If the chair was elected by the committee, he is accountable to that
committee, e.g. a Group, an Intergroup, or a Region. The committee he chairs simultaneously
forms the body whose group conscience he is accountable to. In principle there
should never be a situation where he is able to override the conscience of that
committee except in the gravest of circumstances.
If the chair is the chair of a sub-committee, to which he was appointed by
the Region (say), and the other sub-committee members are volunteers or
co-appointees, the chair is accountable to the Region, not to the
sub-committee. The sub-committee are his collaborators; the Region is the body
whose group conscience he is accountable to. In principle, there could be
a situation where he is able legitimately to override the conscience of that
sub-committee. Such instances will be rare, and views of the sub-committee are
typically to be taken as indicative of the views of the body that formed the
sub-committee.
Why this discrepancy? In service, you are responsible to those who
appointed you, not those who assist you. In Regions (say), these are the same
people; on sub-committees, these are different people (or at least the same people
in different roles).
The sub-committee authority question is most evident in sub-committees to
the General Service Board. Such committees are appointed
individual-by-individual by the Board, and the Board Member is appointed by the
existing Board, as ratified by the fellowship of AA. The Board Member is not accountable
to the sub-committee: the purpose of the sub-committee is to assist
the Board Member in the discharge of his duties. This is a fundamentally
different position in relation to the chair than is seen at Region, Intergroup,
or Group level. In practice, the Board Member will seek to proceed on the basis
of consensus-building and will actively seek and take into account the views of
the sub-committee's members. On occasion, the Board Member, in response to or
in anticipation of the response of the Board to an issue, will override the
consensus of the sub-committee. This is completely legitimate and happens regularly.
Delegation procedures also differ. A secretary of a Region is appointed by the
Region, to which he is accountable. A secretary of a sub-committee appointed by
the chair is accountable to the chair. Just as the Region may direct the secretary,
defining the scope of those responsibilities and increasing, amending, or
curtailing them over time, so the equivalent responsibility on a sub-committee
falls ultimately to the chair, not to the group conscience of the
sub-committee. Again, whilst consensus-building is the ideal, in situations of
conflict where an urgent decision is necessary or where there is a conflict
between the appointing body (e.g. the Region) and the sub-committee members, it
is the chair whose decision is carried, in line with the stated or anticipated
response of the appointing body (e.g. the Region).
Grievance procedures nonetheless apply.
References: Concepts I, II, III, V, IX, X, XI, XII