Source:
The Twelve Concepts for World Service (and AA Service Manual)
pp.
60 – 65
“Concept
XII
General
Warranties of the Conference: in all its proceedings, the General
Service Conference shall observe the spirit of the A.A. Tradition,
taking great care that the conference never becomes the seat of
perilous wealth or power;
that sufficient operating funds, plus an ample reserve, be its
prudent financial principle; 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 whenever possible, by substantial unanimity; that no
Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to
public controversy; 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........
Warranty
One: “The Conference shall never become the seat of perilous
wealth or power.” What is meant by “perilous wealth and 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 contributions 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 staffs enough authority,
there can be little risk, either. Long experience, now codified in
these Twelve Concepts, suggests 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 rotation, 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. Taken all together, these factors 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 servants, “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 combined income of A.A. members, now more than a billion
dollars a year, has been 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 emergencies or for education of
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 disappear 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 [tell that to group treasurers
who regularly use emotional manipulation to raise funds eg.
'gratitude week' – the implication being that if you don't
contribute you are in some way being 'ungrateful'!]. 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 expensive 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 Service 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. (with
the current employment level standing at 13 in Great Britain this
ratio of “one paid helper to every seven thousand recovered
alcoholics” would suggest a membership of 110,000. The actual
membership is estimated
to be 40,000 requiring therefore only 6 to 7 staff)
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.2
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 [we'd be curious to know exactly
how many alcoholics GSO has been responsible for saving directly?
We'd guess NONE …. directly. Recovery begins with one alcoholic
talking with another – which would happen with or without the
General Service Office], 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. book 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 spirituality.
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? (how
does selling literature at cost price constitute “financial
charity”? Nobody is suggesting giving the literature away - just
not making a profit on it!)
Should this sort of giving [paying
for a book is not 'giving'. It is a straightforward financial
transaction. 'Giving' constitutes a charitable act and does not
constitute a contract. A financial transaction clearly does]
not be the responsibility of individuals? Is the Headquarters’
income from A.A. books really a profit
after all? (Short
answer: Yes)
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? [what
this means is that you retrench, economise, lay people off, cut costs
just like the rest of us! In the “good times” where “group
contributions are exceeding … service needs by about 5%” you are
able build up a reserve to be drawn upon when the bad times come.
This is called prudent financial management].
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 $70,000 every twelve months.
If in 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 [see
above].
Much mail would go unanswered, pleas for information 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 Service Conference would have to be drastically reduced (no
bad thing in itself).
Practically and spiritually, these would be the penalties were we to
dissipate our Reserve Fund and its book income. [but
despite all this AA, its meetings and its essential services would
continue unabated. Most people would hardly notice the difference]
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 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 [by
how much? And when will these be enough?] 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 (see
above. Selling books at cost does not “amount” to a “money
charity”. Therefore the entire argument subsequently presented by
Bill Wilson on this theme is entirely fallacious)
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 instalment 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 [hardly
the point!]
the going price. It appears to be altogether clear [is
it?] that
our world services need those book dollars far 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
[simply calling something “noncommercial
doesn't make it “noncommercial”!] book income really a
profit after all? In my view, it is not [according
to the standard definition of profit
it it clearly is]. This net 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 contributions [but
they are not actually 'contributions' in the voluntary sense. They
are financial transactions]. 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 [or
more properly – financial transactions. Bill's repeated attempts to
reframe the argument here simply constitutes a form of semantic
camouflage which fails entirely to obscure the underlying reality].
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 independently 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 …..." [of
course an alternative would have been to employ Bill like other full
time workers. This seems to us another highly dubious
rationalisation. A matter of history now but …..]
________________
1
2013—about
one to seventeen thousand, U.S. and Canada.
2
At
December 31, 2013, the net assets of the Reserve Fund (excluding the
liability for pension benefits) were $15,301,600, and represented
10.9 months of the $16,879,500 of recurring operating expenses of the
operating entities. In 2012, the net assets represented a reserve of
11.3 months of operating expenses.”
(our
emphases)(our comments in red)
Comment:
The above is simply an extended rationalisation (much like Bill's
attempt to argue that recitation of the Lord's Prayer (Christian) in
AA meetings might not be regarded as implying any kind of religious
affiliation on account of its widespread usage elsewhere?) in support
of book sale generated profits subsidising GSO (a direct
contradiction of Tradition 7). The act of deciding to buy a book -
or not - is clearly, in itself, voluntary. However the distinction
between voluntary 'giving' and entering into a contract is determined
in this instance by who sets the amount. If you as 'buyer' decide
(including paying nothing) then it's a voluntary contribution. If the
seller decides it's a contract. Moreover it should be remembered
that literature is not only sold to AA members but also to treatment
centres etc. These are necessarily “outside organisations”.
This constitutes yet another breach of Tradition 7!
We
propose that books be sold only at cost for those who prefer that
kind of 'hard copy' medium (or do not have access to the internet).
With regard to digital publications these should all be made freely
available with the option to donate a sum if the reader wishes (with
the maximum set at the 'hard copy' cost price. A proviso should be
added that non-members (ie. outside organisations) donate nothing).
Only then will we be operating in accordance with those principles
which we, after all, set for ourselves.
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous … and NOT funded by
profits from book sales ….. or indeed ANY other kind)
