----- Original Message -----

From: Kohl

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:14 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Service Manuals - Challenge of the 7th Tradition.

I'd like to see three things in response to this post.

First, could someone explain the history of the Challenge of the 7th
Tradition? I know it started in 1986 and was a fear filled knee jerk
reaction to the GSBAA learning they had criminally neglected the Big Book
copyrights. (They figured this out when they threatened CTM about publishing
1st edition Big Books reprints for the Akron event in the summer of 1985).
But what I'm more interested in is the GSC actions that put the issue in the
Service Manual.

Second, someone has this 'Challenge of the 7th Tradition' in their old
Service Manuals. I'd like scans of the Service Manuals from
1986-disappearance of the issue in the Service Manual.

Third, I'd like someone's background on why the issue was castrated out of
the Service Manual. Someone (who?) finally said, "Hey, this is stupid,
we'll never be self supporting, why keep talking about it in the Service
Manual?" Probably someone who served in the GSC Literature Committee. Who
was that? Or, where did the removal motion begin from? One of our past
delegates or trustees on this newsgroup ought to know...

Bless,
Norm

I'd like to see three things in response to this post.

First, could someone explain the history of the Challenge of the 7th
Tradition?  I know it started in 1986 and was a fear filled knee jerk
reaction to the GSBAA learning they had criminally neglected the Big Book
copyrights. (They figured this out when they threatened CTM about publishing
1st edition Big Books reprints for the Akron event in the summer of 1985).
But what I'm more interested in is the GSC actions that put the issue in the
Service Manual.

Second, someone has this 'Challenge of the 7th Tradition' in their old
Service Manuals.  I'd like scans of the Service Manuals from
1986-disappearance of the issue in the Service Manual.

Third, I'd like someone's background on why the issue was castrated out of
the Service Manual.  Someone (who?) finally said, "Hey, this is stupid,
we'll never be self supporting, why keep talking about it in the Service
Manual?"  Probably someone who served in the GSC Literature Committee.  Who
was that?  Or, where did the removal motion begin from?  One of our past
delegates or trustees on this newsgroup ought to know...

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----

From: jim_011591

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:54 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Lawyer" <ejlawyer@...> wrote:

I might also add that by relying on literature sales instead of contributions, our "Power of the purse" is effectively stymied.

>
> Thanks to Greg and Jim for their information regarding â€"pre-conference’ meetings. It is nice (not the outcome) to hear the mindsets of the fellowship that attend. I really appreciate the replies to Dennis’s comment. It feels like when I first joined GSOWatch.
>
> Maryanne â€" I agree with your comment also. Nothing changes when nothing changes…
>
> Thank you again.
>
>
>
> Humility is born of the spirit,
>
> Humiliation of the ego.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jim_011591
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:26 AM
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority
>
>
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Greg <Greg@> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I was at a pre-conference this past Saturday and got the same sense that Greg talks about here.
>
>
>
> We had seven topics to discuss. Topic #1 addressed the biennial mailings that GSO sends out to corrections professionals at the cost of around $22,000 every two years. Many were of the opinion that we, meaning the fellowship should let them keep on doing that, the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality spoken of. A small minority, myself among them, feels that GSO should discontinue this practice as it is ineffective and costly. But we felt that it goes beyond money. We feel that the fellowship as a whole has become bloated and lazy and rely too much on GSO to provide services thar we should be providing at a local level. Why do we need them indeed?
>
>
>
> Topic #5 was a review of the board's responses to inventory questions pertaining to regional composition and structure. I get the feeling that the General Service Board wants to become even more bloated and top heavy by adding more regional trustees. The board already relies too much on policy and procedure and is far out of touch with the fellowship it supposedly serves. This explains Dennis' reply to my remarks about the conference not being in favor of adding another delegate area because it would upset their committees. Dennis said that it was the board and not the conference that would not be friendly to a new delegate area and after seeing the background information on this topic, I can see why. Once again, my question is who needs them?
>
>
>
> Topic #7 was the topic Greg brings up here. Like him, I got the sense that 99.9% were of the mindset of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I heard talk of groups increasing their contributions to GSO. Many didn't see anything wrong with using profits from sales of literature to places like Hazelden to fund services provided to AA members by GSO. The opinion was "So what if we sell books to treatment centers, they still end up in the hands of alcoholics."
>
>
>
> A small minority, myself among them felt that by stopping the sales of literature to outside angencies and going to relying solely on contributions from the groups, it will force GSO to live by the spirit of the 7th Readition and to trust God. It will also force us to stop relying on GSO for largely unnecessary services.
>
>
>
> I brought up the idea of why do we need GSO? I also brought up that in the past they have used proceeds from literature sales and 7th Tradition contributions for attorney's fees and punitive litagation. I brought up the Mexican & German litigations and GSO's part in those actions. Let me tell you, the reaction was fairly hostile. Sadly, many just don't want to believe it. Our delegate asked me why I would even bring up those topics. My reply was that AA members have a right to know. Like I said though, many don't want to to know.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Ă‚ Dennis wrote: "Many in the fellowship today are
>
> > unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured."
>
> >
>
> > I think you should change the word "many", to, 99.99999% of the fellowship.
>
> >
>
> > I attended my area pre-conference assembly on sunday.
>
> >
>
> > I sat at the finance table for discussion of :"Review
>
> > material submitted from the Fellowship concerning the 2008 Conference
>
> > Advisory Action â€Ĺ"the trustees” Finance and Budgetary Committee gather
>
> > input from the Fellowship on the benefits and liabilities, both
>
> > spiritual and practical of fully funding G.S.O. Services to the
>
> > Fellowship (G.S.O. functional expenses) by the voluntary contributions
>
> > of A.A. Members and groups.
>
> >
>
> > We spent a few hours going over the "input" that was gathered from various Areas ,(and provided by the trustees), trying to get a jist of the overall conscience of the areas that submitted input.
>
> > Ă‚ It was about 85% "if it aint broke don't fix it" and "we've always relied on book sales" , to 2% use only voluntary contributions to fund GSO and the rest said that a gradual shift might be good.
>
> >
>
> > After we reviewed what we were given, everyone at the table was "allowed" to give their own ESH on the topic.
>
> >
>
> > The table conscience was pretty much the same as the other Areas we reviewed, except I felt as if I was talking chinese or martian, and the only words that anyone understood was my conclusion,"Do we really need GSO anymore anyway?"
>
> > Their icey stares reminded me of the colonel that kicked me out of the usmc, it was disheartening to say the least and little fearful.
>
> > After it was all said and done,The table could only agree that AA should continue to talk about this topic.
>
> > Ă‚ I suppose thats progress?
>
> >
>
> > Greg
>
> > --- On Sat, 3/28/09, Dennis <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@>
>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 8:40 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for posting these links Norm. There were others
>
> > involved as well. Maybe I will have time on my day off to gather them together.
>
> > I am sure they are already on our website . Manyi n the fellowship today are
>
> > unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured.
>
> > Ă‚
>
> > Peace,
>
> > Ă‚
>
> > Dennis M.
>
> > Ă‚
>
> > Ă‚
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From:
>
> > Kohl
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>
> > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19
>
> > PM
>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
>
> > Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You did good Dennis. Thanks for your input. Jim is opening the many areas
>
> >
>
> > that always fall into the shadows. I'm glad you're here to shine a little
>
> >
>
> > light.
>
> >
>
> > I noticed the comment about censure so did a quick search of
>
> > what we have
>
> > online about censure. The following is what showed
>
> > up:
>
> >
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/
>
> > "Home Page" of links to articles on the
>
> > Censure, incorporating GSO, from
>
> > AAWS, 1992 proposal for GSB to manage AAWS
>
> > temporarily
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
>
> > 08/10/94: Bob M, Mass Delegate, to
>
> > AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about
>
> > censure and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
>
> > 08/10/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
>
> > Delegate, to AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates
>
> > about censure and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. gif
>
> > 08/29/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
>
> > Delegate, to Area 30 Committee members
>
> > about censure and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. htm
>
> > Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> > and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. gif
>
> > Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> > and breach of trust also yearly
>
> > timeline of events
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. htm
>
> > Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> > and breach of trust also yearly
>
> > timeline of events
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. gif
>
> > Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> > and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. htm
>
> > Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> > and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.gif
>
> > Statement of Censure
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.htm
>
> > Statement of Censure
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens94. htm
>
> > Statement of Censure and an
>
> > additional Censure?
>
> >
>
> > I didn't really go
>
> > over anything -- just wanted to get the information out
>
> > there before the
>
> > conference this year. Hope that whatever is here helps a
>
> >
>
> > little...
>
> >
>
> > Bless,
>
> > Norm
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> >
>
> > From: Dennis
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>
> > Sent:
>
> > Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
>
> > Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> >
>
> > Hi Jim;
>
> >
>
> > You wrote:
>
> > >I
>
> > think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past
>
> >
>
> > >delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards
>
> > creating
>
> > >a new delegate area. <
>
> >
>
> > I really don't think it is
>
> > the feelings of the Conference but rather the
>
> > dictates of our NY
>
> > Headquarters. It is more the Trustees Committees rather
>
> > than the
>
> > Conference Committees that influence the Conference and agendas.
>
> > Except
>
> > for a minority of Delegates that go to the Conference the Conference
>
> >
>
> > itself doesn't have any feelings for anything relating to money, property,
>
> >
>
> > prestige or authority; and certainly about our spiritual
>
> > principles.
>
> >
>
> > It has always been a minority of Delegates that have stood
>
> > up for the
>
> > integrity of our principles and provided much of the
>
> > information on our
>
> > websites. It was a minority that put forth the Censure
>
> > in the early 1990's.
>
> > That was about the time they started inviting the
>
> > Conference Committee
>
> > Chairs to NY to be wined and dined and take part in a
>
> > meeting with the
>
> > Trustee Committees prior to the Conference. This is where
>
> > they receive a
>
> > gold box of 'rubber stamps' in which the Chairs pass out to
>
> > the other
>
> > members of the Conference Committee.
>
> >
>
> > The minority opinion
>
> > belongs to the fellowship and the Delegates opinion
>
> > belongs to the NY
>
> > Headquarters. But I do support your efforts and hopefully
>
> > as you stated it
>
> > may just inform a few more members of the
>
> > fellowship.
>
> >
>
> > Peace,
>
> >
>
> > Dennis M.
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> >
>
> > From: jim_011591
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>
> > Sent:
>
> > Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:46 AM
>
> > Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property,
>
> > Prestige and Authority
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy
>
> > to type the whole message
>
> > over again.
>
> >
>
> > I think I told you about
>
> > being in contact with a friend who is a past
>
> > delegate and what he said
>
> > about the conference's feelings towards creating a
>
> > new delegate area. Well
>
> > I have been in touch with another former delegate,
>
> > one served more
>
> > recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had
>
> > told me. That
>
> > the conference would not be friendly to a request to create a
>
> > new delegate
>
> > area because it would upset the balance of their committees.
>
> >
>
> > It seems
>
> > to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of
>
> > their
>
> > committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary
>
> >
>
> > spiritual aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our
>
> >
>
> > general services to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who
>
> >
>
> > want it.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work
>
> > for us and not the
>
> > other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote
>
> > with the power of the
>
> > purse, but to censure our so-called trusted
>
> > servants, including delegates
>
> > and trustees.
>
> > Jim
>
> >
>
> > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com,
>
> > "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@ ...> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > One of members
>
> > posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post
>
> > > it here as
>
> > well.
>
> > >
>
> > > Post:
>
> > >
>
> > ------------ --------- ---------
>
> > > Money, Property and
>
> > Prestige
>
> > >
>
> > > Well, I am at it again. I have just written and
>
> > submitted a motion for our
>
> > > DCM to to take to our area quarterly next
>
> > month. The motion is that an ad
>
> > > hoc committee be formed to look into
>
> > splitting our area and forming a new
>
> > > delegate area.
>
> > >
>
> > > In
>
> > our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the
>
> > >
>
> > area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business.
>
> > Our
>
> > > area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues.
>
> >
>
> > > Basically
>
> > > a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs
>
> > are through the roof,
>
> > > last
>
> > > year's assembly was in excess of
>
> > $42,000 and this year is comparable. A
>
> > > few
>
> > > years down the
>
> > road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.
>
> > > Registration
>
> > packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was
>
> > > not
>
> > allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration
>
> > >
>
> > was
>
> > > paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full
>
> > registration is
>
> > > close
>
> > > to $100, and this does not count travel
>
> > and lodging.
>
> > >
>
> > > Service is becoming beyond the reach of many.
>
> > Many smaller groups are
>
> > > having
>
> > > trouble coming up with the
>
> > funds to send a GSR to an assembly.
>
> > >
>
> > > I'm already getting some
>
> > feedback. It seems that there are more than a few
>
> > > who have felt the
>
> > same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those
>
> > > who worship at
>
> > the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie
>
> > > types who
>
> > compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area
>
> > >
>
> > treasurer
>
> > > that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety,
>
> > including driving
>
> > > four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of
>
> > group's money for a
>
> > > hotel
>
> > > room.
>
> > >
>
> > > Well, I am
>
> > not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,
>
> > >
>
> > grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th
>
> > >
>
> > Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many
>
> > are
>
> > > going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes
>
> > sense.
>
> > > ------------ --------- ------
>
> > >
>
> > > In my
>
> > Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to
>
> > >
>
> > attend.
>
> > > They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed
>
> > that the
>
> > > 2006
>
> > > Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72
>
> > brought in $379,598 the last 5
>
> > > years back from 2006. This is nearly
>
> > twice the income of Area 5 in
>
> > > Southern
>
> > > California. Both these
>
> > Areas are about the same in number of Districts but
>
> > > Area 5 has far
>
> > more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas
>
> > > in AA even
>
> > after the split some years ago.
>
> > >
>
> > > Anyway I for one would like to
>
> > support our brother with his efforts. I
>
> > > really don't think money
>
> > should be a requirement to serve AA in General
>
> > > Service. Would like to
>
> > hear from anyone with experience with this kind of
>
> > > thing in their own
>
> > Area.
>
> > >
>
> > > Peace,
>
> > >
>
> > > Dennis
>
> > M.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/
>
>
>
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/join
>
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
>
>
> mailto:GSOwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com
>
> mailto:GSOwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> GSOwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Jay Lawyer

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:51 AM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

Thanks to Greg and Jim for their information regarding –pre-conference’ meetings. It is nice (not the outcome) to hear the mindsets of the fellowship that attend. I really appreciate the replies to Dennis’s comment. It feels like when I first joined GSOWatch.

Maryanne – I agree with your comment also. Nothing changes when nothing changes…

Thank you again.

Humility is born of the spirit,

Humiliation of the ego.

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jim_011591
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:26 AM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Greg <Greg@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I was at a pre-conference this past Saturday and got the same sense that Greg talks about here.

We had seven topics to discuss. Topic #1 addressed the biennial mailings that GSO sends out to corrections professionals at the cost of around $22,000 every two years. Many were of the opinion that we, meaning the fellowship should let them keep on doing that, the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality spoken of. A small minority, myself among them, feels that GSO should discontinue this practice as it is ineffective and costly. But we felt that it goes beyond money. We feel that the fellowship as a whole has become bloated and lazy and rely too much on GSO to provide services thar we should be providing at a local level. Why do we need them indeed?

Topic #5 was a review of the board's responses to inventory questions pertaining to regional composition and structure. I get the feeling that the General Service Board wants to become even more bloated and top heavy by adding more regional trustees. The board already relies too much on policy and procedure and is far out of touch with the fellowship it supposedly serves. This explains Dennis' reply to my remarks about the conference not being in favor of adding another delegate area because it would upset their committees. Dennis said that it was the board and not the conference that would not be friendly to a new delegate area and after seeing the background information on this topic, I can see why. Once again, my question is who needs them?

Topic #7 was the topic Greg brings up here. Like him, I got the sense that 99.9% were of the mindset of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I heard talk of groups increasing their contributions to GSO. Many didn't see anything wrong with using profits from sales of literature to places like Hazelden to fund services provided to AA members by GSO. The opinion was "So what if we sell books to treatment centers, they still end up in the hands of alcoholics."

A small minority, myself among them felt that by stopping the sales of literature to outside angencies and going to relying solely on contributions from the groups, it will force GSO to live by the spirit of the 7th Readition and to trust God. It will also force us to stop relying on GSO for largely unnecessary services.

I brought up the idea of why do we need GSO? I also brought up that in the past they have used proceeds from literature sales and 7th Tradition contributions for attorney's fees and punitive litagation. I brought up the Mexican & German litigations and GSO's part in those actions. Let me tell you, the reaction was fairly hostile. Sadly, many just don't want to believe it. Our delegate asked me why I would even bring up those topics. My reply was that AA members have a right to know. Like I said though, many don't want to to know.

Jim

> 

> Hi All,

> Ă‚ Dennis wrote: "Many in the fellowship today are

> unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured."

>

> I think you should change the word "many", to, 99.99999% of the fellowship.

>

> I attended my area pre-conference assembly on sunday.

>

> I sat at the finance table for discussion of :"Review

> material submitted from the Fellowship concerning the 2008 Conference

> Advisory Action “the trustees” Finance and Budgetary Committee gather

> input from the Fellowship on the benefits and liabilities, both

> spiritual and practical of fully funding G.S.O. Services to the

> Fellowship (G.S.O. functional expenses) by the voluntary contributions

> of A.A. Members and groups.

>

> We spent a few hours going over the "input" that was gathered from various Areas ,(and provided by the trustees), trying to get a jist of the overall conscience of the areas that submitted input.

> Ă‚ It was about 85% "if it aint broke don't fix it" and "we've always relied on book sales" , to 2% use only voluntary contributions to fund GSO and the rest said that a gradual shift might be good.

>

> After we reviewed what we were given, everyone at the table was "allowed" to give their own ESH on the topic.

>

> The table conscience was pretty much the same as the other Areas we reviewed, except I felt as if I was talking chinese or martian, and the only words that anyone understood was my conclusion,"Do we really need GSO anymore anyway?"

> Their icey stares reminded me of the colonel that kicked me out of the usmc, it was disheartening to say the least and little fearful.

> After it was all said and done,The table could only agree that AA should continue to talk about this topic.

> Ă‚ I suppose thats progress?

>

> Greg

> --- On Sat, 3/28/09, Dennis <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:

>

> From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@...>

> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 8:40 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>    

>            

>

>

> Thanks for posting these links Norm. There were others

> involved as well. Maybe I will have time on my day off to gather them together.

> I am sure they are already on our website . Manyi n the fellowship today are

> unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured.

> Ă‚ 

> Peace,

> Ă‚ 

> Dennis M.

> Ă‚ 

> Ă‚ 

>

>   ----- Original Message -----

>   From:

>   Kohl

>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

>   Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19

> PM

>   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,

>   Property, Prestige and Authority

>  

>

>  

>   You did good Dennis. Thanks for your input. Jim is opening the many areas

>  

> that always fall into the shadows. I'm glad you're here to shine a little

>  

> light.

>

> I noticed the comment about censure so did a quick search of

>   what we have

> online about censure. The following is what showed

>   up:

>

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/

>   "Home Page" of links to articles on the

> Censure, incorporating GSO, from

>   AAWS, 1992 proposal for GSB to manage AAWS

> temporarily

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif

>   08/10/94: Bob M, Mass Delegate, to

> AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about

>   censure and breach of trust

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm

>   08/10/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)

> Delegate, to AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates

>   about censure and breach of trust

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. gif

>   08/29/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)

> Delegate, to Area 30 Committee members

>   about censure and breach of trust

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. htm

>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to

> Area 30 Committee members about censure

>   and breach of trust

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. gif

>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to

> Area 30 Committee members about censure

>   and breach of trust also yearly

> timeline of events

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. htm

>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to

> Area 30 Committee members about censure

>   and breach of trust also yearly

> timeline of events

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. gif

>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to

> Area 30 Committee members about censure

>   and breach of trust

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. htm

>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to

> Area 30 Committee members about censure

>   and breach of trust

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.gif

>   Statement of Censure

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.htm

>   Statement of Censure

> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens94. htm

>   Statement of Censure and an

> additional Censure?

>

> I didn't really go

>   over anything -- just wanted to get the information out

> there before the

>   conference this year. Hope that whatever is here helps a

>  

> little...

>

> Bless,

> Norm

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>  

> From: Dennis

> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

> Sent:

>   Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 PM

> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,

>   Property, Prestige and Authority

>

> Hi Jim;

>

> You wrote:

> >I

>   think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past

>  

> >delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards

>   creating

> >a new delegate area. <

>

> I really don't think it is

>   the feelings of the Conference but rather the

> dictates of our NY

>   Headquarters. It is more the Trustees Committees rather

> than the

>   Conference Committees that influence the Conference and agendas.

> Except

>   for a minority of Delegates that go to the Conference the Conference

>  

> itself doesn't have any feelings for anything relating to money, property,

>  

> prestige or authority; and certainly about our spiritual

>   principles.

>

> It has always been a minority of Delegates that have stood

>   up for the

> integrity of our principles and provided much of the

>   information on our

> websites. It was a minority that put forth the Censure

>   in the early 1990's.

> That was about the time they started inviting the

>   Conference Committee

> Chairs to NY to be wined and dined and take part in a

>   meeting with the

> Trustee Committees prior to the Conference. This is where

>   they receive a

> gold box of 'rubber stamps' in which the Chairs pass out to

>   the other

> members of the Conference Committee.

>

> The minority opinion

>   belongs to the fellowship and the Delegates opinion

> belongs to the NY

>   Headquarters. But I do support your efforts and hopefully

> as you stated it

>   may just inform a few more members of the

>   fellowship.

>

> Peace,

>

> Dennis M.

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>  

> From: jim_011591

> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

> Sent:

>   Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:46 AM

> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property,

>   Prestige and Authority

>

> Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy

>   to type the whole message

> over again.

>

> I think I told you about

>   being in contact with a friend who is a past

> delegate and what he said

>   about the conference's feelings towards creating a

> new delegate area. Well

>   I have been in touch with another former delegate,

> one served more

>   recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had

> told me. That

>   the conference would not be friendly to a request to create a

> new delegate

>   area because it would upset the balance of their committees.

>

> It seems

>   to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of

> their

>   committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary

>  

> spiritual aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our

>  

> general services to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who

>  

> want it.

>

> Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work

>   for us and not the

> other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote

>   with the power of the

> purse, but to censure our so-called trusted

>   servants, including delegates

> and trustees.

> Jim

>

> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com,

>   "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > One of members

>   posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post

> > it here as

>   well.

> >

> > Post:

> >

>   ------------ --------- ---------

> > Money, Property and

>   Prestige

> >

> > Well, I am at it again. I have just written and

>   submitted a motion for our

> > DCM to to take to our area quarterly next

>   month. The motion is that an ad

> > hoc committee be formed to look into

>   splitting our area and forming a new

> > delegate area.

> >

> > In

>   our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the

> >

>   area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business.

>   Our

> > area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues.

>  

> > Basically

> > a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs

>   are through the roof,

> > last

> > year's assembly was in excess of

>   $42,000 and this year is comparable. A

> > few

> > years down the

>   road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.

> > Registration

>   packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was

> > not

>   allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration

> >

>   was

> > paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full

>   registration is

> > close

> > to $100, and this does not count travel

>   and lodging.

> >

> > Service is becoming beyond the reach of many.

>   Many smaller groups are

> > having

> > trouble coming up with the

>   funds to send a GSR to an assembly.

> >

> > I'm already getting some

>   feedback. It seems that there are more than a few

> > who have felt the

>   same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those

> > who worship at

>   the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie

> > types who

>   compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area

> >

>   treasurer

> > that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety,

>   including driving

> > four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of

>   group's money for a

> > hotel

> > room.

> >

> > Well, I am

>   not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,

> >

>   grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th

> >

>   Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many

>   are

> > going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes

>   sense.

> > ------------ --------- ------

> >

> > In my

>   Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to

> >

>   attend.

> > They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed

>   that the

> > 2006

> > Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72

>   brought in $379,598 the last 5

> > years back from 2006. This is nearly

>   twice the income of Area 5 in

> > Southern

> > California. Both these

>   Areas are about the same in number of Districts but

> > Area 5 has far

>   more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas

> > in AA even

>   after the split some years ago.

> >

> > Anyway I for one would like to

>   support our brother with his efforts. I

> > really don't think money

>   should be a requirement to serve AA in General

> > Service. Would like to

>   hear from anyone with experience with this kind of

> > thing in their own

>   Area.

> >

> > Peace,

> >

> > Dennis

>   M.

> >

> 

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/

<*> Your email settings:

    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/join

    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

    mailto:GSOwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com

    mailto:GSOwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

    GSOwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

----- Original Message -----

From: jim_011591

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:26 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Greg <Greg@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I was at a pre-conference this past Saturday and got the same sense that Greg talks about here.

We had seven topics to discuss. Topic #1 addressed the biennial mailings that GSO sends out to corrections professionals at the cost of around $22,000 every two years. Many were of the opinion that we, meaning the fellowship should let them keep on doing that, the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality spoken of. A small minority, myself among them, feels that GSO should discontinue this practice as it is ineffective and costly. But we felt that it goes beyond money. We feel that the fellowship as a whole has become bloated and lazy and rely too much on GSO to provide services thar we should be providing at a local level. Why do we need them indeed?

Topic #5 was a review of the board's responses to inventory questions pertaining to regional composition and structure. I get the feeling that the General Service Board wants to become even more bloated and top heavy by adding more regional trustees. The board already relies too much on policy and procedure and is far out of touch with the fellowship it supposedly serves. This explains Dennis' reply to my remarks about the conference not being in favor of adding another delegate area because it would upset their committees. Dennis said that it was the board and not the conference that would not be friendly to a new delegate area and after seeing the background information on this topic, I can see why. Once again, my question is who needs them?

Topic #7 was the topic Greg brings up here. Like him, I got the sense that 99.9% were of the mindset of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I heard talk of groups increasing their contributions to GSO. Many didn't see anything wrong with using profits from sales of literature to places like Hazelden to fund services provided to AA members by GSO. The opinion was "So what if we sell books to treatment centers, they still end up in the hands of alcoholics."

A small minority, myself among them felt that by stopping the sales of literature to outside angencies and going to relying solely on contributions from the groups, it will force GSO to live by the spirit of the 7th Readition and to trust God. It will also force us to stop relying on GSO for largely unnecessary services.

I brought up the idea of why do we need GSO? I also brought up that in the past they have used proceeds from literature sales and 7th Tradition contributions for attorney's fees and punitive litagation. I brought up the Mexican & German litigations and GSO's part in those actions. Let me tell you, the reaction was fairly hostile. Sadly, many just don't want to believe it. Our delegate asked me why I would even bring up those topics. My reply was that AA members have a right to know. Like I said though, many don't want to to know.
Jim

>
> Hi All,
>  Dennis wrote: "Many in the fellowship today are
> unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured."
>
> I think you should change the word "many", to, 99.99999% of the fellowship.
>
> I attended my area pre-conference assembly on sunday.
>
> I sat at the finance table for discussion of :"Review
> material submitted from the Fellowship concerning the 2008 Conference
> Advisory Action “the trustees” Finance and Budgetary Committee gather
> input from the Fellowship on the benefits and liabilities, both
> spiritual and practical of fully funding G.S.O. Services to the
> Fellowship (G.S.O. functional expenses) by the voluntary contributions
> of A.A. Members and groups.
>
> We spent a few hours going over the "input" that was gathered from various Areas ,(and provided by the trustees), trying to get a jist of the overall conscience of the areas that submitted input.
>  It was about 85% "if it aint broke don't fix it" and "we've always relied on book sales" , to 2% use only voluntary contributions to fund GSO and the rest said that a gradual shift might be good.
>
> After we reviewed what we were given, everyone at the table was "allowed" to give their own ESH on the topic.
>
> The table conscience was pretty much the same as the other Areas we reviewed, except I felt as if I was talking chinese or martian, and the only words that anyone understood was my conclusion,"Do we really need GSO anymore anyway?"
> Their icey stares reminded me of the colonel that kicked me out of the usmc, it was disheartening to say the least and little fearful.
> After it was all said and done,The table could only agree that AA should continue to talk about this topic.
>  I suppose thats progress?
>
> Greg
> --- On Sat, 3/28/09, Dennis <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@...>
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 8:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for posting these links Norm. There were others
> involved as well. Maybe I will have time on my day off to gather them together.
> I am sure they are already on our website . Manyi n the fellowship today are
> unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured.
>  
> Peace,
>  
> Dennis M.
>  
>  
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> Kohl
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19
> PM
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
> Property, Prestige and Authority
>
>
>
> You did good Dennis. Thanks for your input. Jim is opening the many areas
>
> that always fall into the shadows. I'm glad you're here to shine a little
>
> light.
>
> I noticed the comment about censure so did a quick search of
> what we have
> online about censure. The following is what showed
> up:
>
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/
> "Home Page" of links to articles on the
> Censure, incorporating GSO, from
> AAWS, 1992 proposal for GSB to manage AAWS
> temporarily
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
> 08/10/94: Bob M, Mass Delegate, to
> AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about
> censure and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
> 08/10/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
> Delegate, to AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates
> about censure and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. gif
> 08/29/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
> Delegate, to Area 30 Committee members
> about censure and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. htm
> Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
> and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. gif
> Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
> and breach of trust also yearly
> timeline of events
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. htm
> Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
> and breach of trust also yearly
> timeline of events
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. gif
> Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
> and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. htm
> Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
> and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.gif
> Statement of Censure
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.htm
> Statement of Censure
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens94. htm
> Statement of Censure and an
> additional Censure?
>
> I didn't really go
> over anything -- just wanted to get the information out
> there before the
> conference this year. Hope that whatever is here helps a
>
> little...
>
> Bless,
> Norm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dennis
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent:
> Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
> Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> Hi Jim;
>
> You wrote:
> >I
> think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past
>
> >delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards
> creating
> >a new delegate area. <
>
> I really don't think it is
> the feelings of the Conference but rather the
> dictates of our NY
> Headquarters. It is more the Trustees Committees rather
> than the
> Conference Committees that influence the Conference and agendas.
> Except
> for a minority of Delegates that go to the Conference the Conference
>
> itself doesn't have any feelings for anything relating to money, property,
>
> prestige or authority; and certainly about our spiritual
> principles.
>
> It has always been a minority of Delegates that have stood
> up for the
> integrity of our principles and provided much of the
> information on our
> websites. It was a minority that put forth the Censure
> in the early 1990's.
> That was about the time they started inviting the
> Conference Committee
> Chairs to NY to be wined and dined and take part in a
> meeting with the
> Trustee Committees prior to the Conference. This is where
> they receive a
> gold box of 'rubber stamps' in which the Chairs pass out to
> the other
> members of the Conference Committee.
>
> The minority opinion
> belongs to the fellowship and the Delegates opinion
> belongs to the NY
> Headquarters. But I do support your efforts and hopefully
> as you stated it
> may just inform a few more members of the
> fellowship.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: jim_011591
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent:
> Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:46 AM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property,
> Prestige and Authority
>
> Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy
> to type the whole message
> over again.
>
> I think I told you about
> being in contact with a friend who is a past
> delegate and what he said
> about the conference's feelings towards creating a
> new delegate area. Well
> I have been in touch with another former delegate,
> one served more
> recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had
> told me. That
> the conference would not be friendly to a request to create a
> new delegate
> area because it would upset the balance of their committees.
>
> It seems
> to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of
> their
> committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary
>
> spiritual aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our
>
> general services to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who
>
> want it.
>
> Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work
> for us and not the
> other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote
> with the power of the
> purse, but to censure our so-called trusted
> servants, including delegates
> and trustees.
> Jim
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com,
> "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > One of members
> posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post
> > it here as
> well.
> >
> > Post:
> >
> ------------ --------- ---------
> > Money, Property and
> Prestige
> >
> > Well, I am at it again. I have just written and
> submitted a motion for our
> > DCM to to take to our area quarterly next
> month. The motion is that an ad
> > hoc committee be formed to look into
> splitting our area and forming a new
> > delegate area.
> >
> > In
> our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the
> >
> area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business.
> Our
> > area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues.
>
> > Basically
> > a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs
> are through the roof,
> > last
> > year's assembly was in excess of
> $42,000 and this year is comparable. A
> > few
> > years down the
> road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.
> > Registration
> packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was
> > not
> allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration
> >
> was
> > paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full
> registration is
> > close
> > to $100, and this does not count travel
> and lodging.
> >
> > Service is becoming beyond the reach of many.
> Many smaller groups are
> > having
> > trouble coming up with the
> funds to send a GSR to an assembly.
> >
> > I'm already getting some
> feedback. It seems that there are more than a few
> > who have felt the
> same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those
> > who worship at
> the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie
> > types who
> compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area
> >
> treasurer
> > that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety,
> including driving
> > four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of
> group's money for a
> > hotel
> > room.
> >
> > Well, I am
> not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,
> >
> grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th
> >
> Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many
> are
> > going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes
> sense.
> > ------------ --------- ------
> >
> > In my
> Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to
> >
> attend.
> > They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed
> that the
> > 2006
> > Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72
> brought in $379,598 the last 5
> > years back from 2006. This is nearly
> twice the income of Area 5 in
> > Southern
> > California. Both these
> Areas are about the same in number of Districts but
> > Area 5 has far
> more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas
> > in AA even
> after the split some years ago.
> >
> > Anyway I for one would like to
> support our brother with his efforts. I
> > really don't think money
> should be a requirement to serve AA in General
> > Service. Would like to
> hear from anyone with experience with this kind of
> > thing in their own
> Area.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis
> M.
> >
>

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Lawyer" <ejlawyer@...> wrote:

I might also add that by relying on literature sales instead of contributions,
our "Power of the purse" is effectively stymied.

>
> Thanks to Greg and Jim for their information regarding â€"pre-conference’
meetings. It is nice (not the outcome) to hear the mindsets of the fellowship
that attend. I really appreciate the replies to Dennis’s comment. It feels
like when I first joined GSOWatch.
>
> Maryanne â€" I agree with your comment also. Nothing changes when nothing
changes…
>
> Thank you again.
>
>
>
> Humility is born of the spirit,
>
> Humiliation of the ego.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
jim_011591
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:26 AM
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority
>
>
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Greg <Greg@> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I was at a pre-conference this past Saturday and got the same sense that Greg
talks about here.
>
>
>
> We had seven topics to discuss. Topic #1 addressed the biennial mailings that
GSO sends out to corrections professionals at the cost of around $22,000 every
two years. Many were of the opinion that we, meaning the fellowship should let
them keep on doing that, the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality spoken
of. A small minority, myself among them, feels that GSO should discontinue this
practice as it is ineffective and costly. But we felt that it goes beyond money.
We feel that the fellowship as a whole has become bloated and lazy and rely too
much on GSO to provide services thar we should be providing at a local level.
Why do we need them indeed?
>
>
>
> Topic #5 was a review of the board's responses to inventory questions
pertaining to regional composition and structure. I get the feeling that the
General Service Board wants to become even more bloated and top heavy by adding
more regional trustees. The board already relies too much on policy and
procedure and is far out of touch with the fellowship it supposedly serves. This
explains Dennis' reply to my remarks about the conference not being in favor of
adding another delegate area because it would upset their committees. Dennis
said that it was the board and not the conference that would not be friendly to
a new delegate area and after seeing the background information on this topic, I
can see why. Once again, my question is who needs them?
>
>
>
> Topic #7 was the topic Greg brings up here. Like him, I got the sense that
99.9% were of the mindset of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I heard talk of
groups increasing their contributions to GSO. Many didn't see anything wrong
with using profits from sales of literature to places like Hazelden to fund
services provided to AA members by GSO. The opinion was "So what if we sell
books to treatment centers, they still end up in the hands of alcoholics."
>
>
>
> A small minority, myself among them felt that by stopping the sales of
literature to outside angencies and going to relying solely on contributions
from the groups, it will force GSO to live by the spirit of the 7th Readition
and to trust God. It will also force us to stop relying on GSO for largely
unnecessary services.
>
>
>
> I brought up the idea of why do we need GSO? I also brought up that in the
past they have used proceeds from literature sales and 7th Tradition
contributions for attorney's fees and punitive litagation. I brought up the
Mexican & German litigations and GSO's part in those actions. Let me tell you,
the reaction was fairly hostile. Sadly, many just don't want to believe it. Our
delegate asked me why I would even bring up those topics. My reply was that AA
members have a right to know. Like I said though, many don't want to to know.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Ă‚ Dennis wrote: "Many in the fellowship today are
>
> > unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured."
>
> >
>
> > I think you should change the word "many", to, 99.99999% of the fellowship.
>
> >
>
> > I attended my area pre-conference assembly on sunday.
>
> >
>
> > I sat at the finance table for discussion of :"Review
>
> > material submitted from the Fellowship concerning the 2008 Conference
>
> > Advisory Action â€Ĺ"the trustees” Finance and Budgetary Committee
gather
>
> > input from the Fellowship on the benefits and liabilities, both
>
> > spiritual and practical of fully funding G.S.O. Services to the
>
> > Fellowship (G.S.O. functional expenses) by the voluntary contributions
>
> > of A.A. Members and groups.
>
> >
>
> > We spent a few hours going over the "input" that was gathered from various
Areas ,(and provided by the trustees), trying to get a jist of the overall
conscience of the areas that submitted input.
>
> > Ă‚ It was about 85% "if it aint broke don't fix it" and "we've always relied
on book sales" , to 2% use only voluntary contributions to fund GSO and the rest
said that a gradual shift might be good.
>
> >
>
> > After we reviewed what we were given, everyone at the table was "allowed" to
give their own ESH on the topic.
>
> >
>
> > The table conscience was pretty much the same as the other Areas we
reviewed, except I felt as if I was talking chinese or martian, and the only
words that anyone understood was my conclusion,"Do we really need GSO anymore
anyway?"
>
> > Their icey stares reminded me of the colonel that kicked me out of the usmc,
it was disheartening to say the least and little fearful.
>
> > After it was all said and done,The table could only agree that AA should
continue to talk about this topic.
>
> > Ă‚ I suppose thats progress?
>
> >
>
> > Greg
>
> > --- On Sat, 3/28/09, Dennis <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@>
>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 8:40 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for posting these links Norm. There were others
>
> > involved as well. Maybe I will have time on my day off to gather them
together.
>
> > I am sure they are already on our website . Manyi n the fellowship today are
>
> > unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured.
>
> > Ă‚
>
> > Peace,
>
> > Ă‚
>
> > Dennis M.
>
> > Ă‚
>
> > Ă‚
>
> >
>
> >   ----- Original Message -----
>
> >   From:
>
> >   Kohl
>
> >   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>
> >   Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19
>
> > PM
>
> >   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
>
> >   Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >   You did good Dennis. Thanks for your input. Jim is opening the many areas
>
> >
>
> > that always fall into the shadows. I'm glad you're here to shine a little
>
> >
>
> > light.
>
> >
>
> > I noticed the comment about censure so did a quick search of
>
> >   what we have
>
> > online about censure. The following is what showed
>
> >   up:
>
> >
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/
>
> >   "Home Page" of links to articles on the
>
> > Censure, incorporating GSO, from
>
> >   AAWS, 1992 proposal for GSB to manage AAWS
>
> > temporarily
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
>
> >   08/10/94: Bob M, Mass Delegate, to
>
> > AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about
>
> >   censure and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
>
> >   08/10/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
>
> > Delegate, to AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates
>
> >   about censure and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. gif
>
> >   08/29/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
>
> > Delegate, to Area 30 Committee members
>
> >   about censure and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. htm
>
> >   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> >   and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. gif
>
> >   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> >   and breach of trust also yearly
>
> > timeline of events
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. htm
>
> >   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> >   and breach of trust also yearly
>
> > timeline of events
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. gif
>
> >   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> >   and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. htm
>
> >   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
>
> > Area 30 Committee members about censure
>
> >   and breach of trust
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.gif
>
> >   Statement of Censure
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.htm
>
> >   Statement of Censure
>
> > http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens94. htm
>
> >   Statement of Censure and an
>
> > additional Censure?
>
> >
>
> > I didn't really go
>
> >   over anything -- just wanted to get the information out
>
> > there before the
>
> >   conference this year. Hope that whatever is here helps a
>
> >
>
> > little...
>
> >
>
> > Bless,
>
> > Norm
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> >
>
> > From: Dennis
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>
> > Sent:
>
> >   Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
>
> >   Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> >
>
> > Hi Jim;
>
> >
>
> > You wrote:
>
> > >I
>
> >   think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past
>
> >
>
> > >delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards
>
> >   creating
>
> > >a new delegate area. <
>
> >
>
> > I really don't think it is
>
> >   the feelings of the Conference but rather the
>
> > dictates of our NY
>
> >   Headquarters. It is more the Trustees Committees rather
>
> > than the
>
> >   Conference Committees that influence the Conference and agendas.
>
> > Except
>
> >   for a minority of Delegates that go to the Conference the Conference
>
> >
>
> > itself doesn't have any feelings for anything relating to money, property,
>
> >
>
> > prestige or authority; and certainly about our spiritual
>
> >   principles.
>
> >
>
> > It has always been a minority of Delegates that have stood
>
> >   up for the
>
> > integrity of our principles and provided much of the
>
> >   information on our
>
> > websites. It was a minority that put forth the Censure
>
> >   in the early 1990's.
>
> > That was about the time they started inviting the
>
> >   Conference Committee
>
> > Chairs to NY to be wined and dined and take part in a
>
> >   meeting with the
>
> > Trustee Committees prior to the Conference. This is where
>
> >   they receive a
>
> > gold box of 'rubber stamps' in which the Chairs pass out to
>
> >   the other
>
> > members of the Conference Committee.
>
> >
>
> > The minority opinion
>
> >   belongs to the fellowship and the Delegates opinion
>
> > belongs to the NY
>
> >   Headquarters. But I do support your efforts and hopefully
>
> > as you stated it
>
> >   may just inform a few more members of the
>
> >   fellowship.
>
> >
>
> > Peace,
>
> >
>
> > Dennis M.
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> >
>
> > From: jim_011591
>
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>
> > Sent:
>
> >   Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:46 AM
>
> > Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property,
>
> >   Prestige and Authority
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy
>
> >   to type the whole message
>
> > over again.
>
> >
>
> > I think I told you about
>
> >   being in contact with a friend who is a past
>
> > delegate and what he said
>
> >   about the conference's feelings towards creating a
>
> > new delegate area. Well
>
> >   I have been in touch with another former delegate,
>
> > one served more
>
> >   recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had
>
> > told me. That
>
> >   the conference would not be friendly to a request to create a
>
> > new delegate
>
> >   area because it would upset the balance of their committees.
>
> >
>
> > It seems
>
> >   to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of
>
> > their
>
> >   committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary
>
> >
>
> > spiritual aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our
>
> >
>
> > general services to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who
>
> >
>
> > want it.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work
>
> >   for us and not the
>
> > other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote
>
> >   with the power of the
>
> > purse, but to censure our so-called trusted
>
> >   servants, including delegates
>
> > and trustees.
>
> > Jim
>
> >
>
> > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com,
>
> >   "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@ ...> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > One of members
>
> >   posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post
>
> > > it here as
>
> >   well.
>
> > >
>
> > > Post:
>
> > >
>
> >   ------------ --------- ---------
>
> > > Money, Property and
>
> >   Prestige
>
> > >
>
> > > Well, I am at it again. I have just written and
>
> >   submitted a motion for our
>
> > > DCM to to take to our area quarterly next
>
> >   month. The motion is that an ad
>
> > > hoc committee be formed to look into
>
> >   splitting our area and forming a new
>
> > > delegate area.
>
> > >
>
> > > In
>
> >   our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the
>
> > >
>
> >   area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business.
>
> >   Our
>
> > > area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues.
>
> >
>
> > > Basically
>
> > > a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs
>
> >   are through the roof,
>
> > > last
>
> > > year's assembly was in excess of
>
> >   $42,000 and this year is comparable. A
>
> > > few
>
> > > years down the
>
> >   road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.
>
> > > Registration
>
> >   packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was
>
> > > not
>
> >   allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration
>
> > >
>
> >   was
>
> > > paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full
>
> >   registration is
>
> > > close
>
> > > to $100, and this does not count travel
>
> >   and lodging.
>
> > >
>
> > > Service is becoming beyond the reach of many.
>
> >   Many smaller groups are
>
> > > having
>
> > > trouble coming up with the
>
> >   funds to send a GSR to an assembly.
>
> > >
>
> > > I'm already getting some
>
> >   feedback. It seems that there are more than a few
>
> > > who have felt the
>
> >   same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those
>
> > > who worship at
>
> >   the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie
>
> > > types who
>
> >   compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area
>
> > >
>
> >   treasurer
>
> > > that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety,
>
> >   including driving
>
> > > four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of
>
> >   group's money for a
>
> > > hotel
>
> > > room.
>
> > >
>
> > > Well, I am
>
> >   not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,
>
> > >
>
> >   grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th
>
> > >
>
> >   Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many
>
> >   are
>
> > > going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes
>
> >   sense.
>
> > > ------------ --------- ------
>
> > >
>
> > > In my
>
> >   Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to
>
> > >
>
> >   attend.
>
> > > They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed
>
> >   that the
>
> > > 2006
>
> > > Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72
>
> >   brought in $379,598 the last 5
>
> > > years back from 2006. This is nearly
>
> >   twice the income of Area 5 in
>
> > > Southern
>
> > > California. Both these
>
> >   Areas are about the same in number of Districts but
>
> > > Area 5 has far
>
> >   more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas
>
> > > in AA even
>
> >   after the split some years ago.
>
> > >
>
> > > Anyway I for one would like to
>
> >   support our brother with his efforts. I
>
> > > really don't think money
>
> >   should be a requirement to serve AA in General
>
> > > Service. Would like to
>
> >   hear from anyone with experience with this kind of
>
> > > thing in their own
>
> >   Area.
>
> > >
>
> > > Peace,
>
> > >
>
> > > Dennis
>
> >   M.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/
>
>
>
>     Individual Email | Traditional
>
>
>
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/join
>
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
>
>
>
>     mailto:GSOwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com
>
>     mailto:GSOwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>     GSOwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Greg <Greg@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I was at a pre-conference this past Saturday and got the same sense that Greg
talks about here.

We had seven topics to discuss. Topic #1 addressed the biennial mailings that
GSO sends out to corrections professionals at the cost of around $22,000 every
two years. Many were of the opinion that we, meaning the fellowship should let
them keep on doing that, the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality spoken
of. A small minority, myself among them, feels that GSO should discontinue this
practice as it is ineffective and costly. But we felt that it goes beyond money.
We feel that the fellowship as a whole has become bloated and lazy and rely too
much on GSO to provide services thar we should be providing at a local level.
Why do we need them indeed?

Topic #5 was a review of the board's responses to inventory questions pertaining
to regional composition and structure. I get the feeling that the General
Service Board wants to become even more bloated and top heavy by adding more
regional trustees. The board already relies too much on policy and procedure and
is far out of touch with the fellowship it supposedly serves. This explains
Dennis' reply to my remarks about the conference not being in favor of adding
another delegate area because it would upset their committees. Dennis said that
it was the board and not the conference that would not be friendly to a new
delegate area and after seeing the background information on this topic, I can
see why. Once again, my question is who needs them?

Topic #7 was the topic Greg brings up here. Like him, I got the sense that 99.9%
were of the mindset of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I heard talk of groups
increasing their contributions to GSO. Many didn't see anything wrong with using
profits from sales of literature to places like Hazelden to fund services
provided to AA members by GSO. The opinion was "So what if we sell books to
treatment centers, they still end up in the hands of alcoholics."

A small minority, myself among them felt that by stopping the sales of
literature to outside angencies and going to relying solely on contributions
from the groups, it will force GSO to live by the spirit of the 7th Readition
and to trust God. It will also force us to stop relying on GSO for largely
unnecessary services.

I brought up the idea of why do we need GSO? I also brought up that in the past
they have used proceeds from literature sales and 7th Tradition contributions
for attorney's fees and punitive litagation. I brought up the Mexican & German
litigations and GSO's part in those actions. Let me tell you, the reaction was
fairly hostile. Sadly, many just don't want to believe it. Our delegate asked me
why I would even bring up those topics. My reply was that AA members have a
right to know. Like I said though, many don't want to to know.
Jim




>
> Hi All,
>  Dennis wrote: "Many in the fellowship today are
> unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured."
>
> I think you should change the word "many", to, 99.99999% of the fellowship.
>
> I attended my area pre-conference assembly on sunday.
>
> I sat at the finance table for discussion of :"Review
> material submitted from the Fellowship concerning the 2008 Conference
> Advisory Action “the trustees” Finance and Budgetary Committee gather
> input from the Fellowship on the benefits and liabilities, both
> spiritual and practical of fully funding G.S.O. Services to the
> Fellowship (G.S.O. functional expenses) by the voluntary contributions
> of A.A. Members and groups.
>
> We spent a few hours going over the "input" that was gathered from various
Areas ,(and provided by the trustees), trying to get a jist of the overall
conscience of the areas that submitted input.
>  It was about 85% "if it aint broke don't fix it" and "we've always relied on
book sales" , to 2% use only voluntary contributions to fund GSO and the rest
said that a gradual shift might be good.
>
> After we reviewed what we were given, everyone at the table was "allowed" to
give their own ESH on the topic.
>
> The table conscience was pretty much the same as the other Areas we reviewed,
except I felt as if I was talking chinese or martian, and the only words that
anyone understood was my conclusion,"Do we really need GSO anymore anyway?"
> Their icey stares reminded me of the colonel that kicked me out of the usmc,
it was disheartening to say the least and little fearful.
> After it was all said and done,The table could only agree that AA should
continue to talk about this topic.
>  I suppose thats progress?
>
> Greg
> --- On Sat, 3/28/09, Dennis <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@...>
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 8:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for posting these links Norm. There were others
> involved as well. Maybe I will have time on my day off to gather them
together.
> I am sure they are already on our website . Manyi n the fellowship today are
> unaware that our NY Headquarters has been Censured.
>  
> Peace,
>  
> Dennis M.
>  
>  
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From:
>   Kohl
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>   Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19
> PM
>   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
>   Property, Prestige and Authority
>
>
>
>   You did good Dennis. Thanks for your input. Jim is opening the many areas
>
> that always fall into the shadows. I'm glad you're here to shine a little
>
> light.
>
> I noticed the comment about censure so did a quick search of
>   what we have
> online about censure. The following is what showed
>   up:
>
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/
>   "Home Page" of links to articles on the
> Censure, incorporating GSO, from
>   AAWS, 1992 proposal for GSB to manage AAWS
> temporarily
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. gif
>   08/10/94: Bob M, Mass Delegate, to
> AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about
>   censure and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug9410. htm
>   08/10/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
> Delegate, to AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates
>   about censure and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. gif
>   08/29/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
> Delegate, to Area 30 Committee members
>   about censure and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94a. htm
>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
>   and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. gif
>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
>   and breach of trust also yearly
> timeline of events
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94b. htm
>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
>   and breach of trust also yearly
> timeline of events
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. gif
>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
>   and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/aug94c. htm
>   Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
> Area 30 Committee members about censure
>   and breach of trust
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.gif
>   Statement of Censure
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens.htm
>   Statement of Censure
> http://gsowatch. aamo.info/ ce/cens94. htm
>   Statement of Censure and an
> additional Censure?
>
> I didn't really go
>   over anything -- just wanted to get the information out
> there before the
>   conference this year. Hope that whatever is here helps a
>
> little...
>
> Bless,
> Norm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dennis
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent:
>   Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money,
>   Property, Prestige and Authority
>
> Hi Jim;
>
> You wrote:
> >I
>   think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past
>
> >delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards
>   creating
> >a new delegate area. <
>
> I really don't think it is
>   the feelings of the Conference but rather the
> dictates of our NY
>   Headquarters. It is more the Trustees Committees rather
> than the
>   Conference Committees that influence the Conference and agendas.
> Except
>   for a minority of Delegates that go to the Conference the Conference
>
> itself doesn't have any feelings for anything relating to money, property,
>
> prestige or authority; and certainly about our spiritual
>   principles.
>
> It has always been a minority of Delegates that have stood
>   up for the
> integrity of our principles and provided much of the
>   information on our
> websites. It was a minority that put forth the Censure
>   in the early 1990's.
> That was about the time they started inviting the
>   Conference Committee
> Chairs to NY to be wined and dined and take part in a
>   meeting with the
> Trustee Committees prior to the Conference. This is where
>   they receive a
> gold box of 'rubber stamps' in which the Chairs pass out to
>   the other
> members of the Conference Committee.
>
> The minority opinion
>   belongs to the fellowship and the Delegates opinion
> belongs to the NY
>   Headquarters. But I do support your efforts and hopefully
> as you stated it
>   may just inform a few more members of the
>   fellowship.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: jim_011591
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent:
>   Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:46 AM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property,
>   Prestige and Authority
>
> Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy
>   to type the whole message
> over again.
>
> I think I told you about
>   being in contact with a friend who is a past
> delegate and what he said
>   about the conference's feelings towards creating a
> new delegate area. Well
>   I have been in touch with another former delegate,
> one served more
>   recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had
> told me. That
>   the conference would not be friendly to a request to create a
> new delegate
>   area because it would upset the balance of their committees.
>
> It seems
>   to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of
> their
>   committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary
>
> spiritual aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our
>
> general services to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who
>
> want it.
>
> Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work
>   for us and not the
> other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote
>   with the power of the
> purse, but to censure our so-called trusted
>   servants, including delegates
> and trustees.
> Jim
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com,
>   "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > One of members
>   posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post
> > it here as
>   well.
> >
> > Post:
> >
>   ------------ --------- ---------
> > Money, Property and
>   Prestige
> >
> > Well, I am at it again. I have just written and
>   submitted a motion for our
> > DCM to to take to our area quarterly next
>   month. The motion is that an ad
> > hoc committee be formed to look into
>   splitting our area and forming a new
> > delegate area.
> >
> > In
>   our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the
> >
>   area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business.
>   Our
> > area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues.
>
> > Basically
> > a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs
>   are through the roof,
> > last
> > year's assembly was in excess of
>   $42,000 and this year is comparable. A
> > few
> > years down the
>   road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.
> > Registration
>   packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was
> > not
>   allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration
> >
>   was
> > paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full
>   registration is
> > close
> > to $100, and this does not count travel
>   and lodging.
> >
> > Service is becoming beyond the reach of many.
>   Many smaller groups are
> > having
> > trouble coming up with the
>   funds to send a GSR to an assembly.
> >
> > I'm already getting some
>   feedback. It seems that there are more than a few
> > who have felt the
>   same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those
> > who worship at
>   the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie
> > types who
>   compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area
> >
>   treasurer
> > that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety,
>   including driving
> > four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of
>   group's money for a
> > hotel
> > room.
> >
> > Well, I am
>   not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,
> >
>   grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th
> >
>   Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many
>   are
> > going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes
>   sense.
> > ------------ --------- ------
> >
> > In my
>   Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to
> >
>   attend.
> > They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed
>   that the
> > 2006
> > Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72
>   brought in $379,598 the last 5
> > years back from 2006. This is nearly
>   twice the income of Area 5 in
> > Southern
> > California. Both these
>   Areas are about the same in number of Districts but
> > Area 5 has far
>   more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas
> > in AA even
>   after the split some years ago.
> >
> > Anyway I for one would like to
>   support our brother with his efforts. I
> > really don't think money
>   should be a requirement to serve AA in General
> > Service. Would like to
>   hear from anyone with experience with this kind of
> > thing in their own
>   Area.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis
>   M.
> >
>

Hi everyone,

As a newly Past Delegate, I can tell you there is a much larger concern than
adding more Delegate Areas and it is the dire need of realignment of the
existing 93 Delegate Areas.  There exists incredible amounts of disproportionate
representation under the current system.

Every 10 years the Congress of the US realigns their congressional districts
giving some states more while taking away others.  This has not been done in
over 30 years with the GSC.

Just a few simple glances will show you the unbalance.  My home Area in the SW
Region has roughly 22,000 members and one Delegate.  Quebec has about 30,000 and
4 Delegates.  One of Quebec's Areas has only 3300 members.  This is way out of
whack and it is only one of many examples.

Canada has roughly 18% of the total Areas and about 10% of the total members of
the US/Canada GSC...yet they have 30% of the Regional Delegates.  Delaware has
about 3500 members while N.C. California 06 has 56,000 members.  I could go on
all night.

During the past 2 years with the GM controversy, it was amazing to watch how the
4 regions in "Middle America" (SW, SE, E Central and W Central) were pitted
against the Pacific, Northeast and Canadian Regions.  It looks a lot like US
politics in general with the Conservative types in flyover country while the
left and right coasts tend to be more liberal.  It shows at the conference as
well, for the most part.  I felt more connected with the "Middle America"
Delegates in matters of AA Program of Recovery and our Traditions.  Of course
there are some exceptions but it lines up fairly consistent.

I would be interested to see what things would look like if the proper Delegate
ratio, through reapportionment, would look like today. It is a plan whose time
has come and gone.

B


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "jim_011591" <jim_011591@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy to type the whole message over
again.
>
> I think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past delegate
and what he said about the conference's feelings towards creating a new delegate
area. Well I have been in touch with another former delegate, one served more
recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had told me. That the
conference would not be friendly to a request to create a new delegate area
because it would upset the balance of their committees.
>
> It seems to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of their
committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary spiritual
aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our general services
to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who want it.
>
> Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work for us and not the
other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote with the power of the purse,
but to censure our so-called trusted servants, including delegates and trustees.
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
> >
> > One of members posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post
> > it here as well.
> >
> > Post:
> > ------------------------------
> > Money, Property and Prestige
> >
> > Well, I am at it again. I have just written and submitted a motion for our
> > DCM to to take to our area quarterly next month. The motion is that an ad
> > hoc committee be formed to look into splitting our area and forming a new
> > delegate area.
> >
> > In our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the
> > area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business. Our
> > area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues. Basically
> > a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs are through the roof, last
> > year's assembly was in excess of $42,000 and this year is comparable. A few
> > years down the road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.
> > Registration packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was
> > not allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration was
> > paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full registration is close
> > to $100, and this does not count travel and lodging.
> >
> > Service is becoming beyond the reach of many. Many smaller groups are having
> > trouble coming up with the funds to send a GSR to an assembly.
> >
> > I'm already getting some feedback. It seems that there are more than a few
> > who have felt the same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those
> > who worship at the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie
> > types who compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area treasurer
> > that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety, including driving
> > four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of group's money for a hotel
> > room.
> >
> > Well, I am not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,
> > grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th
> > Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many are
> > going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes sense.
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > In my Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to attend.
> > They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed that the 2006
> > Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72 brought in $379,598 the last 5
> > years back from 2006. This is nearly twice the income of Area 5 in Southern
> > California. Both these Areas are about the same in number of Districts but
> > Area 5 has far more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas
> > in AA even after the split some years ago.
> >
> > Anyway I for one would like to support our brother with his efforts. I
> > really don't think money should be a requirement to serve AA in General
> > Service. Would like to hear from anyone with experience with this kind of
> > thing in their own Area.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis M.
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Kohl

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

You did good Dennis. Thanks for your input. Jim is opening the many areas
that always fall into the shadows. I'm glad you're here to shine a little
light.

I noticed the comment about censure so did a quick search of what we have
online about censure. The following is what showed up:

http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/ "Home Page" of links to articles on the
Censure, incorporating GSO, from AAWS, 1992 proposal for GSB to manage AAWS
temporarily
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug9410.gif
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug9410.htm
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug9410.gif 08/10/94: Bob M, Mass Delegate, to
AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about censure and breach of trust
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug9410.htm 08/10/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
Delegate, to AA 1994 (44th GSC) Delegates about censure and breach of trust
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug94a.gif 08/29/94: Bob M, Mass (Area 30)
Delegate, to Area 30 Committee members about censure and breach of trust
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug94a.htm Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
Area 30 Committee members about censure and breach of trust
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug94b.gif Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
Area 30 Committee members about censure and breach of trust also yearly
timeline of events
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug94b.htm Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
Area 30 Committee members about censure and breach of trust also yearly
timeline of events
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug94c.gif Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
Area 30 Committee members about censure and breach of trust
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/aug94c.htm Bob M, Mass (Area 30) Delegate, to
Area 30 Committee members about censure and breach of trust
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/cens.gif Statement of Censure
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/cens.htm Statement of Censure
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/cens94.htm Statement of Censure and an
additional Censure?

I didn't really go over anything -- just wanted to get the information out
there before the conference this year. Hope that whatever is here helps a
little...

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

Hi Jim;

You wrote:
>I think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past
>delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards creating
>a new delegate area. <

I really don't think it is the feelings of the Conference but rather the
dictates of our NY Headquarters. It is more the Trustees Committees rather
than the Conference Committees that influence the Conference and agendas.
Except for a minority of Delegates that go to the Conference the Conference
itself doesn't have any feelings for anything relating to money, property,
prestige or authority; and certainly about our spiritual principles.

It has always been a minority of Delegates that have stood up for the
integrity of our principles and provided much of the information on our
websites. It was a minority that put forth the Censure in the early 1990's.
That was about the time they started inviting the Conference Committee
Chairs to NY to be wined and dined and take part in a meeting with the
Trustee Committees prior to the Conference. This is where they receive a
gold box of 'rubber stamps' in which the Chairs pass out to the other
members of the Conference Committee.

The minority opinion belongs to the fellowship and the Delegates opinion
belongs to the NY Headquarters. But I do support your efforts and hopefully
as you stated it may just inform a few more members of the fellowship.

Peace,

Dennis M.

----- Original Message -----
From: jim_011591
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:46 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Money, Property, Prestige and Authority

Thanks for posting this Dennis as I am too lazy to type the whole message
over again.

I think I told you about being in contact with a friend who is a past
delegate and what he said about the conference's feelings towards creating a
new delegate area. Well I have been in touch with another former delegate,
one served more recently. He said almost verbatim what my other friend had
told me. That the conference would not be friendly to a request to create a
new delegate area because it would upset the balance of their committees.

It seems to me that the conference is more concerned with the balance of
their committees than with our effectiveness at carrying out our primary
spiritual aim, which I had been led to believe is the sole reson for our
general services to exist: To bring recovery within the reach of all who
want it.

Maybe it is time to remind the conference that they work for us and not the
other way around. Maybe it is time to not only vote with the power of the
purse, but to censure our so-called trusted servants, including delegates
and trustees.
Jim

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> One of members posted this on another site. I asked his permission to post
> it here as well.
>
> Post:
> ------------------------------
> Money, Property and Prestige
>
> Well, I am at it again. I have just written and submitted a motion for our
> DCM to to take to our area quarterly next month. The motion is that an ad
> hoc committee be formed to look into splitting our area and forming a new
> delegate area.
>
> In our area we have become too large and cumbersome to effectively do the
> area's business, which is, at least I believe, doing God's business. Our
> area assemblies are three day events held in large, spendy venues.
> Basically
> a round-up with an assembly in the middle. Costs are through the roof,
> last
> year's assembly was in excess of $42,000 and this year is comparable. A
> few
> years down the road, in 2013, we are looking at better than $50, 000.
> Registration packets are exhorbitant. Last year, the average AA member was
> not allowed into the assembly unless a twenty dollar basic registration
> was
> paid. For last year's and this year's assemblies, full registration is
> close
> to $100, and this does not count travel and lodging.
>
> Service is becoming beyond the reach of many. Many smaller groups are
> having
> trouble coming up with the funds to send a GSR to an assembly.
>
> I'm already getting some feedback. It seems that there are more than a few
> who have felt the same way. I'm also getting some flak from some of those
> who worship at the altar of the sacred cow of GSO and the service junkie
> types who compose our area committee. I was told by one, our area
> treasurer
> that I should be willing to do anything for my sobriety, including driving
> four hours and spending a couple hundred bucks of group's money for a
> hotel
> room.
>
> Well, I am not willing to do that anymore. I am in favor of a smaller,
> grass-roots structure, one day service assemblies supported by 7th
> Tradition. I think in light of today's economy and the fact that many are
> going to a voluntarily simpler way of living, this only makes sense.
> ---------------------------
>
> In my Area the assembly's are held every two months and are free to
> attend.
> They are hosted by a different District every time. I noticed that the
> 2006
> Tax forms from Western Washington Area 72 brought in $379,598 the last 5
> years back from 2006. This is nearly twice the income of Area 5 in
> Southern
> California. Both these Areas are about the same in number of Districts but
> Area 5 has far more AA groups per District and is one of the biggest Areas
> in AA even after the split some years ago.
>
> Anyway I for one would like to support our brother with his efforts. I
> really don't think money should be a requirement to serve AA in General
> Service. Would like to hear from anyone with experience with this kind of
> thing in their own Area.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Antara

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:30 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings

I didn't write any of it. I didn't have any knowledge of this until a friend forwarded me the information.  I try to stay away from people involved in this kind of activity. These are the same pack who made "big Book meetings" be labeled as being officially outside the service structure of AA. Wrap yer head around that one, lol. Why would I expect anything less than BS from them? I just forwarded it on, info for people who are interested in seeing what's going on all over the globe. Cheers, Mary ps: Nope Norm, it ain't a joke. Sorry ;) --- On Sat, 3/28/09, hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> wrote: From: hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 6:58 PM IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NORM, it seems to be a posting of notes of real concern re. methods of ovoidance of principles in getting something passed thru the A.A. structure IN IRELAND. Antara commented:  "I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here." I believe the poster's point is, if in IRELAND, such could & most likely does happen ELSEWHERE.   Of course we here understand, it not only could, it has and does, when PRINCIPLES are ignored in favor of rules which allow manipulative control of the process. Sherry C.H., in the lovely Piney Woods of NE Texas -----Original Message----- From: GSOwatch@ Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:34 PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings This isn't a joke, is it? Bless, Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Antara To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:39 AM Subject: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: minor-third@ googlegroups. com Dear forum members: We had promised you news of the March conference decision relative to the proposed Directive, which would limit the involvement of under-18's in Ireland AA. As described in this message, when we offered a letter to Conference asking for a delay in the decision about this Directive (primarily to give groups, areas, and provinces time to respond with informed challenges), we were told: to "keep off the war path" until after Conference's decision, and that the only outcome of Conference this month would be a "series of suggestions and recommendations" which could then be debated according to our 5th Concept right to express minority opinion. A lot of us took this to mean that the Conference subcommittee would only be presenting its findings this month, after which there would be a year-long period of debate about how to respond to these findings. (For those new to AA politics, these subcommittees consist of several Conference delegates plus a non-alcoholic Trustee.) At the Area 9 meeting tonight (25 March 2009), we were told by our two Conference delegates (Francis and Ed) that Conference has implemented the proposed Directive despite anyone's erroneous assumption that opinions from outside Conference would be taken into account. The Directive's conditions are now the policy of AA in Ireland, effective immediately. The background: At the GSO Conference on 13 March, the findings of the subcommittee were given to all Conference delegates on paper two hours before taking a vote on the subcommittee' s recommendations. The vote was 21-3 in favour of implementing the recommendations of the report. As read to us at the Area meeting, it began and ended with the repetition that the report, "in accordance with the preamble of Alcoholics Anonymous," was being presented "to uphold the tradition of anonymity in AA" and "to protect the suffering alcoholic." After these incongruous qualifications, it immediately and unambiguously said Alcoholics Anonymous is not appropriate for minors under the age of 18. It went on to say that groups will be required to comply with these conditions: All secretaries and chairpersons will have to be vetted by Gardaí. (After the meeting, I privately asked one of our delegates if this will include all people providing the "chair" at AA meetings... the answer was, emphatically, yes.) It must be announced near the start of AA meetings (such as when people are asked "are there any newcomers?") if there are any under-18's present. Anyone responding in the affirmative must be escorted from the premises before the meeting begins. This under-age newcomer will then be advised of the time(s) and location(s) of open meetings, which they will be free to attend accompanied by a parent or guardian. As you can imagine, the meeting became very emotional. The two conference delegates present, being only recently appointed, claimed no responsibility for group and Area members being told that we were going to have a year to express our reservations before the decision was made, rather than having to make such presentations after Conference had voted to accept its own prefabricated ruling. When one of my home group members implied that this decision was reached in absence of the "collective conscience" of AA groups in Ireland, one the delegates chose to make the accusation personal and demanded that the statement be retracted. I must note my opinion as an observer that this reaction was disproportionately defensive. It seems incredibly important to Conference that they maintain the perception, especially in their own ranks, that they have made their recent decision not only in our best interest, but also with our consent. After the offending remak above, the other delegate said that "groups and Areas all over Ireland" had been consulted about the issue for four years, and that Conference had only given the issue over to a subcommittee after repeated deadlocks in this ongoing discussion. ____________ _________ _________ __ That is most of what I can remember from tonight's meeting. I was present as an observer from my home group because, as joint author of my home group's petition to Conference asking for more time to discuss the issue, I needed to find out first-hand if we had been given the time my co-author had been assured of by our former delegate. In fact, it now seems clear that this request to "stay off the war path" was not done in good faith as we had thought (to provide time for discussion), but to get any seriously concerned parties off of Conference's back (and more importantly, out of its upcoming agenda) so it could railroad its Directive through unopposed. To all parties waiting for the outcome of this decision: You are now free to present this new information to your home groups and tell them exactly what has been done in your best interest, "to protect the suffering alcoholic." If you are concerned that the implementation of this Directive will lead to unprecedented attrition from AA membership, you are not alone... in a long conversation I had after the meeting with our delegates (both of whom voted in favour of the Directive), even they admitted this. Our delegates have told us that it will take about three months for the Conference minutes to be edited and sent to groups in the post. This allows plenty of time for you to bring this issue up in your home group, to consider questions such as the following: (tradition one) How can anyone expect to believe in AA unity when every meeting begins with a separation of its members? (tradition two) How, in this case, did our leaders "not govern?" How were they "trusted servants" if our clearly voiced reservations about the implications of this Directive were pushed aside in anticipation of the vote? And how was the group conscience of AA groups the "ultimate authority" when most AA members in Ireland, at the time of this writing, still haven't heard of this issue? (tradition three) How will we explain to those in recovery, or those in need of it, that this 63-year old tradition was completely overruled in Ireland by a private meeting of 24 people lasting only a few hours? In fact, it can be shown that all of the first six traditions will be overturned by the implementation of this Directive, not to mention the obvious loss of Twelfth Tradition anonymity, which has now gone completely out the window. So, it is now time to go on the war path. If you have been looking for a worthy cause in the Fellowship to be involved in, this is IT. This is exactly the type of periodic conflict our founders anticipated when the traditions were formulated. The only reason AA exists today is because all twelve traditions have been unequivocally upheld during such critical periods. I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here. Anyone who still thinks that at this point should go back a few paragraphs and read the conditions of the Directive, where it details what all AA groups, and all those who will ever sit at the front table, will soon be required to do. What should you do? Since it was decided upon by closed committee, this Directive will have to be overturned by initiative: Gather informed supporters: forward this message, or the forum link (http://groups. google.com/ group/minor- third) to other members so they can sign up for this forum and follow lines of discussion. Read, and urge others to read, the group charter (available at forum home page when logged in) before posting anything, to keep the forum clear of noise and unrelated topics. Above all, take this issue to your group conscience, since it is only through the country-wide accumulation of our "ultimate authority" that this impending disaster can be corrected.

----- Original Message -----

From: Antara

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:30 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings

I didn't write any of it. I didn't have any knowledge of this until a friend forwarded me the information.  I try to stay away from people involved in this kind of activity. These are the same pack who made "big Book meetings" be labeled as being officially outside the service structure of AA. Wrap yer head around that one, lol. Why would I expect anything less than BS from them? I just forwarded it on, info for people who are interested in seeing what's going on all over the globe. Cheers, Mary ps: Nope Norm, it ain't a joke. Sorry ;) --- On Sat, 3/28/09, hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> wrote: From: hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 6:58 PM IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NORM, it seems to be a posting of notes of real concern re. methods of ovoidance of principles in getting something passed thru the A.A. structure IN IRELAND. Antara commented:  "I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here." I believe the poster's point is, if in IRELAND, such could & most likely does happen ELSEWHERE.   Of course we here understand, it not only could, it has and does, when PRINCIPLES are ignored in favor of rules which allow manipulative control of the process. Sherry C.H., in the lovely Piney Woods of NE Texas -----Original Message----- From: GSOwatch@ Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:34 PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings This isn't a joke, is it? Bless, Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Antara To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:39 AM Subject: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: minor-third@ googlegroups. com Dear forum members: We had promised you news of the March conference decision relative to the proposed Directive, which would limit the involvement of under-18's in Ireland AA. As described in this message, when we offered a letter to Conference asking for a delay in the decision about this Directive (primarily to give groups, areas, and provinces time to respond with informed challenges), we were told: to "keep off the war path" until after Conference's decision, and that the only outcome of Conference this month would be a "series of suggestions and recommendations" which could then be debated according to our 5th Concept right to express minority opinion. A lot of us took this to mean that the Conference subcommittee would only be presenting its findings this month, after which there would be a year-long period of debate about how to respond to these findings. (For those new to AA politics, these subcommittees consist of several Conference delegates plus a non-alcoholic Trustee.) At the Area 9 meeting tonight (25 March 2009), we were told by our two Conference delegates (Francis and Ed) that Conference has implemented the proposed Directive despite anyone's erroneous assumption that opinions from outside Conference would be taken into account. The Directive's conditions are now the policy of AA in Ireland, effective immediately. The background: At the GSO Conference on 13 March, the findings of the subcommittee were given to all Conference delegates on paper two hours before taking a vote on the subcommittee' s recommendations. The vote was 21-3 in favour of implementing the recommendations of the report. As read to us at the Area meeting, it began and ended with the repetition that the report, "in accordance with the preamble of Alcoholics Anonymous," was being presented "to uphold the tradition of anonymity in AA" and "to protect the suffering alcoholic." After these incongruous qualifications, it immediately and unambiguously said Alcoholics Anonymous is not appropriate for minors under the age of 18. It went on to say that groups will be required to comply with these conditions: All secretaries and chairpersons will have to be vetted by Gardaí. (After the meeting, I privately asked one of our delegates if this will include all people providing the "chair" at AA meetings... the answer was, emphatically, yes.) It must be announced near the start of AA meetings (such as when people are asked "are there any newcomers?") if there are any under-18's present. Anyone responding in the affirmative must be escorted from the premises before the meeting begins. This under-age newcomer will then be advised of the time(s) and location(s) of open meetings, which they will be free to attend accompanied by a parent or guardian. As you can imagine, the meeting became very emotional. The two conference delegates present, being only recently appointed, claimed no responsibility for group and Area members being told that we were going to have a year to express our reservations before the decision was made, rather than having to make such presentations after Conference had voted to accept its own prefabricated ruling. When one of my home group members implied that this decision was reached in absence of the "collective conscience" of AA groups in Ireland, one the delegates chose to make the accusation personal and demanded that the statement be retracted. I must note my opinion as an observer that this reaction was disproportionately defensive. It seems incredibly important to Conference that they maintain the perception, especially in their own ranks, that they have made their recent decision not only in our best interest, but also with our consent. After the offending remak above, the other delegate said that "groups and Areas all over Ireland" had been consulted about the issue for four years, and that Conference had only given the issue over to a subcommittee after repeated deadlocks in this ongoing discussion. ____________ _________ _________ __ That is most of what I can remember from tonight's meeting. I was present as an observer from my home group because, as joint author of my home group's petition to Conference asking for more time to discuss the issue, I needed to find out first-hand if we had been given the time my co-author had been assured of by our former delegate. In fact, it now seems clear that this request to "stay off the war path" was not done in good faith as we had thought (to provide time for discussion), but to get any seriously concerned parties off of Conference's back (and more importantly, out of its upcoming agenda) so it could railroad its Directive through unopposed. To all parties waiting for the outcome of this decision: You are now free to present this new information to your home groups and tell them exactly what has been done in your best interest, "to protect the suffering alcoholic." If you are concerned that the implementation of this Directive will lead to unprecedented attrition from AA membership, you are not alone... in a long conversation I had after the meeting with our delegates (both of whom voted in favour of the Directive), even they admitted this. Our delegates have told us that it will take about three months for the Conference minutes to be edited and sent to groups in the post. This allows plenty of time for you to bring this issue up in your home group, to consider questions such as the following: (tradition one) How can anyone expect to believe in AA unity when every meeting begins with a separation of its members? (tradition two) How, in this case, did our leaders "not govern?" How were they "trusted servants" if our clearly voiced reservations about the implications of this Directive were pushed aside in anticipation of the vote? And how was the group conscience of AA groups the "ultimate authority" when most AA members in Ireland, at the time of this writing, still haven't heard of this issue? (tradition three) How will we explain to those in recovery, or those in need of it, that this 63-year old tradition was completely overruled in Ireland by a private meeting of 24 people lasting only a few hours? In fact, it can be shown that all of the first six traditions will be overturned by the implementation of this Directive, not to mention the obvious loss of Twelfth Tradition anonymity, which has now gone completely out the window. So, it is now time to go on the war path. If you have been looking for a worthy cause in the Fellowship to be involved in, this is IT. This is exactly the type of periodic conflict our founders anticipated when the traditions were formulated. The only reason AA exists today is because all twelve traditions have been unequivocally upheld during such critical periods. I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here. Anyone who still thinks that at this point should go back a few paragraphs and read the conditions of the Directive, where it details what all AA groups, and all those who will ever sit at the front table, will soon be required to do. What should you do? Since it was decided upon by closed committee, this Directive will have to be overturned by initiative: Gather informed supporters: forward this message, or the forum link (http://groups. google.com/ group/minor- third) to other members so they can sign up for this forum and follow lines of discussion. Read, and urge others to read, the group charter (available at forum home page when logged in) before posting anything, to keep the forum clear of noise and unrelated topics. Above all, take this issue to your group conscience, since it is only through the country-wide accumulation of our "ultimate authority" that this impending disaster can be corrected.

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Antara
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:30 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings

I didn't write any of it. I didn't have any knowledge of this until a friend forwarded me the information.  I try to stay away from people involved in this kind of activity. These are the same pack who made "big Book meetings" be labeled as being officially outside the service structure of AA. Wrap yer head around that one, lol. Why would I expect anything less than BS from them? I just forwarded it on, info for people who are interested in seeing what's going on all over the globe. Cheers, Mary ps: Nope Norm, it ain't a joke. Sorry ;) --- On Sat, 3/28/09, hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> wrote: From: hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 6:58 PM IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NORM, it seems to be a posting of notes of real concern re. methods of ovoidance of principles in getting something passed thru the A.A. structure IN IRELAND. Antara commented:  "I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here." I believe the poster's point is, if in IRELAND, such could & most likely does happen ELSEWHERE.   Of course we here understand, it not only could, it has and does, when PRINCIPLES are ignored in favor of rules which allow manipulative control of the process. Sherry C.H., in the lovely Piney Woods of NE Texas -----Original Message----- From: GSOwatch@ Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:34 PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings This isn't a joke, is it? Bless, Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Antara To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:39 AM Subject: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: minor-third@ googlegroups. com Dear forum members: We had promised you news of the March conference decision relative to the proposed Directive, which would limit the involvement of under-18's in Ireland AA. As described in this message, when we offered a letter to Conference asking for a delay in the decision about this Directive (primarily to give groups, areas, and provinces time to respond with informed challenges), we were told: to "keep off the war path" until after Conference's decision, and that the only outcome of Conference this month would be a "series of suggestions and recommendations" which could then be debated according to our 5th Concept right to express minority opinion. A lot of us took this to mean that the Conference subcommittee would only be presenting its findings this month, after which there would be a year-long period of debate about how to respond to these findings. (For those new to AA politics, these subcommittees consist of several Conference delegates plus a non-alcoholic Trustee.) At the Area 9 meeting tonight (25 March 2009), we were told by our two Conference delegates (Francis and Ed) that Conference has implemented the proposed Directive despite anyone's erroneous assumption that opinions from outside Conference would be taken into account. The Directive's conditions are now the policy of AA in Ireland, effective immediately. The background: At the GSO Conference on 13 March, the findings of the subcommittee were given to all Conference delegates on paper two hours before taking a vote on the subcommittee' s recommendations. The vote was 21-3 in favour of implementing the recommendations of the report. As read to us at the Area meeting, it began and ended with the repetition that the report, "in accordance with the preamble of Alcoholics Anonymous," was being presented "to uphold the tradition of anonymity in AA" and "to protect the suffering alcoholic." After these incongruous qualifications, it immediately and unambiguously said Alcoholics Anonymous is not appropriate for minors under the age of 18. It went on to say that groups will be required to comply with these conditions: All secretaries and chairpersons will have to be vetted by Gardaí. (After the meeting, I privately asked one of our delegates if this will include all people providing the "chair" at AA meetings... the answer was, emphatically, yes.) It must be announced near the start of AA meetings (such as when people are asked "are there any newcomers?") if there are any under-18's present. Anyone responding in the affirmative must be escorted from the premises before the meeting begins. This under-age newcomer will then be advised of the time(s) and location(s) of open meetings, which they will be free to attend accompanied by a parent or guardian. As you can imagine, the meeting became very emotional. The two conference delegates present, being only recently appointed, claimed no responsibility for group and Area members being told that we were going to have a year to express our reservations before the decision was made, rather than having to make such presentations after Conference had voted to accept its own prefabricated ruling. When one of my home group members implied that this decision was reached in absence of the "collective conscience" of AA groups in Ireland, one the delegates chose to make the accusation personal and demanded that the statement be retracted. I must note my opinion as an observer that this reaction was disproportionately defensive. It seems incredibly important to Conference that they maintain the perception, especially in their own ranks, that they have made their recent decision not only in our best interest, but also with our consent. After the offending remak above, the other delegate said that "groups and Areas all over Ireland" had been consulted about the issue for four years, and that Conference had only given the issue over to a subcommittee after repeated deadlocks in this ongoing discussion. ____________ _________ _________ __ That is most of what I can remember from tonight's meeting. I was present as an observer from my home group because, as joint author of my home group's petition to Conference asking for more time to discuss the issue, I needed to find out first-hand if we had been given the time my co-author had been assured of by our former delegate. In fact, it now seems clear that this request to "stay off the war path" was not done in good faith as we had thought (to provide time for discussion), but to get any seriously concerned parties off of Conference's back (and more importantly, out of its upcoming agenda) so it could railroad its Directive through unopposed. To all parties waiting for the outcome of this decision: You are now free to present this new information to your home groups and tell them exactly what has been done in your best interest, "to protect the suffering alcoholic." If you are concerned that the implementation of this Directive will lead to unprecedented attrition from AA membership, you are not alone... in a long conversation I had after the meeting with our delegates (both of whom voted in favour of the Directive), even they admitted this. Our delegates have told us that it will take about three months for the Conference minutes to be edited and sent to groups in the post. This allows plenty of time for you to bring this issue up in your home group, to consider questions such as the following: (tradition one) How can anyone expect to believe in AA unity when every meeting begins with a separation of its members? (tradition two) How, in this case, did our leaders "not govern?" How were they "trusted servants" if our clearly voiced reservations about the implications of this Directive were pushed aside in anticipation of the vote? And how was the group conscience of AA groups the "ultimate authority" when most AA members in Ireland, at the time of this writing, still haven't heard of this issue? (tradition three) How will we explain to those in recovery, or those in need of it, that this 63-year old tradition was completely overruled in Ireland by a private meeting of 24 people lasting only a few hours? In fact, it can be shown that all of the first six traditions will be overturned by the implementation of this Directive, not to mention the obvious loss of Twelfth Tradition anonymity, which has now gone completely out the window. So, it is now time to go on the war path. If you have been looking for a worthy cause in the Fellowship to be involved in, this is IT. This is exactly the type of periodic conflict our founders anticipated when the traditions were formulated. The only reason AA exists today is because all twelve traditions have been unequivocally upheld during such critical periods. I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here. Anyone who still thinks that at this point should go back a few paragraphs and read the conditions of the Directive, where it details what all AA groups, and all those who will ever sit at the front table, will soon be required to do. What should you do? Since it was decided upon by closed committee, this Directive will have to be overturned by initiative: Gather informed supporters: forward this message, or the forum link (http://groups. google.com/ group/minor- third) to other members so they can sign up for this forum and follow lines of discussion. Read, and urge others to read, the group charter (available at forum home page when logged in) before posting anything, to keep the forum clear of noise and unrelated topics. Above all, take this issue to your group conscience, since it is only through the country-wide accumulation of our "ultimate authority" that this impending disaster can be corrected.

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dave smith
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:27 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings

This of course is Eire  and not the UK--thank God for that !!   Dave S --- On Sat, 3/28/09, hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> wrote: From: hartsell <hartsell@etex.net> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 5:58 PM IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NORM, it seems to be a posting of notes of real concern re. methods of ovoidance of principles in getting something passed thru the A.A. structure IN IRELAND. Antara commented:  "I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here." I believe the poster's point is, if in IRELAND, such could & most likely does happen ELSEWHERE.   Of course we here understand, it not only could, it has and does, when PRINCIPLES are ignored in favor of rules which allow manipulative control of the process. Sherry C.H., in the lovely Piney Woods of NE Texas -----Original Message----- From: GSOwatch@ Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:34 PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings This isn't a joke, is it? Bless, Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Antara To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:39 AM Subject: [GSOwatch] Irish AA banning minors from meetings To: minor-third@ googlegroups. com Dear forum members: We had promised you news of the March conference decision relative to the proposed Directive, which would limit the involvement of under-18's in Ireland AA. As described in this message, when we offered a letter to Conference asking for a delay in the decision about this Directive (primarily to give groups, areas, and provinces time to respond with informed challenges), we were told: to "keep off the war path" until after Conference's decision, and that the only outcome of Conference this month would be a "series of suggestions and recommendations" which could then be debated according to our 5th Concept right to express minority opinion. A lot of us took this to mean that the Conference subcommittee would only be presenting its findings this month, after which there would be a year-long period of debate about how to respond to these findings. (For those new to AA politics, these subcommittees consist of several Conference delegates plus a non-alcoholic Trustee.) At the Area 9 meeting tonight (25 March 2009), we were told by our two Conference delegates (Francis and Ed) that Conference has implemented the proposed Directive despite anyone's erroneous assumption that opinions from outside Conference would be taken into account. The Directive's conditions are now the policy of AA in Ireland, effective immediately. The background: At the GSO Conference on 13 March, the findings of the subcommittee were given to all Conference delegates on paper two hours before taking a vote on the subcommittee' s recommendations. The vote was 21-3 in favour of implementing the recommendations of the report. As read to us at the Area meeting, it began and ended with the repetition that the report, "in accordance with the preamble of Alcoholics Anonymous," was being presented "to uphold the tradition of anonymity in AA" and "to protect the suffering alcoholic." After these incongruous qualifications, it immediately and unambiguously said Alcoholics Anonymous is not appropriate for minors under the age of 18. It went on to say that groups will be required to comply with these conditions: All secretaries and chairpersons will have to be vetted by Gardaí. (After the meeting, I privately asked one of our delegates if this will include all people providing the "chair" at AA meetings... the answer was, emphatically, yes.) It must be announced near the start of AA meetings (such as when people are asked "are there any newcomers?") if there are any under-18's present. Anyone responding in the affirmative must be escorted from the premises before the meeting begins. This under-age newcomer will then be advised of the time(s) and location(s) of open meetings, which they will be free to attend accompanied by a parent or guardian. As you can imagine, the meeting became very emotional. The two conference delegates present, being only recently appointed, claimed no responsibility for group and Area members being told that we were going to have a year to express our reservations before the decision was made, rather than having to make such presentations after Conference had voted to accept its own prefabricated ruling. When one of my home group members implied that this decision was reached in absence of the "collective conscience" of AA groups in Ireland, one the delegates chose to make the accusation personal and demanded that the statement be retracted. I must note my opinion as an observer that this reaction was disproportionately defensive. It seems incredibly important to Conference that they maintain the perception, especially in their own ranks, that they have made their recent decision not only in our best interest, but also with our consent. After the offending remak above, the other delegate said that "groups and Areas all over Ireland" had been consulted about the issue for four years, and that Conference had only given the issue over to a subcommittee after repeated deadlocks in this ongoing discussion. ____________ _________ _________ __ That is most of what I can remember from tonight's meeting. I was present as an observer from my home group because, as joint author of my home group's petition to Conference asking for more time to discuss the issue, I needed to find out first-hand if we had been given the time my co-author had been assured of by our former delegate. In fact, it now seems clear that this request to "stay off the war path" was not done in good faith as we had thought (to provide time for discussion), but to get any seriously concerned parties off of Conference's back (and more importantly, out of its upcoming agenda) so it could railroad its Directive through unopposed. To all parties waiting for the outcome of this decision: You are now free to present this new information to your home groups and tell them exactly what has been done in your best interest, "to protect the suffering alcoholic." If you are concerned that the implementation of this Directive will lead to unprecedented attrition from AA membership, you are not alone... in a long conversation I had after the meeting with our delegates (both of whom voted in favour of the Directive), even they admitted this. Our delegates have told us that it will take about three months for the Conference minutes to be edited and sent to groups in the post. This allows plenty of time for you to bring this issue up in your home group, to consider questions such as the following: (tradition one) How can anyone expect to believe in AA unity when every meeting begins with a separation of its members? (tradition two) How, in this case, did our leaders "not govern?" How were they "trusted servants" if our clearly voiced reservations about the implications of this Directive were pushed aside in anticipation of the vote? And how was the group conscience of AA groups the "ultimate authority" when most AA members in Ireland, at the time of this writing, still haven't heard of this issue? (tradition three) How will we explain to those in recovery, or those in need of it, that this 63-year old tradition was completely overruled in Ireland by a private meeting of 24 people lasting only a few hours? In fact, it can be shown that all of the first six traditions will be overturned by the implementation of this Directive, not to mention the obvious loss of Twelfth Tradition anonymity, which has now gone completely out the window. So, it is now time to go on the war path. If you have been looking for a worthy cause in the Fellowship to be involved in, this is IT. This is exactly the type of periodic conflict our founders anticipated when the traditions were formulated. The only reason AA exists today is because all twelve traditions have been unequivocally upheld during such critical periods. I apologise to anyone who believes this is about defending the right of under-18's to join AA, but it is actually not the main issue here. Anyone who still thinks that at this point should go back a few paragraphs and read the conditions of the Directive, where it details what all AA groups, and all those who will ever sit at the front table, will soon be required to do. What should you do? Since it was decided upon by closed committee, this Directive will have to be overturned by initiative: Gather informed supporters: forward this message, or the forum link (http://groups. google.com/ group/minor- third) to other members so they can sign up for this forum and follow lines of discussion. Read, and urge others to read, the group charter (available at forum home page when logged in) before posting anything, to keep the forum clear of noise and unrelated topics. Above all, take this issue to your group conscience, since it is only through the country-wide accumulation of our "ultimate authority" that this impending disaster can be corrected.