Short form:
At all responsible levels, we ought to maintain
a traditional "Right of Participation," allowing a voting
representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must
discharge.
Long form:
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 allowing a voting representation in reasonable proportion to
the responsibility that each must discharge.
Ideas
·
The 'doers' get to vote, too, so that practical
responsibility and decision-making authority are aligned.
·
Absolute authority generates domination.
·
Those with delegated authority are not just
agents and order-takers—we need their insight and input.
·
Abstain where you have a personal interest.
·
There are no classes in AA—we all need to
participate to belong.
Questions in service
·
At group level, Intergroup, Region, etc., is
anyone being wrongfully excluded from participation?
·
At group level, Intergroup, Region, etc., is
anyone being placed in absolute authority?
·
At group level, Intergroup, Region, etc., are
the trusted servants treated as such, or are they are treated as agents or
order-takers?
·
At group level, Intergroup, Region, etc., is
voting being skewed by personal interest?
·
At group level, Intergroup, Region, etc., does
everyone get to participate?
Questions in life
·
Do I allow others a right of participation in
matters that affect them?
·
Do I allow others a right of participation in
matters they are knowledgeable or experienced about?
·
Do I dominate others?
·
Do I take responsibility myself, or do I absolve
myself of responsibility by putting someone else in charge?
·
Do I participate fully, or do I let others do
the work and make the decisions?
·
Do I act for the good of all or out of personal
interest?
·
In any area of my life, is anyone being
excluded?
Quotations
'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 institutional,
military and governmental agencies wherein high-level people or classes of
people often are set in absolute authority, one over the other.'
'In its early days the AA Headquarters was run on
authoritarian and institutional lines. At that time the Trustees saw no reason
to delegate their managerial powers 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. … 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.'
'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 virtually all responsibility in another and then expect
efficiency of operation, let alone real harmony. Of course, no one is against
the idea of final 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 AA 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 participants, trusted
servants? No, they would feel like agents and order-takers.'
'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 unwise. Why should our
Conference be deprived of the votes of such knowledgeable people as these?'
'There is another 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.'
'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 AA relation of brotherly partnership. It is our shining
ideal that the "spiritual corporation" of AA 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 AA's, neither should there be any second-class world service
workers, either.'