Originally Posted by
Boleo 
However, this should be resolved at the Group Conscious level rather than the GSO level. Some of the better meetings that I attend have modified their opening statement to specifically address one members bad behavior. We call it the "You-know-who rule".
That's what I thought, too, until the DC Midtown Group scandal hit a few years ago (involving sex with minor females, by middle aged male AAs), and the reaction of the GSB was essentially "we can't do anything, because each group is autonomous."
That's what started me thinking. I knew that "corporate AA" (AAWS, with the approval of the GSB) had managed to find the authority to sue Mexican and German AA members for copyright infringement for selling translations of the Big Book, resulting in one AA member spending a year in jail. And it occurred to me that a governing board that has the power to protect an organization's monetary interests certainly has the power to protect its most vulnerable members.
Don't get me wrong: I heartily approve of this grassroots movement to make AA safer. I just think it's a shame that the GSB acknowledges the problem, but then denies that it has the authority to address it.