1300 222 222
In December 2023 an article was published on the AA members’ website with the title “Two Thirds Majority Delegates @ Conference – an Ongoing Desire” I would like to offer another perspective on this important issue.
What the Two-Thirds About?
The original US / Canadian design for Conference drawn up by AA’s founders specified that:
Area Delegates make up at least two-thirds of the Conference body.
In Australia, when we established our service structure, we changed that in our service manual <LINK> to say:
Area Delegates should ideally constitute more than two-thirds of voting members.
This small seemingly insignificant change undermines one of the main purposes of Conference: to ensure that ultimate responsibility and final authority for AA resides with AA groups (Concept I); that the Board and related AA service bodies are accountable to AA members. This means Delegates do not have their intended (two thirds) right of participation at Conference (Concept IV). They do not have the ability to give binding directions to the Board and are unable to work together to effectively prevent the accumulation of too much power, contrary to Concept XII. No other AA fellowship in the world has removed this vital pillar of accountability.
This has been a source of disunity within our fellowship for at least 42 years with advisory actions going as far back as 1982. For example, 26 years ago:
Advisory Action 1997/007 Conference acknowledges the necessity for progress towards Delegates’ votes being capable of achieving not less than two-thirds of eligible votes on any Conference Topic or Motion.
Why does it matter?
The book AA Comes of Age recounts the history of the development of AA in the USA / Canada beginning in 1935 (see in particular pp. 209 to 234 and also Bill’s discussion of Concept I in the Service Manual). From 1938 until 1954 AA’s services were overseen by the Alcoholic Foundation made up of alcoholic and non-alcoholic Trustees. After 1954 this became the General Service Board. Dr Bob and Bill W had long served as custodians of the Foundation, providing guidance to the Trustees. Members of AA had no say in their service bodies, other than through Bill W and Dr Bob.
In 1947 Dr Bob fell seriously ill and by 1948 they understood it was terminal. Realising that they would not be around forever, our founders set about developing a succession plan to give the membership authority in AA.
It was evident that here was a world-wide movement that had no direct access to its own principal affairs. The Trustees had authority over our services; AA itself had no authority. P.224.
Bill had been advocating for the establishment of an elected body made up of AA members to which the Board would be accountable. This had met with a mix of resistance and indifference. On one occasion in frustration Bill sent a memo the Board in a ham-fisted attempt to convince the Trustees of the need for accountability:
….When I was at law school the largest book I studied was on Trusts. I must say, gentlemen that it was mostly a long and melancholy account of the malfeasances and misfeasances of boards of trustees…. P. 211.
Malfeasance means deliberately doing the wrong thing, such as stealing funds. Misfeasance means not doing a job properly, for example ignoring wrongdoing because you don’t want to be bothered dealing with it. One can enable the other.
Bill’s memo went down like a lead balloon with the Trustees, but while communicated poorly, the point was a valid one. Any organisation is fallible. Organisations need accountability, even AA.
Bill made the point more diplomatically in the Service Manual:
Historically, the voting ratio has never been important, since no issue has ever divided Conference opinion along the lines of delegates opposed to Conference members. But it could conceivably be important at some time. To take care of that situation the Conference Charter provides:
“….as a matter of tradition, that a two-thirds vote of Conference members voting shall be considered binding upon the General Service Board and its related corporate services,.……”
It’s a bit like having a fire extinguisher in your home. Hopefully you will never need to use it, but it is good to know it’s there.
Bill W credits non-alcoholic Trustee and Board Chair Bernard Smith’s support and skilful advocacy for finally persuading the other Trustees to agree to establish a Conference. The first Conference of a 5-year trial was held in New York in April 1951.
It was felt that the elected delegates, meeting in New York in conference, should have very real authority. Therefore, the tentative Charter drawn for the Conference provided that the delegates, on two-thirds vote, could issue flat directives to the Trustees”….P. 230
This is a key principle of Conference and our entire service structure. It is ingrained in our Conference Charter, our Concepts, our Warranties, our Traditions and the upside-down Triangle. It gives the members, “ultimate responsibility and final authority” in their fellowship (Concept I) through their elected representatives (Concept II). It means “our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern” (Tradition Two). It is a mechanism to maximise accountability of the Service structure to its members.
Concept IV.
In Australia due to our relatively small number of Delegates, the most common suggestions for achieving a two thirds majority have been to reduce the number of non-Delegate voting Conference members. It is uncomfortable to think about removing voting participation from a person who has it. Bear in mind we have already effectively done this. We have removed voting participation from you. At least the voting participation that Bill W and our founders thought you should have when AA Came of Age in 1955 and when Bill wrote Concept I. We have done this by retaining too many non-Delegate voting positions relative to Delegates. As a result, Delegates collectively are unable to achieve anywhere near a two-thirds vote needed to truly hold ultimate responsibility and final authority.
We absolutely ought to include non-delegate voting (and non-voting) participation at Conference. It connects members to their Board and services, it gives us the benefit of a wealth of service experience and institutional knowledge, not to mention professional expertise. But it should not be at the expense of the Delegate’s authority. It doesn’t need to be. We can achieve both, with some sensible compromise. It’s also worth remembering that non-voting Conference participants have always made an enormous contribution to our fellowship.
The main objections to removing the votes of some non-Area Delegate Conference members over the years has been the suggestion that doing so conflicts with Concept IV, but that argument loses sight of our Delegates right of participation.
Concept IV states that: 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 may discharge.
Reasonable Proportion
A proportion is defined as a “part share, or number considered in relation to a whole.” The “whole” we are talking about here is Conference. The share of voting responsibility to be discharged by Area Delegates had already been established at no less than two thirds. This happened when AA Came of Age in 1955. This is in effect restated by Bill in his discussion of Concept I. The AA groups today hold ultimate responsibility and final authority for our world services…Bill does not need to mention this in his discussion of Concept IV because it’s covered in Concept I and by 1962 when the Concepts were published, it was a given. This was not simply a result of luck, population size, or geography. It was by careful and deliberate design. It was the point of Conference.
Concept IV protects the existing right of participation of Area Delegates and sets out how non-Delegate votes “ought” to be allocated (in reasonable proportion to their responsibility). It is not license to keep adding voting members to Conference because they do service, regardless of the ratio of Delegates. That would defeat the purpose of Conference and conflict with Concepts I, & IV, and Tradition 2 not to mention the Warranties.
The discussion of Concept IV is Bill’s guidance based on experience of how the structure functions in the US / Canadian context. Bill himself makes it clear that change will be necessary. The Concepts are not rules. They are described as “an interpretation of AA’s world service structure” and provide some guidance. However, our structure in Australia is a matter for us.
In his introductory essay to the Concepts Bill W wrote:
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 case for their recommendations – a case convincing to both the Trustees and the Conference. This is no more than would be required for the transaction and passage of any other important piece of AA business.
Why can’t we just reduce the proportion of Delegates needed to issue a direction to the Board?
Decisions requiring a two thirds vote are used for more serious matters, such as a vote that is binding on the General Service Board, changes to literature or policy changes and in our third legacy procedure. In some cases, a three-quarter vote is required, for example to change the Conference Structure. This is a check on the power of Conference to make big potentially destabilising changes on a whim. Similarly, Area Delegates having a two thirds majority of votes at Conference is a check on the power of the Board and our related services. Our founders very carefully designed these checks and balances into the original structure of AA. Changing voting requirements in seemingly small ways risks throwing the whole structure out of balance.
Why don’t we just wait for it to happen through growth in Areas?
It has been at least 42 years since this issue was first raised. Currently we have 22 possible delegate seats available at Conference, some of which are vacant as areas have gone dormant. If all possible non-delegate voting positions were filled it would require 30 Area delegates to meet the minimum two thirds ratio. Unless something unprecedented happens, this may not occur for decades.
What do they do in Great Britain?
The structure in Great Britain ensures that the ratio of delegates to non-delegate Conference members can never fall below two thirds. In accordance with Conference 2009 decision GSO staff of Great Britain do not have the right to vote at Conference, nor do World Service Delegates. Only Area Delegates and Trustees have a vote at Conference.
What about New Zealand?
The New Zealand General Service Conference maintains a voting ratio of Area Delegates to the non-delegate members of Conference of no less than two thirds. Due to their numerically small Conference, the only non-delegate Conference members that get a vote are 2 Class A General Service Board Trustees and 1 Class B – the chair or their nominee. World Service Delegates and the GSO manager may participate at Conference but do not have a vote.
It’s our choice
The US / Canadian, UK and New Zealand fellowships have all chosen to ensure that the groups through their delegates hold ultimate responsibility and final authority in their respective Conferences as our founders intended. They have made decisions about non Area Delegate voting participation at Conference according to their needs and in accordance with AA principle and experience. As we approach 80 years of AA in Australia, it is time for the Australian fellowship to do the same.
An AA Board Member
Disclaimer: I am currently serving on the General Service Board as a Trustee. I do not speak on behalf of the Board. The views expressed in this article are my own.
