Aa history Lovers 2004 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page

no national boundaries. This pattern would insure a Conference richly

populated with AA viewpoints from many parts of the world. It would

be necessary to replace the missing national General Service Office with

some mechanism to act for the Conference between its meeting times, but

such a Conference could be assembled online with less difficulty than a

face to face Conference.

Service Conference held out the only real hope for meaningful

participation by online AA members in the group conscience process.

The potential for future participation by an Online Service Conference in

the World Service Meeting or conceptual "World Service Conference" is an

attractive, if uncertain, possibility. The question remaining was whether

or not the online groups would understand and support the concept of an

Online Service Conference of their own.

as follows: "We, the members of Alcoholics Anonymous who share our

experience, strength and hope on the internet, now assemble to discuss

our common purpose and establish the Online Service Conference to unify

our voice in the worldwide Fellowship of AA." This was

offered to online groups for their endorsement..

work was finished, and that it should be dissolved to reassemble and

continue its work outside the intergroup. This ended affiliation

between the intergroup and the new general service structure under

development. Former committee members took on the tasks of

identifying online groups and inviting them to meet, and established

procedures to keep the confusion of a new organization to a minimum,

including a new "Steering Committee" to act in the role of a General

Service Office between Conference meetings in "cyberspace." Six committee

members were designated to serve as "Interim Steering Committee" to guide

activities for the first meetings of the new Conference, and an agenda

was prepared for the first meeting, set for July 1, 2002.

1-31, 2002, when the Interim Steering Committee assembled approximately

49 interested members representing around 32 online groups. There was

discussion of many issues of concern to online AA groups, including how a

group conscience could be formed online, issues of internet publication

of AA copyrighted documents, online anonymity, relationships with "face

to face" AA bodies, and other concerns.
The first Online Service Conference representatives together passed only

two actions; the first, ratifying the Conference as beginning a general

service structure for online AA and planning to meet again in January

2003; the second, to elect six members of a Steering Committee to stand

for the Conference and prepare an agenda in the interim between

meetings.

members (including 33 group representatives, plus alternates and steering

committee) continuing discussion of many of the issues considered in the

first Conference. The agenda included (1) definition of an "online

AA group," (2) online literature publication and AAWS copyrights, (3)

using online AA to reach those who cannot be served by "face to face" AA,

(4) anonymity guidelines for the internet, (5) issues affecting world

unity of the AA Fellowship, (6) future OSC participation with other AA

organizations. New committees were organized, including one to search for

more online AA groups who might be invited to OSC, a Literature

Committee, a Translation Committee and a Web Committee. Nominations were

taken for candidates for the Steering Committee, to be voted at the third

Online Service Conference in July 2003. No Online Advisory Actions

were voted during the second conference.

represented, plus alternates and steering committee members, totaling 57

members. Two actions were considered - a definition of online AA

groups, and a recommendation that online groups provide representatives

to OSC for two year periods. Neither passed with substantial

unanimity and both were referred for further study. Committees were

formed to study the issues which had been offered. New members were

elected to fill vacant Steering Committee positions. As in the previous

assembly, no Online Advisory Actions were voted during the third

conference.

groups represented, plus alternates and steering committee members,

totaling 73 members. The most significant action at the assembly

was introduction of a proposed Charter for OSC presented by James C. from

the UK, as chairman of the Voting Methods Committee. The Web Committee

also presented its work on the OSC website for comment by the

assembly. No voting actions were offered with the agenda or acted

upon during the conference assembly.

From: Lash, William (Bill) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2/10/2004 10:48:00 AM

set an example of personal humility for AA today and tomorrow.

decision that ran counter to his own strong, self-admitted desire for

personal achievement and recognition.

The AA co-founder declined, with humble gratitude, an honorary degree of

Doctor of Laws offered by Yale, one of the nation's oldest, most famous, and

most prestigious universities. Acceptance would have brought him - and AA -

enormous amounts of favorable publicity. The university, too, would have

received respectful recognition from press, public, and the academic world

for presenting the degree. Yet he turned it down.

Would a yes from Bill have vastly changed AA as we know it today? Would the

change have been for better, or for worse? Could Bill's acceptance of the

honor have sown seeds that, in time, would have destroyed AA? These are some

of the questions that figured in Bill's perplexity and in his prayers.

The Grapevine is publishing the correspondence between Bill and Reuben A.

Holden, then secretary of the university. The exchange of letters followed a

personal visit to Bill from Mr. Holden and Professor Selden Bacon in January

of 1954. The following week, Bill received this letter:
Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

January 21, 1954

Dear Mr. W :

I enclose a suggested draft of a citation which might be used in conferring

upon you the proposed honorary degree on June 7th.

If your trustees approve this formula, I should then like to submit it to

the Yale Corporation for their consideration.

The wording can be considerably improved. We shall work on that during the

next few months, but in every instance we shall be sure it has your

unqualified blessing.

Thanks for your hospitality on Tuesday and for your thoughtful consideration

of our invitation.

Very sincerely yours,

Reuben A. Holden
(Naturally, Bill's full name was used in all this private exchange. In

observance of the Eleventh and Twelfth Traditions, the Grapevine is

maintaining his anonymity at the public level.)

This is the first draft of the text of the citation:

W.W.:

Co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. For twenty years, this Fellowship has

surrender, fame achieved through anonymity, and for many tens of thousands,

the emotional, the physical, and the spiritual self has been rediscovered

and reborn. This nonprofessional movement, rising from the depths of intense

suffering and universal stigma, has not only shown the way to the conquest

of a morbid condition of body, mind, and soul, but has invigorated the

individual, social, and religious life of our times.

Yale takes pride in honoring this great anonymous assembly of men and women

by conferring upon you, a worthy representative of its high purpose, this

degree of Doctor of Laws, admitting you to all its rights and privileges.

Office), Bill sent this reply:

February 2, 1954

Mr. Reuben Holden, secretary

Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

Dear Mr. Holden,

This is to express my deepest thanks to the members of the Yale Corporation

for considering me as one suitable for the degree of Doctor of Laws.

It is only after most careful consultation with friends, and with my

conscience, that I now feel obligated to decline such a mark of distinction.

Were I to accept, the near term benefit to Alcoholics Anonymous and to

legions who still suffer our malady would, no doubt, be worldwide and

considerable. I am sure that such a potent endorsement would greatly hasten

public approval of AA everywhere. Therefore, none but the most compelling of

reasons could prompt my decision to deny Alcoholics Anonymous an opportunity

of this dimension.

Now this is the reason: The tradition of Alcoholics Anonymous - our only

means of self-government - entreats each member to avoid all that particular

kind of personal publicity or distinction which might link his name with our

Society in the general public mind. AA's Tradition Twelve reads as follows:

"Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding

us to place principles before personalities."

Because we have already had much practical experience with this vital

principle, it is today the view of every thoughtful AA member that if, over

the years ahead, we practice this anonymity absolutely, it will guarantee

our effectiveness and unity by heavily restraining those to whom public

honors and distinctions are but the natural stepping-stones to dominance and

personal power.

Like other men and women, we AAs look with deep apprehension upon the vast

power struggle about us, a struggle in myriad forms that invades every

level, tearing society apart. I think we AAs are fortunate to be acutely

aware that such forces must never be ruling among us, lest we perish

altogether.

The Tradition of personal anonymity and no honors at the public level is our

protective shield. We dare not meet the power temptation naked.

Of course, we quite understand the high value of honors outside our

Fellowship. We always find inspiration when these are deservedly bestowed

and humbly received as the hallmarks of distinguished attainment or service.

We say only that in our special circumstances it would be imprudent for us

to accept them for AA achievement.

For example: My own life story gathered for years around an implacable

pursuit of money, fame, and power, anti-climaxed by my near sinking in a sea

of alcohol. Though I survived that grim misadventure, I well understand that

the dread neurotic germ of the power contagion has survived in me also. It

is only dormant, and it can again multiply and rend me - and AA, too. Tens

of thousands of my fellow AAs are temperamentally just like me. Fortunately,

they know it, and I know it. Hence our Tradition of anonymity, and hence my

clear obligation to decline this signal honor with all the immediate

satisfaction and benefit it could have yielded.

True, the splendid citation you propose, which describes me as "W. W.," does

protect my anonymity for the time being. Nevertheless, it would surely

appear on the later historical record that I had taken an LL.D. The public

would then know the fact. So, while I might accept the degree within the

letter of AA's Tradition as of today, I would surely be setting the stage

for a violation of its spirit tomorrow. This would be, I am certain, a

perilous precedent to set.

Though it might be a novel departure, I'm wondering if the Yale Corporation

could consider giving AA itself the entire citation, omitting the degree to

me. In such an event, I will gladly appear at any time to receive it on

behalf of our Society. Should a discussion of this possibility seem

desirable to you, I'll come to New Haven at once.

Gratefully yours,

William G. W

Dear Mr. W :

I have waited to respond to your letter, of February 2 until we had a

meeting of the Committee on Honorary Degrees, which has now taken place, and

I want to report to you on behalf of the committee that after hearing your

magnificent letter, they all wish more than ever they could award you the

degree - though it probably in our opinion isn't half good enough for you.

The entire committee begged me to tell you in as genuine a way as I can how

very deeply they appreciated your considering this invitation as thoroughly

and thoughtfully and unselfishly as you have. We understand completely your

feelings in the matter, and we only wish there were some way we could show

you our deep sense of respect for you and AA. Some day, the opportunity will

surely come.

Meanwhile, I should say that it was also the feeling of the committee that

honorary degrees are, like knighthoods, bestowed on individuals, and that

being the tradition, it would seem logical that we look in other ways than

an honorary-degree award for the type of recognition that we should like to

give the organization in accordance with the suggestion you made in your

last paragraph. I hope this may be possible.

I send you the warmest greetings of the president of Yale University and of

the entire corporation and assure you of our sincere admiration and good

wishes for the continued contribution you are making to the welfare of this

country.

Cordially yours,

Reuben A. Holden
The series of letters ends with Bill's acknowledgment:

March 1, 1954

Dear Mr. Holden,

Your letter of February 8th, in which you record the feelings of the Yale

Corporation respecting my declination of the degree of Doctor of Laws, has

been read with great relief and gratitude. I shall treasure it always.

Your quick and moving insight into AA's vital need to curb its future

aspirants to power, the good thought you hold of me, and your hope that the

Yale Corporation might presently find the means of giving Alcoholics

Anonymous a suitable public recognition, are something for the greatest

satisfaction.

Please carry to the president of Yale and to every member of the board my

lasting appreciation.

Devotedly yours,

Bill W
Recently, the Grapevine received a letter from an AA who was a trustee on

the AA General Service Board at the time of this offer to Bill. The former

trustee, Cliff W. of California, recalls talking to Bill at the board

meeting following the ex-change of correspondence.

"I suggested that we make a pamphlet of these letters, as his refusal letter

was truly magnificent. Bill grinned and replied, 'Not while I'm alive. I

don't want to capitalize on humility.'" Cliff suggested to the Grapevine

that it would now be proper to print the letters.

During Bill's lifetime, copies of the Yale correspondence were privately

circulated within the Fellowship, with Bill's knowledge and consent. Jim A.,

who in 1965 was AA public information chairman for a central office in a

large West Coast city, wrote to Bill, asking permission to show the letters

to anonymity-breakers "...as an example that AA probably does not need their

individual names to keep it going or to make it more effective."

In reply, Bill wrote, "Certainly, you may show that Yale correspondence in a

limited way. But I see you agree that it would not be exactly right on my

part to consent to its general publication at this time. Actually, I'm not

so damn noble as you suppose. In reality, I rather wanted that

degree...However, I think the principle of anonymity will be so invaluable

to us, especially in future time, that one in my position should really fall

over backwards in trying to demonstrate the principle. By way of example, it

might help in the years to come."

Ten years before this, just one year after the Yale correspondence had ended

and less than two weeks before the Twentieth Anniversary AA Convention in

St. Louis in 1955, Bill replied to a Canadian AA friend who felt that

publishing the letters at that time would "help consolidate AA and fortify

the anonymity Tradition."

"I agree with you in part," Bill answered, "that publication now could help

temporarily. But I do think that publication would imply my permission and

would therefore be not a little ego manifestation on my part.

"Actually, when I declined the degree, I did it with the long future in

mind. I could picture a possible time when AA might find itself in some

great contention and crisis. At that time, this letter, though bearing the

dead hand, might have a marked, even a deciding, effect...Anyhow, I would be

disinclined to have it generally published at present - that is, published

under circumstances which will surely indicate to the reader that I have

given my consent."

Under present circumstances - seven years after Bill's death - there is

clearly no possibility of the consent that he called an "ego manifestation."

The Grapevine feels that AA members, now numbering around eight times as

many as were sober in 1954, have a right to know of Bill's example of both

courage and humility. This correspondence may help all of us appreciate the

sacrifice Bill made for us, and for the countless alcoholics yet to come to

our Fellowship for help.

From: t . . . . . . . . . . . . 2/10/2004 12:15:00 PM

newspaperman who

borrowed the Big Book from the Minneapolis Library, read it, and wrote to

the

help

August 9, 1940. The Alcoholic Foundation replied to Pat and sent his name on

to

the

1940.

took his last drink on November 11, 1940, and began working with others, and

the

first AA meeting in Minneapolis occurred shortly afterward. That is the

and

all

the state can trace their beginnings back to Pat C. and 2218 First Avenue

South,

the

We had other beginnings and other pioneers, however, and this is the story

of

another

stone

Minneapolis: There is a group that meets in Minneapolis, at 6301 Penn Avenue

South,

which celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in October 1993. The name of the

is

the Nicollet Chapter and it began in 1943 when Barry C. left 2218 to start a

group, styled after the groups of his friend and AA's co-founder, Dr. Bob of

Akron, Ohio.

It was a big deal when the Nicollet Chapter left 2218. Until that time, 2218

was the

hub of all of the AA activity in this area. 2218 was mother and mentor to

AA

groups, and most early groups asked for and got a lot of help in starting.

the

that

and it shook a lot of AA members up. Was this a fight? Was there a problem?

Was

somebody going to get drunk? Barry and Pat both said no, but a rift was

between 2218 and the Nicollet Chapter that never quite healed.

Barry C. had quietly gotten sober in April of 1940, a few months before Pat,

after a

who

and

much of the first months of his sobriety incapacitated. Barry was in the

hospital

when Pat got sober and began working with others. He always had a much

"lower

profile" than Pat, and did not contend Pat's status as the founder of AA in

known, as

witnessed in this 1941 letter to his fellow Minneapolis AAs: "Many of you,

perhaps,

Only

fact that he was hopelessly invalided for a long time prevented Barry from

getting

out and organizing. You all know what he has accomplished since he has been

to

get around. That guy has more ideas in five minutes than I have in five

and we

Barry C. corresponded with Bob and others in Akron, Cleveland and Chicago,

and

the

believed

alcoholism was a family problem and that recovery must include the entire

family

-

the attendance of wives was strongly suggested. The Nicollet Group's most

characteristic was its intolerance of "slippers." Prospective members were

asked

if

they were ready, willing, and able to practice the Twelve Steps. If not,

were

considered

paramount, and once a member lost their faith, it was felt that it could not

be

easily regained.

with.

Falls,

modeled

the Nicollet Group. Those groups still correspond today, and still believe

that

their

ideology,

the Nicollet Group members stayed to themselves. The growth of AA in

Minnesota

and

nationwide did not change them. The adoption of the Traditions did not

their

And, fifty years later, the Nicollet Groups' 100 or so members still stick

to

the

There

coffee, yes, and more food than usual at a meeting place. Folks know each

other,

and

the

not.

Nicollet

also

meetings, or

notices of intergroup happenings. They do not participate in these events.

When I was newly sober, I asked an older AA member about our cofounders, Dr.

Bob and

Bill W. She told me about Dr. Bob wishing to keep AA simple, and about Bill

super

would

have made it out of the midwest, and if Bill had his way, it would be set up

as

an

international franchise. She said that between the two of them, they created

balance between simple service and service organization that we needed to

function

and carry out our primary purpose.

I don't know if this is what Dr. Bob had in mind, but I thought of this when

I

visited

newcomers,

and

talk of the Steps, and families, and sharing, and picnics, and announcements

visit

who

celebrating their one year membership in the group. I met couples who were

20 or

25

year members. I saw (and was given to pass on to our area archives) a wealth

historical materials - correspondence, articles, photographs - all telling

of

the

As a group, Nicollet is recognizing that in order to survive AA groups need

to

work

our

intergroup directory. They know they need to work with others, as do we all.

Autonomy

is a valued possession, and we cannot deny the Nicollet Group theirs. There

is a

lesson in autonomy here for me as an AA member. I see our autonomy must end

others are affected, as it states in the Fourth Tradition. The Nicollet

Group

will be

interaction

with them.

The Nicollet Group deserves recognition for their fifty years of meeting

together,

growing together, and staying sober together. They have contributed much to

the

fabric of AA.

1960 (Part One of Two)

From: NMOlson@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 2/11/2004 3:19:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Proposal by Bill W.
For
Twelve Concepts For World Service
10th General Service Conference - 1960
This proposal, delivered by Bill W. at the closing of the 10th General

Service Conference, is of great historical significance as it was the first

time that Bill had spoken to the Fellowship on the subject of the Twelve

Concepts.

its course. And you have asked me, as of old, to conclude this conference,

our tenth.
I always approach this hour with mixed feelings. As time has passed, each

year succeeding itself, I have found increasing gratitude beyond measure,

because of the increasing sureness that AA is safe at last for God, so long

as he may wish this society to endure. So I stand here among you and feel as

you do a sense of security and gratitude such as we have never known before.

There is not a little regret, too, that the other side of the coin -- that

we cannot turn back the clock and renew these hours. Soon they will become a

part of our history.

represent three utter impossibilities, impossibilities that we know became

possible, and possibilities that now have borne this unbelievable fruit. Old

Fitz Mayo, one of the early AAs and I visited the Surgeon General of the

United States in the third year of this society, told him of our beginnings.

He was a gentle man, Dr. Lawrence Kolb, since become a great friend of AA,

and he said: "I wish you well. Even the sobriety of such a few is almost a

miracle. The government knows that this is one of the greatest health

problems we have, one of the greatest moral problems, one of the greatest

spiritual problems. But we here have considered recovery of alcoholics so

impossible that we have given up and have instead concluded that

rehabilitation of narcotic addicts would be the easier job to tackle."

become possible? First, the Grace of Him who presides over all of us. Next,

the cruel lash of John Barleycorn who said, "This you must do, or die."

Next, the intervention of God through friends, at first a few, and now

legion, who opened to us, who in the early days were uncommitted, the whole

field of human ideas, morality and religion, from which we could choose.

spirit which were first fused into our Twelve Steps for recovery. And some

of us got well. But no sooner had a few got sober then the old forces began

to come into play. In us rather frail people, they were fearsome: the old

forces, the drives, money, acclaim, prestige.
Would these tear us apart? Besides, we came from every walk of life. Early,

we had begun to be a cross section of all men and women, all differently

conditioned, all so different and yet happily so alike in our kinship of

suffering. Could we hold in unity? To those few who remain who lived in

those earlier times when the Traditions were being forged in the school of

hard experience on its thousands of anvils, we had our very, very dark

moments.
It was sure recovery was in sight, but how could there be recovery for many?

Or how could recovery endure if we were to fall into controversy and so into

dissolution and decay? Well, the spirit of the Twelve Steps, which has

brought us release, from one of the grimmest obsessions known -- obviously,

this spirit and these principles of retaining Grace had to be the

fundamentals of our unity. But in order to become fundamental to our unity,

these principles had to be spelled out as they applied to the most prominent

and the most grievous of our problems.

lives of working and living together, these were the forces that generated

the Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.
But, we had to have more than cohesion. Even for survival, we had to carry

this message. We had to function. In fact, that had become evident in the

Twelve Steps themselves for the last one enjoins us to carry the message.

But just how would we carry this message? How would we communicate, we few,

with those myriad's who still didn't know? And how would this communication

be handled? And how could we do these things, how could we authorize these

things in such a way that in this new hot focus of effort and ego we were

not again to be shattered by the forces that had once ruined our lives?

right up through our society to its culmination today. And, again, many of

us said: This can't be done. It's all very well for Bill and Bob and a few

friends to set up a Board of Trustees and to provide us with some

literature, and look after our public relations, and do all of those chores

for us we can't do for ourselves. This is fine, but we can't go any further

than that. This is a job for our elders. This is a job for our parents. In

this direction only can there be simplicity and security.

fallible and perishable (although this seems to be a token they are not).

And Dr. Bob's hour struck. And we suddenly realized that this ganglion, this

vital nerve center of World Service, would lose its sensation the day the

communication between an increasingly unknown Board of Trustees and you was

broken.
Fresh links would have to be forged. And at that time many of us said: This

is impossible. This is too hard. Even in transacting the simplest business,

providing the simplest of services, raising the minimum amounts of money,

these excitements to us, in this society so bent on survival have been

almost too much locally. Look at our club brawls. My God, if we have

elections countrywide, and Delegates come down here, and look at the

complexity -- thousands of group representatives, hundreds of committeemen,

scores of Delegates - My God, when these descend on our parents, the

Trustees, what is going to happen then? It won't be simplicity; it can't be.

Our experience has spelled it out.
But there was the imperative, the must. And why was there an imperative?

Because we had better have some confusion, we had better have some

politicking, than to have an utter collapse of this center. That was the

alternative. And that was the uncertain and tenuous ground on which this

Conference was called into being.
I venture, in the minds of many, sometimes in mine, the Conference could be

symbolized by a great prayer and a faint hope. This was the state of affairs

in 1945 to 1950. And then came the day that some of us went up to Boston to

watch an Assembly elect by two-thirds vote or lot a Delegate. And prior to

the Assembly, I consulted all the local politicos and those very wise

Irishmen in Boston said, we're gonna make your prediction Bill, you know us

temperamentally, but we're going to say that this thing is going to work.

And it was the biggest piece of news and one of the mightiest assurances

that I had up to this time that there could be any survival for these

services.

we survived the impossibility, we have so far transcended it that I think

that there can be no return in future years to the old uncertainties, come

what perils there may.

was applied in specific terms to our problems, to living, to working

together. This developed the Traditions. In turn, the Traditions were

applied to this problem of functioning at world levels in harmony and in

unity.
And something which had seemed to grow like Topsy took on an increasing

coherence. And through the process of trial and error, refinements began to

be made until the day of the great radical change. Our question here in the

old days was: Is the group conscience for Trustees and for founders? Or are

they to be the parents of Alcoholics Anonymous forever? There is something a

little repugnant -- you know, They got it through us, why can't we go on

telling them?
So the great problem, could the group conscience function at world levels?

Well, it can and it does. Today we are still in this process of definition

and of refinement in this matter of functioning. Unlike the Twelve Steps and

the Twelve Traditions which no doubt will be undisturbed from here out,

there will always be room in the functional area for refinements,

improvements, adaptations. For God's sake, let us never freeze these things.

On the other hand, let us look at yesterday and today, at our experience.

Now, just as it was vital to codify in Twelve Steps the spiritual side of

our program, to codify in twelve traditional principles the forces and ideas

that would make for unity, and discourage disunity, so may it now be

necessary to codify, those principles and relationships upon which our world

service function rests, from the group right up through.

by structuring? What use is it? Why don't we just get together and do these

things? Well, structure at this level means just what structure means in the

Twelve Steps and in the Twelve Traditions. It is a stated set of principles

and relationships by which we may understand each other, the tasks to be

done and what the principles are for doing them. Therefore, why shouldn't we

take the broad expanse of the Traditions and use their principles to spell

out our special needs in relationships in this area of function for world

service, indeed, at long last, I trust for all services whatever character?
Well, we've been in the process of doing this and two or three years ago it

occurred to me that I should perhaps take another stab -- not at another

batch of twelve principles or points, God forbid, but at trying to organize

the ideas and relationships that already exist so as to present them in an

easily understood manner.
(continued in Part Two)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 1654. . . . . . . . . . . . 10th General Service Conference -

1960 (Part Two of Two)

From: NMOlson@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 2/11/2004 3:25:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
As you know the Third Legacy Manual is a manual that largely tells us how;

it is mostly a thing of mere description and of procedure. So I have cooked

up in a very tentative way something which we might call Twelve Concepts for

World Service. This has been a three-year job. I found the material, because

of its ramifications, exceedingly hard to organize. But I have made a stab

at it and the Concepts, which are really bundles of related principles, are

on paper and underneath each is a descriptive article. And I have eleven of

the articles and perhaps will soon wind up the Twelfth.

venture to bore you with two or three paragraphs of the introduction to this

thing.
"The Concepts to be discussed in the following pages are primarily an

interpretation of AA's world service structure. They spell out the

traditional practices and the Conference charter principles that relate the

component parts of our world structure into a working whole. Our Third

Legacy manual is largely a document of procedure. Up to now the Manual tells

us how to operate our service structure. But there is considerable lack of

detailed information which would tell us why the structure has developed as

it has and why its working parts are related together in the fashion that

our Conference and General Service Board charters provide.
"These Twelve Concepts therefore represent an attempt to put on paper the

why of our service structure in such a fashion that the highly valuable

experience of the past and the conclusions that we have drawn from it cannot

be lost.
"These Concepts are no attempt to freeze our operation against needed

change. They only describe the present situation, the forces and principles

that have molded it. It is to be remembered that in most respects the

Conference charter can be readily amended. This interpretation of the past

and present can, however, have a high value for the future. Every oncoming

generation of service workers will be eager to change and improve our

structure and operations. This is good. No doubt change will be needed.

Perhaps unforeseen flaws will emerge. These will have to be remedied.
"But along with this very constructive outlook, there will be bound to be

still another, a destructive one. We shall always be tempted to throw out

the baby with the bath water. We shall suffer the illusion that change, any

plausible change, will necessarily represent progress. When so animated, we

may carelessly cast aside the hard won lessons of early experience and so

fall back into many of the great errors of the past.

and lessons of the early days constantly before us. This should reduce the

chance of hasty and unnecessary change. And if alterations are made that

happen to work out badly, then it is hoped that these Twelve Concepts will

make a point of safe return."
Now, quickly, what are they?
Well, the first two deal with: ultimate responsibility and authority for

world services belongs to the AA group. That is to say, that's the AA

conscience.
The next one deals with the necessity for delegates' authority. And perhaps

you haven't thought of it, but when you re-read Tradition Two, you will see

that the group conscience represents a final and ultimate authority and that

the trusted servant is the delegated authority from the groups in which the

servant is trusted to do the kinds of things for the groups they can't do

for themselves. So, how that got that way, respecting world services:

ultimate authority, delegated authority is here spelled out.
Then there comes in the next essay this all questioned importance of

leadership, this all important question of what anyway is a trusted servant.

Is this gent or gal a messenger, a housemaid - or is he to be really

trusted? And if so, how is he going to know how much he can be trusted? And

what is going to be your understanding of it when you hand him the job? Now,

these problems are legion. The extent to which this trust is to be spelled

out and applied to each particular condition has to have some means of

interpretation, doesn't it? So I have suggested here that, throughout our

services, we create what might be called the principle of decision - and the

root of this principle is trust. The principle of decision, which says that

any executive, committee, board, the Conference itself, within the state or

customary scope of their several duties, should be able to say what

questions they will dispose of themselves - and which they will pass on to

the next higher authority for guidance, direction, consultation and whatnot.

throughout our structure at all times, what the trust is that any servant

could expect. You say this is dangerous? I don't think so. It simply means

that you are not, out of your ultimate authority as groups, to be constantly