From Arthur S., GRault, and Larry Tooley

- - - -

"Arthur S" <ArtSheehan@...>
(ArtSheehan at msn.com)

Hi Jared

I'm an active member in the General Service Structure and disagree with the
assertion that "... the creation of the service structure and thus of Group
Representatives (GRs, now General Service Representatives, GSRs) leads to a
quick test of what's a group and what's a meeting ..."

It is left to each individual to determine whether he/she is an AA member.
It is left to each two or three members to determine if they are an AA group
and how they conduct their internal affairs. That's the way I read Tradition
Three (long form) and Concept XII Warranty Six (pgs 74-75 - "Twelve Concepts
for World Service") which are not ambiguous on the matter. As desirable as
it may be (and I'd love to see every group have a GSR) there is no
qualification of whether a group is a group based on it having a GSR or not
or any other type of trusted group servant.

In my area, 27% of our 424 groups do not have a GSR (for whatever reason).
They are still AA groups and recognized as such. The only defined
restriction for a group in AA's principles (Traditions and Concepts) is "no
other purpose or affiliation" such as joining with Alanon to have "family
meetings" or with NA to have "alcohol and drug meetings" etc., etc. In AA
Comes of Age (pg 105) Bill W wrote: "... in its original 'long form,'
Tradition Four (sic s.b. Three) declares: 'Any two or three gathered
together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that as a
group they have no other affiliation.'. This means that these two or three
alcoholics could try for sobriety in any way they liked. They could disagree
with any or all of A.A.'s principles and still call themselves an A.A. group
..."

From 1962 up to 1990 the Conference went through a torturous process of
attempting to define what an AA Group is which included defining terms such
as "groups" "meetings" and "gatherings." In 1980/1981 the "Six-point
definition of an AA group" was inserted in many literature items and in 1990
the Conference changed the definition of a group to consist of the long form
of the Third and Fifth Traditions. This was changed again in 1991 (with a
change to the Service Manual) that stated:

"... The Long Form of Tradition Three and a section of Warranty Six, Concept
12, aptly describe what an A.A. group is:

Tradition Three: 'Our membership ought to include all who suffer from
alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A.
membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics
gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided
that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.'

Warranty Six: '. . .much attention has been drawn to the extraordinary
liberties which the A.A. Traditions accord to the individual member and to
his group: no penalties to be inflicted for nonconformity to A.A.
principles; no fees or dues to be levied - voluntary contributions only; no
member to be expelled from A.A. - membership always to be the choice of the
individual; each A.A. group to conduct its internal affairs as it wishes -
it being merely requested to abstain from acts that might injure A.A. as a
whole; and finally that any group of alcoholics gathered together for
sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they
have no other purpose or affiliation."

The above remains the definition of an AA group in all AA literature that
defines what a group is (last acted on by the 2000 Conference).

"The AA Group" pamphlet, I believe, sows more confusion than clarity stating
(pgs 10-11): "Is There a Difference Between a Meeting and a Group?" It goes
on to state "Most A.A. members meet in A.A. groups as defined by the long
form of our Third Tradition (see page 42). However, some A.A. members hold
A.A. meetings that differ from the common understanding of a group. These
members simply gather at a set time and place for a meeting, perhaps for
convenience or other special situations. The main difference between
meetings and groups is that A.A. groups generally continue to exist outside
the prescribed meeting hours, ready to provide Twelfth Step help when
needed. A.A. groups are encouraged to register with G.S.O., as well as with
their local offices: area, district, intergroup or central office. A.A.
meetings can be listed in local meeting lists."

The above in some qualified cases makes sense but in many cases it does not
and it is inconsistent with the principle that a group has the autonomy "...
to conduct its internal affairs as it wishes ..." A group can have one
meeting a week - that might be all they can afford to rent a meeting room
(and it is all GSO asks for as one of the qualifications to be listed in the
national directory as an AA group). The group may not have a GSR but they
can have a "primary contact" who is a group member (that too is all GSO asks
for to be listed in the national directory as an AA group). The group might
not have a Central Office, Treatment Facilities or Corrections Rep but they
can have individual members who take the initiative to sign up to be a
contact for 12th Step calls to the local Central Office or join with other
AA members to take meetings into medical and penal institutions. They may
not have a Grapevine Rep but all the members may subscribe to it.

I could increase the list ad infinitum.

Cheers
Arthur

PS - trivia item: Alanon still uses the term GR for their Group
Representative.

- - - -

From: "grault" <GRault@...>
(GRault at yahoo.com)

I just don't see any source authority for Jared
Lobdell's statement in his first paragraph:

> a quick test of what's a group and what's a
> meeting [is that] if it has a GSR or according
> to the District it's in should have a GSR (or
> if it's an institutional group that doesn't
> have anyone available to be a GSR because the
> GSR can't be a facility employee or an inmate),
> it's a group. Otherwise it's a meeting.

I especially don't see any authority for that
statement in light of the Third Tradition.

Is there any? Surely any group can choose not
to have a GSR and still be an A.A. group.

- - - -

From: "Larry Tooley" <wa9guu@...>
(wa9guu at charter.net)

I agree in theory buy not in fact. Usually a person who "runs" a group
is the GSR, Treasurer...ad infinites. It is a poor way to do it since a
business meeting should be called to elect officers. What I don't like about
this is the GSB usually gets no contributions.

A group that has many meetings is still the group. If somebody wants to
smoke, they can go to the group's business meeting and bring it up that
their meeting wants to smoke. Then the group can vote on it.