
it would turn new prospects away. Conversely, every real public relations suc-cess
brings alcoholics in our direction.
77ze Literature Committee: This body is charged with the revision of existing books
and pamphlets; also with the creation of fresh pamphlet material to meet new
needs or changing conditions. Broadly speaking, its mission is to see that an
adequate and comprehensive view of A.A. in its every aspect is held up in
writing to our members, friends, and to the world at large. Our literature is
a principal means by which A.A. recovery, unity, and service are facilitated.
Tons of books and pamphlets are shipped each year. The influence of this
material is incalculable. To keep our literature fully abreast of our progress
is therefore an urgent and vital work.
The Literature Committee constantly will have to solve new problems of
design, format, and content. Here our policy is to aim at only the best; we
firmly believe that cheap looking, cheap selling, and poorly conceived literature
is not in A.A.‘s best interest from any standpoint, whether effectiveness,
economy, or any other.
Like other General Service Board Committees, this one must be expert in
the work to be done. A key figure in its operation will necessarily be a paid
writer and consultant. The creative work - that is, the initial form and draft
and the final development of new undertakings - will be for this specialist
51

to make. The role of the other committeemen will be of constructive criticism
and amendment of the consultant’s effort. Here, too, we should remember that
the committee must certainly include persons of wide A.A. experience. This
matter of getting the ”A.A. feel” into all our writings is absolutely vital. What
we say so well by word of mouth we must also communicate in print.
The Literature Committee consequently will find it desirable to test carefully
each new creation by asking a number of A.A.‘s who are sensitive to A.A.
feeling and reaction to offer their criticism and suggestions. If the new material
is to affect the nonalcoholic world, especially the fields of medicine and religion,
a consultation should be held with those nonalcoholic Trustees or other qualified
friends who are knowledgeable in these areas.
Z%e General Policy Committee: Perhaps this is the most important of all of the
General Service Board Committees, and it is regarded as the senior one. It
can take jurisdiction of practically all problems or projects which involve A.A.
policy, public information, or A.A. Traditions that may arise in the other com-mittees
or service corporations?
Several years ago it became evident that the mass of business coming before
the quarterly Trustees’ meetings had become too big to handle. We therefore
had to devise a committee that could filter all these matters, disposing of the
lesser and fully examining the larger. The object was to break the jam at Trustees’
meetings and to present the Board with carefully discussed recommendations,
including minority reports, on the more serious issues. Thus the attention of
the General Service Board could be accurately focused on what it really had
to do. This committee, with ample time at its disposal, could also strengthen
our process of planning and policy formation. It could avert blunders, both
large and small, due to haste.
This was our original concept, and it has worked wonderfully well. Because
this committee is designed to be super-sensitive to A.A. opinion and reaction,
its hard core is composed of (a) the ”out-of-town” A.A. Trustees, one of whom
is traditionally named chairman, (b) two staff members of the World Service
Office, (c) the president of the A.A. World Services, Inc., who is also general
manager of the World Office, (d) the president of The A.A. Grapevine, Inc.,
who is the editor, and (e) those Trustees and service directors known to be
long experienced with our Fellowship.
All other Trustees, committee members and directors and staffs are invited
to attend meetings - the Trustees because they can thus get a preview of the
questions that will confront them at their own meeting to follow - the com-mitteemen
and directors because in this way they will get a comprehensive
picture of what other Headquarters units have been doing. a
This is a large committee,Aand it operates ”town meetmg-style,” requiring
four to six hours each Sunday afternoon preceding the Monday quarterly meeting
of the General Service Board. A carefully worked out agenda is alws prepared.
The committee issues to the Trustees a full report of its recommendations,
together with any minority views. Its report also shows the actual disposition
52

of minor matters.
This General Policy Committee has greatly strengthened our Headquarters
unity. All participants get the feeling they are ”on the team.” The size of the
meeting is no obstacle. Many minds, plenty of time, and real sensitivity to A.A.
insure a remarkable effectiveness of policy and planning.
Again it is emphasized that none of these five General Service Board Com-mittees
are executive in character. They do not manage and conduct the active
affairs of the service corporations. They may, however, make any recommen-dations
they wish - to the service corporations themselves or to the Trustees.
It will be noted that the General policy Committee always examines the quarterly
reports of the corporate services and such reports of the other General Service
Board Committees as may be available at meeting time. The committee can
and does comment upon these reports and makes recommendations respecting
them.
Next to be considered will be our active service corporations, A.A. World Ser-vices,
Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. Their activities probably represent nine-tenths
of our direct Headquarters effort.
The General Service Board owns the stock of these entities? Therefore the Trustees
yearly elect all of their directors, seven (at present) in each corporation. This means
that so far as the routine direction of our established services is concerned, the Trustees
have fully delegated their executive function in these constantly active service areas.
The directorate of A.A. World Services, Inc. (including the A.A. Publishing Divi-sion)
is traditionally composed of two Trustees for custodial oversight, three non-Trustee
experts in the work to be done, and two executives, the general manager of
the World Office and one of his staff assistants, who are president and vice president
respectively. The two Trustee directors usually have seen past service on the Board
as non-Trustee experts, and one of them is customarily named Treasurer. A.A. direc-tors
thus are those thoroughly experienced with these operations?
The Grapevine situation is similarly structured, with two exceptions. The two
Trustee directors of the Grapevine are (1) an ex-editor of the Grapevine, and (2) a
finance man who has previously served on the Grapevine Board. The latter Trustee
traditionally is made its chairman, and he presides at corporate meetings. This is
because neither the editor, who is traditionally the Grapevine president, nor his staff
member director, the vice president, ordinarily will have the needed business experi-ence
to chair the Grapevine corporate board. This arrangement also places the chair-man
in a tiorable position to mediate differences that may arise between the editorial
and business departments of the enterprise. The Grapevine also has an Editorial Board
which names its own successors, subject to the approval of the corporate Board?
The Editorial Board assists the editor and his staff in determining the editorial policy,
slant and content of the magazine. It relieves the editor (up to now, a volunteer) of
some of his work load. It surveys and makes recommendations respecting Grapevine
promotional material going to the groups. It gives our makeup men, artists and writers
both status and coherence in their joint efforts. And it is a training ground for future
editors. Our Editorial Board therefore is the chief guarantor of the magazine’s quality
53

and editorial continuity.
Every new generation of workers will raise certain questions about these two
corporate questions: ”Why can’t both of them be consolidated into the General Ser-vice
Board?” Or, ”Why can’t the Grapevine be merged into A.A. World Services,
Inc., thus placing all active Headquarters operations under a single management?”
These questions have already been discussed under previous Concepts. We have con-cluded
that the General Service Board is an unsuitable vehicle for an operating
corporation; that because the Grapevine is such a dissimilar operation, and because
we ought not concentrate too much money and executive authority in a single entity,
there should be no merger of A.A. World Services and The A.A. Grapevine. Upon
these points we seem well agreed - at least, as of now.
But this question has some other variations. It will often be asked, ”If it is desirable
to separately incorporate dissimilar enterprises, why then shouldn’t the A.A.
Publishing division of A.A. World Services be separately incorporated and managed
by a board of directors specially skilled in book and booklet publishing?” Offhand,
this looks logical.
Today, however, A.A. Publishing is mostly a business operation. Unlike a com-mercial
publisher, we do not have to ensure the selection, writing, and publication
of a lot of new books each year. Most of our A.A. books are already written, and
it is probable that not many more will be published. Of course we shall issue new
pamphlets now and then, and revisions of older material occasionally are desirable.
But this relatively small amount of creative publishing work can be handled easily
by the Literature Committee. Hence the operation of the A.A. publishing division
of A.A. World Services, Inc., is now mostly a matter of printing, distribution,
accounting, and finance. For management purposes there is therefore no present need
for a separate corporation; it is only required that the books of A.A. World Services,
Inc. show a separate accounting for its A.A. Publishing division. Only in the highly
unlikely event of a large and protracted entry into the new book business would we
really ever need a separate corporate management.
Another question will be this: ”Why don’t we merge A.A. Publishing with The
A.A. Grapevine, so placing all of our literature under a unified management?” The
answer here is based on the complete dissimilarity of the two enterprises. The
Grapevine has to produce a brand new quality product every month, on the dot. By
contrast, A.A. Publishing success largely depends upon what has already been written.
In the Grapevine the paramount activity is therefore the creative. The Grape-vine
requires several paid staff members and the constant aid of a large number of
specialized volunteers without whose help it could not operate. Why, then, should
we load up these people with a lot more straight business activity? Obviously we
should not.
Another question often is posed, ”Why should A.A. World Services, Inc. not take
over all the Grapevine’s accounting, finances, promotion, and distribution. Would
not such a consolidation of financing, employees, and routine business be more effi-cient
and economical? Would not this relieve the Grapevine of all business headaches?”
This plan, too, looks reasonable at first glance. Nevertheless the chances are it
54

would work poorly. It has serious structural defects. It would violate the basic good-management
principle that whoever has the responsibility for a given task must also
have the needed authority, funds, personnel, and equipment to carry it out. The A.A.
Grapevine, Inc. unquestionably holds full responsibility for its own solvency, pro-motion,
policy, and the management of its circulation. It is supposed to have four
business directors, expert in these phases of magazine operation. The Conference
and the General Service Board will always hold them accountable. If, therefore, any
large part of the Grapevine business functions are transferred to a completely
different corporate management over which the Grapevine has no authority, what
then? This certainly would be double-headed management anda source of continuous
conflict. The Grapevine Board would become virtually impotent.
Such a situation also would tend to demoralize the editor, his staff, and the Editorial
Board, all of them specialized volunteers. This group now has a representation of
three directors on the Grapevine Board. In such a corporate body it is now possible
to reconcile the editorial desire for excellence in the magazine with the financial
realities of the Grapevine situation. But if the business function of the Grapevine
was transferred to A.A. World Services, Inc., the status and influence of the GV
editorial would be reduced to almost nothing. World Service directors would
be mostly interested in business efficiency and solvency, while the GV editorial repre-sentatives
would still be looking for quality and magazine improvements. There would
be no practical way of reconciling these differences. The business directors of A.A.
World Services, Inc. would dominate the editorial workers and therefore the editorial
policy. The editorial group would find that they had become a mere committee,
taking directions from A.A. World Services. ”Who pays the piper calls the tune”
would become the actual working arrangement. Having so split the management of
the Grapevine in halves and having abandoned the principle of ”Participation,” it
is doubtful if we could make this setup work at all, especially with all those volunteers.
We might save some money, but we probably could not save the magazine.
Joint arrangements between The A.A. Grapevine and A.A. World Services for
routine operations such as billing, mailing, etc., are not necessarily precluded, though
to a lesser degree the same kind of frictions above described can be expected to develop
unless there is the clearest possible understanding of ”who controls what and when.”
We who now work at A.A.‘s Headquarters are pretty much in agreement on the
foregoing operations. They are recorded in some detail for whatever future benefits
they may be. We deeply realize that we should be on guard always against structural
tinkering just for money-saving purposes. These departures can often result in so
much disharmony and consequent inefficiency that nothing is really saved, and there
can often be a real loss.
A detailed description of the active operational side of our General Service Board
Committees and active service corporations is too lengthy to set down here. But we
should take note, however, of several more principles and problems which are com-mon
to both A.A. World Services, Inc. and to The A.A. Grapevine.
1. l%e status of executives - executive direction and policy form&on distinguished:
No active service can function well unless it has sustained and competent
55
, 1

executive direction. This must always head up in one person, supported by such
assistants as he needs. A board or a committee can never actively manage any-thing,
in the continuous executive sense. This function has to be delegated to
a single person. That person has to have ample freedom and authority to do his
job, and he should not be interfered with so long as his work is done well.
Real executive ability cannot be plucked from any bush; it is rare and hard
to come by. A special combination of qualities is required. The executive must
inspire by energy and example, thereby securing willing cooperation. If that
cooperation is not forthcoming, he must know when real f”lrmness is in order.
He must act without favor or partiality. He must comprehend and execute large
affairs, while not neglecting the smaller. He often must take the initiative in plan
making.
The use of such executive abilities implies certain realizations on the part of
the executive and those who work with him, otherwise there is apt to be
misunderstanding. Because of their natural drive and energy, executives will
sometimes til to distinguish between routine execution of established plans and
policies, and the making of new ones. In this area they may tend to make new
plans and put them into operation without sufficiently consulting those whose
work is to be affected, or those whose experience and wisdom is actually or
officially needed.
A good executive is necessarily a good salesman. But he often wants the f&t
sell and quick results on those very occasions where patient consultation with
many people is in order. However, this is far better than timid delay and con-stant
requests to be told by somebody or other what to do. The executive who
overdrives can be reasonably restrained by the structural situation, and defini-tions
within which he has to work. But a weak and wobbly executive is of little
use at any time.
It is the duty of the good executive, therefore, to learn discrimination of when
he should act on his own and when limited or wide consultation is proper, and
when he should ask for specific definitions and directions: This discrimination
is really up to him. His privilege of making these choices is structurally guaranteed
by the ”Right of Decision.” He can always be censured after his acts, but seldom
before.
In our world services we still have two more important executive problems.
One is the lack of money to hire full-time top executives for A.A. World Ser-vices,
Inc. and for the A.A. Grapevine. In our World Services Office, we can
now afford only a part-time general manager. In the Grapevine we must rely
on a volunteerP Of course each of these executives has paid staff assistants. But
the fact that one of our top executives can only give half his time and the other
one considerably less is by no means an ideal situation.
A chief-executive-in-fact should be constantly on the job, and ours cannot be.
Someday we may be able to correct this defect. Even then, however, we should
not make the mistake of hiring full-time executives who, lacking the necessary
experience and caliber, are willing to work cheaply. No more expensive blunder
56

than this could possibly be made. Outstanding ability in a volunteer, or a part-timer,
is definitely preferable to that.
The second executive difficulty is inherent in our A.A. situation. Our key peo-ple
at Headquarters are A.A. members; they have to be. Therefore the execu-tives
and their staffs are friends in A.A., members of the same club. This
sometimes makes it hard for an executive to give firm guidance and equally hard
for his A.A. friends to accept it. Our A.A. executives find that they not only
have to run a business; they must also keep their friends. In turn, those working
under them have to realize seriously that we really do have a business to conduct
as well as a cooperative spiritual enterprise to foster. Therefore a reasonable
amount of discipline and direction is a necessity. Those who cannot or will not
see this are not well suited for Headquarters work. Although excessive apart-ness
or roughshod authority is to be rejected in an executive, nobody should
complain if he is both friendly and firm. These problems are not insoluble; we
do solve them right along, mostly by the application of A.A. principles.
Problems of this sort occasionally crop up, but General Service Headquarters
is not constantly beset with them. Because of the exceptional dedication of our
people, a degree of harmony and effectiveness prevails that is unusual in the
conduct of an outside business.
Paid workers, how compensated: We believe that each paid executive, staff
member, or consultant should be recompensed in reasonable relation to the value
of his or her similar services or abilities in the commercial world.
This policy is often misunderstood. Many A.A.‘s no doubt regard A.A. world
services as a sort of necessary charity that has to be paid for. It is forgotten that
our particular charity is just as beneficial to us as it is to the newcomer; that
many of those services are designed for the general welfare and protection of
us all. We are not like rich benefactors who would aid the sick and the poor.
We are helping others in order to help ourselves.
Another mistaken idea is that our paid workers should labor cheaply, just as
charity workers often do elsewhere. If adopted, this concept would mark our
service workers for unusual financial sacrifices, sacrifices that we would ask
no other A.A.‘s to make. We A.A.‘s would be saying to each worker, ”We send
Headquarters $3.00 apiece every year. But it would be just great if you would
work for A.A. at $2,000 a year less than you would be worth elsewhere.” Seen
in this light, the low-pay theory appears as absurd as it really is, especially when
we remember that A.A.‘s world service overhead is about the smallest per capita
of any large society on earth. The difference between fair and poor pay at World
Headquarters is a matter only of a few cents a year to each of us.
We should also consider the well-known fact that cheap help is apt to feel in-secure
and be inefficient. It is very costly in the long run. This is neither good
spirituality nor good business. Assuming that service money is readily available,’
we should therefore compensate our workers well.
.
_. Rotation among paid staflworkrs: At A.A.‘s World Office, most staff members’
assignments are changed yearly. When engaged, each staff member is expected
57

to possess the general ability to do, or learn how to do, any job in the place
- excepting for office management where, because of the special skills involved,
rotation may sometimes be limited to part of the A.A. staff? But the basis of
compensating all staff members is identical. Pay increases are based on time
served only?
In the business world, such an arrangement would be unworkable. It would
practically guarantee indifference and mediocrity, because the usual money and
prestige incentives would be lacking. In our entire operating situation, this is
the sole major departure from the structure of corporate business. Consequent-ly
there should be proved and compelling reasons for such a corporate heresy,
and there are.
Our primary reason for the adoption of rotation and equal staff pay was the
security and continuity of the office. We once had the conventional system of
one highly paid staff member with assistants at much lower pay. Hers had been
the principal voice in hiring them. Quite unconsciously, I’m certain, she engaged
people who she felt would not be competitive with her. Meanwhile she kept a
tight rein on all the important business of the place. A prodigy of wonderful
work was done. But suddenly she collapsed, and shortly afterwards one of her
assistants did the same. We were left with only one partly trained assistant who
knew anything whatever about the total operation.
Luckily a good A.A. friend of mine, a fine organizer, pitched in and helped
to put the office in order. We saw that we had to install a paid staff that simply
couldn’t break down. Next time there might be no one around to give the necessary
amount of time for its reorganization. Besides this breakdown had cost us much
confidence out in the field - so much so that we must have lost $50,000 in three
years of group contributions.
Thereafter we installed the principle of rotation in a considerably larger staff.
Since then we have experienced sudden departures and collapses of A.A. staff
members, each of which would have demoralized the place under the former
conventional system. But since the remaining staff members always knew every
assignment there was, no trouble at all was experienced. Under such a condi-tion
replacements can be carefully chosen and trained at leisure. And the usual
tendency to select less able associates is largely overcome.
By thus putting our staff members on a complete parity, the removal of the
usual money and prestige incentives did not really damage us at all. We A.A.‘s
had what the commercial venture often lacks: a dedicated desire to serve which
- replaced the usual ego drives. At the same time many of the temptations to destruc-tive
competition and office ”politicking” were also removed. The spirit of Head-quarters
improved immeasurably and found its way out into the Fellowship.
In the future - at those times when the rotation system does not work perfectly
- there will be the natural demand to throw it out in the supposed interest of
efficiency. Certainly our successors will be at liberty to try, but past experience
surely suggests that they may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
One more aspect of rotation: the matter of time. We already know that the
58

4.
more responsible the assignment, the longer the term of service must be, if we
are to have effectiveness. For example, a group secretary can be changed every
six months and an Intergroup committeeman every year. But to be of any use
whatever, a Delegate has to serve two years, and a Trustee must serve four.
In the World Service Offrce, we have found it impractical and unfair to set
any fixed term of employment. A staff member has to have several years train-ing.
Are we then to throw her out, just as she is getting top grade? And if she
realized that she could only serve for a fixed period, could we have hired her
in the first place? Probably not. These posts are hard to fill because they require
just the right ingredients of personality, ability, stability, business and A.A. ex-perience.
If we insisted on a fixed term of service, we would often be forced
to engage A.A.‘s really not qualified. This would be both harmful and ur&ir.
But we need not fear too many staff members’ getting ”old in the service.”
The emotional pace of ”A.A. around the clock” is too strenuous for most of
them to take for a very long period of time. Already they come and go for this
and for other personal reasons. Within reason, most of them can and must rotate
from assignment to assignment. But we should attempt no more rotation than this.
Because of certain unusual skills required, rotation among Grapevine staff
members is more difficult. If the magazine ever gets a part-time editor who can
insist on and help in their training, we may someday bring this about. But in
the Grapevine there will never be safety in numbers, as in the World Office.
The present Grapevine paid staff of two could serve a circulation of many times
today’s size.
Full ”Participation ” of paid workers is highly important: We have already dis-cussed
the necessity of giving key paid personnel a voting representation on our
committees and corporate boards? We have seen that they should enjoy a status
suitable to their responsibility, just as our volunteers do. But full participation
for paid workers cannot be established by voting rights only. Other special
factors usually affect the extent of their participation. Let’s see what these are,
and what can be done about them.
The first is the f$ct of employment for money - the employer-employee rela-tion.
In human affairs, authority and money are deeply linked. Possession or
control of money spells control of people. Unwisely used, as it often is, this
control can result in a very unhappy kind of division. This ranges the ”haves”
on one side of the fence and the ”have nots” on the other. There can be no recon-ciliation
or harmony until a part of that fence is taken down. Only then can
proper authority join hands with a responsible willingness to get on with the job.
In our A.A. structure of service we therefore must do more than give our paid
workers a place at the A.A. council table. We ought to treat them in all respects
as we would volunteers, people who are our friends and co-workers. So long
as they work well, the fact that they are dependent upon the money they receive
should never, consciously or unconsciously, be used as a lever against them.
They must be made to feel that they are on the team. If, however, they cannot
59

or will not do their jobs, that is something else again. We can and should let
them go.
Women workers present still another problem. Our Headquarters is pretty much
a man’s world. Some men are apt to feel, unconsciously, that they are women’s
superiors, thus producing a reflex reaction in the gals. Then, too, some of us
rel
of both sexes - have been emotionally damaged in the area of man-woman
.ations. Our drinking has made us wrongly dependent on our marriage part-ners.
We have turned them into our ”moms” and ”pops,” and then we have deeply
resented
leave us
that situation. Perhaps maladjustment has taken
with a hangover of hostility that we are apt to
woman relatedness that we undertake.
still other turns which
project into any man-It
is possible for these forces to defeat the good working partnerships we would
like to have. But if we are fully aware of these tendencies, they can be the more
easily overcome, and forgiven. We can be aware also that any sound working
relation between adult men and women must be in the character of a partner-ship,
a noncompetitive one in which each partner complements the other. It
is not a question of superiority or inferiority at all. Men, for example, because
they are men, are apt to be better at business. But suppose we replaced our six
women staff members with six men? In these positions, could the men possibly
relate themselves so uniquely and so effectively to our Fellowship as the women?
Of course not. The women can handle this assignment far better, just because
they are women?O
Such are the realizations which we can all use every day of our working lives.
Add to these the further thought that no organization structure can fully guarantee
our Headquarters against the depredations of clashing personalities, that only
the sustained willingness to practice spiritual principles in all our affairs can
accomplish this, and we shall never need to have any fear for our future harmony.
‘In the years since this was written, seven other specialized committees have been added: Cooperation
With the Professional Community, General Service Conference, Archives, International Convention/Regional
Forums, Correctional Facilities, Treatment Facilities and International.
*The Policy Committee is now known as the General Sharing Session, and its makeup and functions have
changed, as explained on p. 47.
3Both A. A. World Services, Inc., and The A. A. Grapevine, Inc. are now membership corporations; their
members are the trustees.
vhe directorate of A.A. World Services, Inc. is now composed of: the G.S.O. general manager, who
is the president of A. A.W.S. ; a G.S.O. staff member, who is a vice-president; two regional trustees; two
9 eneral service trustees; three nontrustee directors. Its rotating chairperson is a trustee.
Today A.A. Gra
chief operating of!?
vine, Inc., has ten directors. The Corporate Board is publisher of the magazine; the
cer is president. Two members of the board are general service trustees; two are regional
trustees; one is a nonalcoholic trustee; five are nontrustee directors. Production and management of the
Grapevine are given over to a full-time paid staff. Two staff members are members of the Corporate Board.
6Today there is a full-time editorial staff of two people and a part-time art director.
‘Most staff members serve two years on each assignment.
8Since 1987, pay increases are based on merit.
9G.S.0. staff members have voting representation on trustees’ committees. Additionally, the staff member
serving as staff coordinator has a vote as a director of the A.A.W.S. Board.
loThe restrictions no longer apply. In 1988, eight women and three men serve as G.S.O. staff members.
60

CONCEPT XII
General Warranties of the Conference: in all its
proceedings, the General Service Conference shall
observe the spirit of the A.A. Ttwdition, taking great
care that the conference never becomes the seat of
perilous wealth orpower; that sufficient operating
funds, plus an ample reserve, be itsprudentfkzan-cialprinciple;
that none of the Conference Members
shall ever be placed in a position of unqualified
authority over any of the others: that all important
decisions be reached by discussion vote and when-ever
possible, by substantial unanimity; that no Con-ference
action ever be personally punitive or an
incitement to public controvemy; that though the
Conference may act for the service of Alcoholics
Anonymous, it shall never perform any acts of
government; and that, like the Society of Alcoholics
Anonymous which it serves, the Conference itself
will always remain democratic in thought and
action.
The Concept here considered consists of Article 12 of the Conference Charter. There
are good reasons for placing it in this context.
Taken as a whole, our Conference Charter is the substance of an informal agree-ment
which was made between the A.A. groups and their Trustees in 1955. It is the
agreed basis upon which the General Service Conference operates. In part, the Charter
is an elastic document; its first eleven Articles can be readily amended by the Con-ference
itself at any time.
But Article 12 of the Charter stands in a class by itself. An amendment or a cancella-tion
of any of its vital Warranties would require the written consent of three-quarters
of all the directory-listed A.A. groups who would actually vote on any such pro-posals,
and the considerable time of six months is allowed for careful deliberation.
Although changes in the Warranties of Article 12 thus have been made difficult, they
have not been made impossible.
It is clear that all of these Warranties have a high and permanent importance to
A.A.‘s general welfare. This is why we believe we should permit change in them
I 61

only upon positive evidence of their defectiveness and then only by common consent
of the A.A. groups themselves. We have ranked them therefore with A.A.‘s Twelve
Traditions, feeling that they are quite as important to A.A.‘s world services as the
Traditions are to A. A. as a whole.
The Warranties of Article 12 are a series of solemn undertakings which guarantee
that the Conference itself will conform to A.A.‘s Twelve Traditions; that the Con-ference
can never become the seat of great wealth or government; that its fiscal policy
shall ever be prudent; that it will never create any absolute authority; that the princi-ple
of substantial unanimity will be observed; that it will never take any punitive
action; that it never will incite public controversy; that it can serve A.A. only; and
that it shall always remain democratic in spirit. These Warranties indicate the qualities
of prudence and spirituality which our General Service Conference should always
possess. Barring any unforeseen defects, these are the permanent bonds that hold
the Conference fast to the movement it serves.
There are significant aspects of these Warranties which should be considered.
Notice, for example, that all of them are counsels of prudence - prudence in per-sonal
relatedness, prudence in money matters, and prudence in our relations with
the world about us. For us, prudence is a workable middle ground, a channel of clear
sailing between the obstacles of fear on the one side and of recklessness on the other.
Prudence in practice creates a definite climate, the only climate in which harmony,
effectiveness, and consistent spiritual progress can be achieved. The Warranties of
Article I2 express the wisdom of taking forethought for the future based on the lessons
of the past. They are the sum of our protection against needless errors and against
our very natural human temptations to wealth, prestige, power, and the like.
Article 12 opens with this general statement: ”In all its proceedings the General
Service Conference shall observe the spirit of the A.A. Tradition.. .” Of all bodies
and groups in Alcoholics Anonymous, the Conference should above all feel bound
by the A.A. Tradition. Indeed the Conference is named ”the guardian of the Tradi-tions
of Alcoholics Anonymous.” The Traditions themselves outline the general basis
on which we may best conduct our services. The Traditions express the principles
and attitudes of prudence that make for harmony. Therefore A. A.‘s Twelve Tradi-tions
set the pattern of unity and of function which our General Service Conference
is expected to exemplify at the highest possible degree.
The Warranties of Article I2 are as follows:
Warranty One: ”The Conference shall never become the seat of perilous wealth
or power.” What is meant by ”perilous wealth or power”? Does it mean that the
Conference should have virtually no money and no authority? Obviously not. Such
a condition would be dangerous and absurd. Nothing but an ineffective anarchy could
result from it. We must use some money, and there must be some authority to serve.
But how much? How and where should we draw these lines?
The principal protection against the accumulation of too much money and too much
authority in Conference hands is to be found in the A.A. Tradition itself. So long
as our General Service Board refuses to take outside contributions and holds each
individual’s gift to A.A.‘s world services at a modest figure, we may be sure that

we shall not become wealthy in any perilous sense. No great excess of group con-tributions
over legitimate operating expenses is ever likely to be seen. Fortunately
the A.A. Groups have a healthy reluctance about the creation of unneeded services
which might lead to an expensive bureaucracy in our midst. Indeed, it seems that
the chief difficulty will continue to be that of effectively informing the A.A. groups
as to what the financial needs of their world services actually are. Since it is certain
therefore that we shall never become too wealthy through group contributions, we
need only to avoid the temptation of taking money from the outside world.
In the matter of giving Delegates, Trustees, and staff enough authority, there can
be little risk, either. Long experience, now codified in these Twelve Concepts, sug-gests
that we are unlikely to encounter problems of too much service authority. On
the contrary, it appears that our difficulty will be how to maintain enough of it. We
must recall that we are protected from the calamities of too much authority by rota-tion,
by voting participation, and by careful chartering. Nevertheless, we do hear
warnings about the future rise of a dictator in the Conference or at the Headquarters.
To my mind this is an unnecessary worry. Our setup being what it is, such an aspirant
couldn’t last a year. And in the brief time he did last, what would he use for money?
Our Delegates, directly representing the groups, control the ultimate supply of our
service funds. Therefore they constitute a direct check upon the rise of too much
personal authority. ‘Lttken all together, these Eactors seem to be reliable safeguards
against too much money and too much authority.
We have seen why the Conference can never have any dangerous degree of human
power, but we must not overlook the fact that there is another sort of authority and
power which it cannot be without: the spiritual power which flows from the activities
and attitudes of truly humble, unselfish, and dedicated A.A. servants. This is the
real power that causes our Conference to function. It has been well said of our ser-vants,
”They do not drive us by mandate; they lead us by example.” While we have
made abundantly sure that they will never drive us, I am confident that they will
afford us an ever-greater inspiration as they continue to lead by example.
Warranty Two: ”Sufficient operating funds, plus an ample Reserve, should be its
prudent financial principle.”
.
In this connection we should pause to review our attitudes concerning money and
its relation to service effort.
Our attitude toward the giving of time when compared with our attitude toward
giving money presents an interesting contrast. Of course we give a lot of our time
to A.A. activities for our own protection and growth. But we also engage ourselves
in a truly sacrificial giving for the sake of our groups, our areas and for A.A. as
a whole.
Above all, we devote ourselves to the newcomer, and this is our principal Twelfth
Step work. In this activity we often take large amounts of time from business hours.
Considered in terms of money, these collective sacrifices add up to a huge sum. But
we do not think that this is anything unusual. We remember that people once gave
their time to us as we struggled for sobriety. We know, too, that nearly the whole com-bined
income of A.A. members, now more than a billion dollars a year, has been
63

a direct result of A.A.‘s activity. Had nobody recovered, there would have been no
income for any of us.
But when it comes to the actual spending of cash, particularly for A.A. service
overhead, many of us are apt to turn a bit reluctant. We think of the loss of all that
earning power in our drinking years, of those sums we might have laid by for emergen-cies
or for education for the kids. We find, too, that when we drop money in the
meeting hat there is no such bang as when we talk for hours to a newcomer. There
is not much romance in paying the landlord. Sometimes we hold off when we are
asked to meet area or Intergroup service expenses. As to world services, we may
remark, ”Well, those activities are a long way off, and our group does not really
need them. Maybe nobody needs them.” These are very natural and understandable
reactions, easy to justify. We can say, ”Let’s not spoil A.A. with money and service
organization. Let’s separate the material from the spiritual. That will really keep things
simple.”
But in recent years these attitudes are everywhere on the decline; they quickly disap-pear
when the real need for a given A.A. service becomes clear. To make such a
need clear is simply a matter of right information and education. We see this in the
continuous job now being done with good effect for our world service by Delegates,
Committee Members, and General Service Representatives. They are finding that
money-begging by pressure exhortation is unwanted and unneeded in A.A. They
simply portray what the giver’s service dollar really brings in terms of steering
alcoholics to A.A., and in terms of our over-all unity and effectiveness. This much
done, the hoped-for contributions are forthcoming. The donors can seldom see what
the exact result has been. They well know, however, that countless thousands of other
alcoholics and their families are certain to be helped.
When we look at such truly anonymous contributions in this fashion, and as we
gain a better understanding of their continuous urgency, I am sure that the voluntary
contributions of our A.A. groups, supplemented by many modest gifts from individual
A.A.‘s, will pay our world service bills over future years, in good times at any rate.
We can take comfort, too, from the fact that we do not have to maintain an expen-sive
corps of paid workers at World Headquarters. In relation to the ever-growing
size of A.A. the number of workers has declined. In the beginning our World Ser-vice
Office engaged one paid worker to each thousand of A.A. members. Ten years
later we employed one paid worker to each three thousand A.A.‘s. Today we need
only one paid helper to every seven thousand recovered alcoholics.1 The present cost
of our world services ($200,000 annually as of 1960) is today seen as a small sum
in relationship to the present reach of our Fellowship. Perhaps no other society of
our size and activity has such a low general overhead.
These reassurances of course cannot be taken as a basis for the abandonment of
the policy of financial prudence.
The fact and the symbol of A.A.‘s fiscal common sense can be seen in the Reserve
Fund of our General Service Board. As of now this amounts to little more than
$200,000 - about one year’s operating expense of our World Office? This is what
we have saved over the last twenty years, largely from the income of our books. This

is the fund which has repeatedly prevented the severe crippling, and sometimes the
near collapse, of our world services.
In about half of the last twenty years, A.A. group contributions have failed to meet
our world needs. But the Reserve Fund, constantly renewed by book sales, has been
able to meet these deficits - and save money besides. What this has meant in the
lives of uncounted alcoholics who might never have reached us had our services been
weak or nonexistent, no one can guess. Financial prudence has paid off in lives saved.
These facts about our Reserve Fund need to be better understood. For sheer lack
of understanding, it is still often remarked: (1) that the Reserve Fund is no longer
needed, (2) that if the Reserve Fund continues to grow, perilous wealth will result,
(3) that the presence of such a Reserve Fund discourages group contributions, (4)
that because we do not abolish the Reserve Fund, we lack faith, (5) that our A.A.
books ought to be published at cost so these volumes could be cheapened for hard-up
buyers, (6) that profit-making on our basic literature is counter to a sound spiri-tuality.
While these views are by no means general, they are typical. Perhaps, then,
there is still a need to analyze them and answer the questions they raise.
Let us therefore try to test them. Do these views represent genuine prudence? Do
we lack faith when we prudently insist on solvency?
By means of cheap A.A. books, should we engage, as a fellowship, in this sort
of financial charity? Should this sort of giving not be the responsibility of individuals?
Is the Headquarters’ income from A.A. books really a profit after all?
As this is written, 1960, our Headquarters operation is just about breaking even.
Group contributions are exceeding our service needs by about 5%. The A.A.
Grapevine continues in the red? Compared with earlier days, this is wonderful.
Nevertheless this is our state in the period of the greatest prosperity that America
has ever known. If this is our condition in good times, what would happen in bad
times? Suppose that the Headquarters income were decreased 25 % by a depression,
or that expenses were increased 25% by a steep inflation. What would this mean
in hard cash?
The World Service Office would show a deficit of $50,000 a year and the Grapevine
would put a $20,000 annual deficit on top of this. We would be faced with a gaping
total deficit of !j70,000 every twelve months. Ifin such an emergency we had no reserve
and no book income, we would soon have to discharge one-third of our thirty paid
workers and A.A. staff members. Much mail would go unanswered, pleas for infor-mation
and help ignored. The Grapevine would have to be shut down or reduced
to a second-rate bulletin. The number of Delegates attending our yearly General Ser-vice
Conference would have to be drastically reduced. Practically and spiritually,
these would be the penalties were we to dissipate our Reserve Fund and its book
income.
Happily, however, we do not have to face any such slash as this. Our present reserve
and its book income could see us through several years of hard times without the
slightest diminution in the strength and quality of our world effort.
It is the fashion nowadays to believe that America can never see another serious
business upset. We can certainly hope and pray that it will not. But is it wise for
65

us of A.A. to make a huge bet - by dissipating our own assets - that this could
never happen? Would it not be far better, instead, for us to increase our savings in
this period when the world about us in all probability has already borrowed more
money than can ever be repaid?
Now let us examine the claim that the presence of our Reserve Fund discourages
group contributions. It is said that the impression is created that A.A. Headquarters
is already well off and that hence there is no need for more money. This is not at
all the general attitude, however, and its effect on contributions is probably small.
Next comes the question of whether A.A. as a whole should go in for what amounts
to a money charity to individual newcomers and their sponsors - via the selling
of our books at cost or less. Up to now we A.A.‘s have strongly believed that money
charity to the individual should not be a function of the A.A. groups or of A.A.
as a whole. To illustrate: when a sponsor takes a new member in hand, he does not
in the least expect that his group is going to pay the expenses he incurs while doing
a Twelfth Step job. The sponsor may give his prospect a suit of clothes, may get
him a job, or present him with an A.A. book. This sort of thing frequently happens,
and it is fine that it does. But such charities are the responsibility of the sponsor
and not of the A.A. group itself. If a sponsor cannot give or lend an A.A. book,
one can be found in the library. Many groups sell books on the installment plan.
There is no scarcity of A.A. books; more than a half million are now in circulation.
Hence there seems no really good reason why A.A. services should supply everybody
with cheap books, including the large majority who can easily pay the going price.
It appears to be altogether clear that our world services need those book dollars f$r
more than the buyers do.
Some of us have another concern, and this is related to so-called book ”profits.”
The fact that A.A. Headquarters and most of the groups sell books for more than
they cost is thought to be spiritually bad. But is this sort of noncommercial book
income really a profit after all? In my view, it is not. This set income to the groups
and to A.A.‘s General Services is actually the sum of a great many contributions
which the book buyers make to the general welfare of Alcoholics Anonymous. The
certain and continuous solvency of our world services rests squarely upon these con-tributions.
Looked at in this way, our Reserve Fund is seen to be actually the
aggregate of many small financial sacrifices made by the book buyers. This fund
is not the property of private investors; it is wholly owned by A.A. itself.
While on the subject of books, perhaps a word should be said concerning my
royalties from them. This royalty income from the book buyers has enabled me to
do all the rest of my A.A. work on a full-time volunteer basis. These royalties have
also given me the assurance that, like other A.A.‘s, I have fully earned my own separate
livelihood. This independent income also has enabled me to think and act indepen-dently
of money influences of any kind - a situation which has at times been very
advantageous to A.A. as well as to me personally. Therefore I hope and believe that
my royalty status will continue to be considered a fair and wise arrangement.
Warranty Three: ”None of the Conference members shall ever be placed in a
position of unqualified authority over any of the others.”
66

We have learned that this principle is of incalculable value to the harmonious con-duct
of our Conference affairs. Its application in our structure has already been ex-tensively
discussed under the Concept entitled ”The Bight of Participation,” which
emphasizes that our world servants, both as individuals and as groups, shall be
entitled to voting rights in reasonable proportion to their several responsibilities.
Because this right of participation is so important we have made it the subject of
this Warranty, thus providing insurance that Conference action alone can never over-turn
or amend this right. For any such purpose widespread group consent would
be needed, which would probably prove difficult though not necessarily impossible
for the Conference to obtain. We believe that our whole service experience fully
justifies the taking of this strong stand against the creation of unqualified authority
at any point in our Conference structure.
It is to be noted, too, that this Warranty against absolute authority is far more general
and sweeping in its nature than a guarantee of voting participation. It really means
that we of A.A. will not tolerate absolute human authority in any form. The voting
rights urged under our concept of ”Participation” are simply the practical means
of checking any future tendency to an unqualified authority of any sort. This healthy
state of affairs is of course further re-inforced by our concepts of ”Appeal and Petition.”
Many A.A.‘s have already begun to call Article 12 of the Conference Charter ”The
A.A. Service Bill of Rights.” This is because they see in these Warranties, and
especially in this one, an expression of deep and loving respect for the spiritual liberties
of their fellows. May God grant that we shall never be so unwise as to settle for anything
less
I&ranry Four: ”That all important decisions be reached by discussion, vote, and,
whenever possible, by substantial unanimity.”
Here on the one hand we erect a safeguard against any hasty or overbearing authority
of a simple majority; and on the other hand we take notice of the rights and the fre-quent
wisdom of minorities, however small. This principle further guarantees that
all matters of importance, time permitting, will be extensively debated, and that such
debates will continue until a really heavy majority can support every critical deci-sion
that we are called upon to make in the Conference.
When we take decisions in this fashion, the Conference voice speaks with an
authority and a confidence that a simple majority could never give it. If any remain
in opposition, they are far better satisfied because their case has had a full and fair
hearing.
And when a decision taken in substantial unanimity does happen to go wrong, there
can be no heated recriminations. Everybody will be able to say, ”Well, we had a
careful debate, we took the decision, and it turned out to be a bad one. Better luck
next time!”
Like many very high ideals, the principle of substantial unanimity does, however,
have certain practical limitations. Occasionally a Conference decision will be of such
extreme urgency that something has to be done at once. In such a case we cannot
allow a minority, however well-intended, to block a vitally needed action which is
evidently in the best interests of A.A. Here we shall need to trust the majority,
67

sometimes a bare majority, to decide whether Conference debate is to be terminated
and a final action taken. In certain other cases, the majority will also have to exer-cise
this undoubted right. Suppose, for example, that a small minority obstinately
tries to use the principle of substantial unanimity to block a clearly needed action.
In such an event it would be the plain duty of the majority to over-ride such a misuse
of the principle of substantial unanimity.
Nevertheless our experience shows that majorities will seldom need to take such
radical stands as these. Being generally animated by the spirit of ”substantial unan-imity,”
we have found that our Conference can nearly always be guided by this valued
principle.
In passing it should be noted that the Conference will sometimes have to decide,
with respect to a particular question, what the requirements of substantial unanimity
are going to be - whether a two-thirds, threequarters, or even a greater majority,
will be required to settle a particular question. Such an advance agreement can, of
course, be had on a simple majority vote.
Concluding the discussion on this Warranty, it can be said that without question
both the practical and spiritual results of the practice of substantial unanimity already
have been proved to be very great indeed.
Warranty Five: ”That no Conference action ever be personally punitive‘or an
incitement to public controversy.”
Practically all societies and governments feel it necessary to inflict personal
punishments upon individual members for violations of their beliefs, principles, or
laws. Because of its special situation, Alcoholics Anonymous finds this practice un-necessary.
When we of A.A. fail to follow sound spiritual principles, alcohol cuts
us down. Therefore no humanly administered system of penalties is needed. This
unique condition is an enormous advantage to us all, one on which we can fully rely .
and one which we should never abandon by a resort to the methods of personal
attack and punishment. Of all societies ours can least afford to risk the resentments
and conflicts which would result were we ever to yield to the temptation to punish
in anger.
For much the same reason we cannot and should not enter into public controversy,
even in self-defense. Our experience has shown that, providentially it would seem,
A.A. has been made exempt from the need to quarrel with anyone, no matter what
the provocation. Nothing could be more damaging to our unity and to the world-wide
good will which A.A. enjoys, than public contention, no matter how promising
the immediate dividends might appear.
Therefore it is evident that the harmony, security, and future effectiveness of A.A.
will depend largely upon our maintenance of a thoroughly nonaggressive and pacific
attitude in all our public relations. This is an exacting assignment, because in our
drinking days we were prone to anger, hostility, rebellion, and aggression. And even
though we are now sober, the old patterns of behavior are to a degree still with us,
always threatening to explode on any good excuse. But we know this, and therefore
I fml confident that in the conduct of our public affairs we shall always find the grace
to exert an effective restraint.

We enjoy certain inherent advantages which should make our task of self-restraint
relatively easy. There is no really good reason for anyone to object if a great many
drunks get sober. Nearly everyone can agree that this is a good thing. If, in the
process, we are forced to develop a certain amount of honesty, humility, and tolerance,
who is going to kick about that? If we recognize that religion is the province of the
clergy and the practice of medicine is for doctors, we can helpfully cooperate with
both. Certainly there is little basis for controversy in these areas. It is a fact that
A.A. has not the slightest reform or political complexion. We try to pay our own
expenses, and we strictly mind our single purpose.
These are some of the reasons why A.A. can easily be at peace with the whole
world. These are the natural advantages which we must never throw away by foolishly
entering the arena of public controversy or punitive action against anybody.
Because our General Service Conference represents us all, this body is especially
charged with the duty of setting the highest possible standard with respect to these
attitudes of no punishments and no public controversy. The Conference will have
to do more than just represent these principles; it will frequently have to apply them
to specific situations. And, at times, the Conference will need to take certain protec-tive
actions, especially in the area of Tradition violations. This action, however, never
need be punitively or aggressively controversial at the public level.
Let us now consider some typical situations that may often require Conference
consideration and sometimes definite action:
Let us suppose that A.A. does fall under sharp public attack or heavy ridicule;
and let us take the particular case where such pronouncements happen to have little
or no justification in fact.
Almost without exception it can be confidently estimated that our best defense in
these situations would be no defense whatever - namely, complete silence at the
public level. Unreasonable people are stimulated all the more by opposition. If in
good humor we leave them strictly alone, they are apt to subside the more quickly.
If their attacks persist and it is plain that they are misinformed, it may be wise to
communicate with them in a temperate and informative way; also in such a manner
that they cannot use our communication as a springboard for fresh assault. Such corn-munications
need seldom be made by the Conference officially. Very often we can
use the good offices of friends. Such messages from us should never question the
motives of the attackers; they should be purely informative. These communications
should also be private. If made public, they will often be seized upon as a fresh ex-cuse
for controversy.
If, however, a given criticism of A.A. is partly or wholly justified, it may be well
to acknowledge this privately to the critics, together with our thanks - still keeping
away, however, from the public level.
But under no conditions should we exhibit anger or any punitive or aggressive in-tent.
Surely this should be our inflexible policy. Within such a framework the Con-ference
and the Headquarters will always need to make a thoughtful estimate of what
or what not should be done in these cases.
We may be confronted by public violations of the A.A. Traditions. Individuals,

outside organizations, and even our own members sometimes may try to use the A.A.
name for their own private purposes. As A.A. grows in size and public recognition,
the temptation to misuse our name may increase. This is why we have assigned to
our Conference a protective task in respect to such conditions. The Conference, as
we know, is the ”guardian” of the A.A. Traditions. There has always been some
confusion about this term ”guardianship,” and perhaps we should try to clear it up.
To the minds of some A.A.‘s, ”guardianship” of the A.A. Traditions implies the
right and the duty on the part of the Conference to publicly punish or sue every wilful
violator. But we could not adopt a worse policy; indeed such aggressive public acts
would place the Conference in the position of having violated one A.A. Tradition
in order to defend another. Therefore aggressive or punitive action, even in this area,
must be omitted.
Privately, however, we can inform Tradition-violators that they are out of order.
When they persist, we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion
as we may have, and these are often considerable. Manifested in this fashion, a per-sistent
firmness will often bring the desired result.
In the long run, though, we shall have to rely mainly upon the pressures of A.A.
opinion and public opinion. And to this end we shall need to maintain a continuous
education of public communications channels of all kinds concerning the nature and
purpose of our Traditions.
Whenever and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also;
especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous. This combination of
counter forces can be very discouraging to violators or would-be violators. Under
these conditions they soon find their deviations to be unprofitable and unwise. Our
experience has shown that continuous and general education respecting our Tradi-tions
will be a reliable preventive and protection in the years to come.
Feeling the weight of all these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.‘s
Traditions sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they are
therefore being governed. It would appear, however, that A.A.‘s right to object calmly
and privately to specific violations is at least equal to the rights of the violators to
violate. This cannot accurately be called a governmental action. Some deviators have
suffered rather severe personal criticism from individual A.A. members, and this
is to be deplored. However this is no reason for us to stop reminding all concerned
of the undesirability of breaking A.A.‘s Traditions before the entire public. It can
be said in all fairness that the difficulties of those who contravene the Traditions are
chiefly troubles of their own making.
Another kind of problem that merits consideration is the occasional severe inter-nal
disagreement among us that comes to unwelcome public attention. For example,
we once hit the headlines with a pretty hardbitten lawsuit wherein two factions of
A.A.‘s were competing for the possession of the A.A. name for Intergroup use, the
name having been incorporated by one of them. In another instance in an overseas
area there was some rather bad publicity when a considerable section of the groups
there became convinced they ought to accept money subsidies from their country’s
government to promote A.A. work, the A.A. Tradition notwithstanding. This internal

difficulty should not have surfaced before the public because there was certainly
nothing about it that mutual understanding and good temper could not have readily
handled.
Fortunately this sort of episode has been infrequent and relatively harmless. But
such difficulties do pose certain questions for the future. What should our General
Service Conference do about this sort of thing?
Always remembering group autonomy and the f&t that A.A.‘s World Headquarters
is not a police operation, the most that can be done in most cases is to make an offer
of mediation. What the Tradition in this respect means, and what our experience
with it has been, can always be offered as a matter of information. We can always
urge the avoidance of any breakthrough of such disagreements at the public level.
All parties can remember that unfavorable criticism or ridicule which might ensue
from such conflicts can so reflect upon A.A. as to keep new prospects from joining up.
Then, too, a great many of these difficulties with the Tradition are of strictly local
concern, there being no serious national or international implication. Many of them
represent honest differences of opinion as to how the Tradition should be interpreted:
whether a lenient or strict observance would be the better thing. Especially when
operating below the public level, our experience with the Tradition reveals gray areas,
where neither white or black interpretations seem possible. Here the violations are
often so debatable and inconsequential they are hardly worth bothering about. Here
we usually refrain from offering suggestions, unless they are insisted upon. We feel
that these problems must be solved chiefly by the local people concerned.
There is, too, a grave problem that we have never yet had to face. This would be
in the nature of a deep rift running clear across A.A. - a cleavage of opinion so
serious that it might involve a withdrawal of some of our membership into a new
society of their own, or in their making an alliance with an outside agency in con-travention
of the A.A. Tradition. This would be the old story of split and schism
of which history is so full. It might be powered by religious, political, national, or
racial forces. It might represent an honest effort to change A.A. for the better. But
it would certainly pose the Conference a question of what to do, or not to do.
Such a development is hard to imagine. We A.A.‘s usually assume that we have
too much at stake and too much in common to succumb to this very ordinary ailment
of the world about us. Yet this comforting assurance is no reason for refusing to give
this contingency some calm forethought. If it ever came, such a development might
be a terrific surprise and shock. Suddenly aroused passions could flare, making any
truly constructive solution immensely difficult, perhaps impossible.
Because society everywhere is in such a state of fission to&y, many of us have
given this subject a great deal of consideration. Our considered opinion is this: that
the best possible Conference attitude in such a circumstance would be that of almost
complete nonresistance - certainly no anger and certainly no attack. We have no
doctrine that has to be maintained. We have no membership that has to be enlarged.
We have no authority that has to be supported. We have no prestige, power, or pride
that has to be satisfied. And we have no property or money that is really worth quar-reling
about. These are advantages of which we should make the best possible use
71

in the event of a threatened major division; they should make a calm and considered
attitude of nonresistance entirely possible and highly practical.
Indeed we have always practiced this principle on a lesser scale. When a drunk
shows up among us and says that he doesn’t like the A.A. principles, people, or ser-vice
management; when he declares that he can do better elsewhere - we are not
worried. We simply say, ”Maybe your case is different. Why don’t you try something
else?”
If an A.A. member says he doesn’t like his own group, we are not disturbed. We
simply say ”Why don’t you try another one? Or start one of your own.” When our
actors and cops and priests want their own private groups, we say ”Fine! Why don’t
you try that idea out?‘: When an A.A. group, as such, insists on running a clubhouse,
we say ”Well, that sometimes works out badly, but maybe you will succeed after
all.” If individual A.A.‘s wish to gather together for retreats, Communion breakfasts,
or indeed any undertaking at all, we still say ”Fine. Only we hope you won’t designate
your efforts as an A.A. group or enterprise.” These examples illustrate how far we
have already gone to encourage freedom of assembly, action, and even schism. To
all those who wish to secede from A.A. we extend a cheerful invitation to do just
that. If they can do better by other means, we are glad. If after a trial they cannot
do better, we know they face a choice: they can go mad or die or they can return
to Alcoholics Anonymous. The decision is wholly theirs. (As a matter of fact, most
of them do come back.)
In the light of all this experience, it becomes evident that in the event of a really
extensive split we would not have to waste time persuading the dissenters to stay with
us. In good confidence and cheer, we could actually invite them to secede and we
would wish them well if they did so. Should they do better under their new auspices
and changed conditions, we would ask ourselves if we could not learn from their
fresh experience. But if it turned out they did worse under other circumstances and
that there was a steady increase in their discontent and their death rate, the chances
are very strong that most of them would eventually return to A.A.
Without anger or coercion we would need only to watch and to wait upon God’s will.
Unless we make a problem where there really is none at all, there need be no
difficulty. We could still go about our business in good cheer. The supply of drunks
in our time will be inexhaustible, and we can continue to be glad that we have
evolved at least one formula by which many will come to sobriety and a new life.
We have a saying that ”A.A. is prepared to give away all the knowledge and all
the experience it has - all excepting the A.A. name itself.” We mean by this that
our principles can be used in any application whatever. We do not wish to make them
a monopoly of our own. We simply request that the public use of the A.A. name
be avoided by those other agencies who wish to avail themselves of A.A. techniques
and ideas. In case the A.A. name should be misapplied in such a connection it would
of course be the duty of our General Service Conference to press for the discon-tinuance
of such a practice - always short, however, of public quarreling about the
matter.
The protection of the A.A. name is of such importance to us that we once thought
72

of incorporating it everywhere throughout the world, thereby availing ourselves of
legal means to stop any misuse. We even thought of asking Congress to grant us the
unusual favor of a Congressional incorporation. We felt that the existence of these
legal remedies might prove to be a great deterrent?
But after several years of deliberation, our General Service Conference decided
against such a course. The dramatic story of this debate and its conclusion may be
found in our history book ”Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age.” Those early Con-ferences
believed that the power to sue would be a dangerous thing for us to possess.
It was recognized that a public lawsuit is a public controversy, something in which
our Tradition says we may not engage. To make our legal position secure, it would
have been necessary to incorporate our whole Fellowship, and no one wished to see
our spiritual way of life incorporated. It seemed certain that we could confidently
trust A.A. opinion, public opinion, and God Himself to take care of Alcoholics
Anonymous in this respect.
Warranty Six: ”That though the Conference may act for the service of Alcoholics
Anonymous, it shall never perform any acts of government; and that, like the Society
of Alcoholics Anonymous which it serves, the Conference itself will always remain
democratic in action and in spirit.”5
In preceding Concepts, much attention has been drawn to the extraordinary liber-ties
which the A.A. Traditions accord to the individual member and to his group:
no penalties to be inflicted for nonconformity to A.A. principles; no fees or dues
to be levied - voluntary contributions only; no member to be expelled from A.A.
- membership always to be the choice of the individual; each A.A. group to con-duct
its internal affairs as it wishes - it being merely requested to abstain from acts
that might injure A.A. as a whole; and finally that any group of alcoholics gathered
together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group,
they have no other purpose or affiliation.
It is probable that we A.A.‘s possess more and greater freedom than any fellowship
in the world today. As we have already seen, we claim this as no virtue. We know
that we personally have to choose conformity to A.A.‘s Twelve Steps and Twelve
Traditions or else face dissolution and death, both as individuals and as groups.
Because we set such a high value on our great liberties, and cannot conceive a
time when they will need to be limited, we here specially enjoin our General Service
Conference to abstain completely from any and all acts of authoritative government
which could in any wise curtail A.A.‘s freedom under God. The maintenance of these
freedoms in our Conference is a great and practical guarantee that the Conference
itself will always remain democratic in action and in spirit.
Therefore we expect that our Conferences will always try to act in the spirit of
mutual respect and love - one member for another. In turn, this sign signifies that
mutual trust should prevail; that no action ought to be taken in anger, haste, or
recklessness; that care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities; that
no action should ever be personally punitive; that whenever possible, important
actions will be taken in substantial unanimity; and that our Conference will ever be
prudently on guard against tyrannies, great or small, whether these be found in the
73

majority or in the minority.
The sum of these several attitudes and practices is, in our view, the very essence
of democracy - in action and spirit.
Freedom under God to grow in His likeness and image will ever be the quest of
the Alcoholics Anonymous. May our General Service Conference be always seen
as a chief symbol of this cherished liberty.
To a
which
man, we of A.A. believe that our freedom to serve is truly the freedom bY
we live the freedom in which we have our being.
11988-about one to more than fourteen thousand.
*In 1987, the $7,4ll,OOO Reserve Fund would have covered about eleven and one-half months’ operating
~~?&iparable current information is that, in 1987, contributions fell short of group services by $1,171,600
(office expenses were a net income of $278,200, while other expenses of the General Service Board were
a net expense of $1449,700); the difference was made up by publishing income. The Grapevine operates
at about breakeven.
4However, the name Alcoholics Anonymous, the abbreviation A. A., and the triangle-in-circle symbol
were all legally registered in 1973.
5Bill here, apparently inadvertently, used the phrase ”in action and spirit,” instead of ”in thought and
action,” that appears elsewhere in both the Conference Charter and the statement of Concept XII.
74

This is A.A. General Service
Conference-approved literature