![]()
W.G.W.
Box 459 Grand Central Annex
New York 17, N.Y.
December
11, 1947
Dear Jimmy:
Well, it's been a long time. But you know me.
More than usually delinquent, I realize I never
answered your request for a financial lift. Nor
have I thanked you for that history of A.A. The first
came when I was feeling pretty low myself and had
already committed the dough the Foundation set aside
for us to improvements on the house. So, actually
I wasn't in a position to help. Later on George
Hood, I believe, brought me the history.
That
history I did read with tremendous interest, as have
several others who have since been to the house. I
think several of the oldtimers ought to wright [sic]
up their impressions just as you have done. If
we had a dozen such accounts, I think it would be
possible to piece together, after referring to the
office files, an extremely accurate account of just
what happened and who did what. Personally I
don't care a rap who did what. But I suppose
there will be a lot of debate about it later on. So
the material should be assembled from different points
of view and the best possible record made. I
don't think it would be possible for me ever to write
a detailed history of A.A. I could only tell the story
in a very general way. But if this thing keeps
growing and making a stir, I suppose some historian
will want to know the real facts by and by. If
we don't assemble them now, the record never will
be anywhere near straight. And lots of interesting
detail and incidents will be forever lost. So
your effort in this direction is tremendously appreciated,
Jim. Don't let my negligence of correspondence
make you think it isn't.
Lois and I expect to get out on the road a great deal
after the first of the year. It looks like we
might hit the Coast beginning at Vancouver and, say
about the middle of March. Thereafter we should
work southward, arriving two or three weeks later
at San Diego. This however, is tentative --
only a guess. The idea of the trip would be
to help explain and consolidate the Traditional material
I have been publishing in the Grapevine. The
planks of our recovery platform seem pretty solid.
The sidewalls of the structure are now going
up. They are the Traditions.
And too, we shall have to do something further about
the New York Headquarters. A self-perpetuating
Board of Trustees, unkown [sic] to most A.A. members,
could never stand up over the long future. So
we shall have to have some kind of annual conference
in which out-of-towners delegated for the purpose
would sit down and talk things over with the Trustees,
the office, and the Grapevine, and make a joint annual
report to the Groups. But how in the hell to
choose this conference without politics and uproar
has always been a puzzle.
After a lot of thought, I am beginning to think we
have an answer -- at least a partial one. The
conference can't be too big, it cant be too small.
It can't ever be a political or governing body.
Just a bunch of sane AA's who will sit down
and see whether things are going all right in New
York and make a report on it. I think that's
all we shall ever need. But how shall we make
the assembly of the conference simple, fair, and not
political? That's the burning question.
What do you think about this? Why not divide
the country, including Canada, into four equal quarants.
[sic] Suppose we take latitudes and longitude line
already on the map. Say 40 [appears that it
said 10 and was corrected by ink to 40] degrees latitude
and 95 degrees longitude. The north and south
line would pass just west of Chicago, the east and
west line just above San Francisco and Washington.
Then why not build the conference up a little
at a time. The first year a panel of twelve,
the next, twelve more, and the third year another
batch of twelve. At the end of three years the
total of out-oftowners [sic] would be thirty-six.
Which, plus the Headquarters people, would make
a conference of about fifty. To get the first
panel of twelve, we would go to the three largest
groups in each area. These twelve would be delegated
for a three-year term, and each would have an alternate.
The second year we would do exactly the same
thing. We would then have six people from each
quadrant. But this would still leave a serious
inequality.
Having thus designated the conference cities mechanically, why shouldn't we suggest to them that they do the same in picking out a delegate. Otherwise we shall have thirty-six political brawls every year at the designated point. Why couldn't central committees, or in case it is where there is no strong central committee, why couldn't the groups themselves each nominate their choices. And it ought to avoid politics or hand picking from here. Even though some hand picking might be done at the present time, it surely couldn't be done later on when the present old-timers are gone. I'm convinced the whole process will have to be pretty much mechanical. What do you think about all this?
Please write me and tell me about all the news, especially about yourself and that good wife of yours. Lois and I hope you both prosper and we shall look forward so much to seeing you when we come.
As ever,
/s/ Bill
