RE: Is it possible to ban a person from a groups meeting??

Absolutely.  Tradition 1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity. 

Based on your share this situation is already causing some level of division within the group.

AA is not a adult day care center, mental health group therapy session, ...ect.

In our meetings are men and woman who are trying to find out how to stay sober, just one day.  Then learn how to build and live productive lives in society. Some still have a case of the shakes, they feel like they are hopeless and dying on the inside.  They are who we are here to reach.

When someone without a developmental handicap shares in a AA meeting a long, drawn out story of how much trouble they had trying to string their weed eater, how is this helping that newcomer whose body is begging for a drink?  They didn't come to AA to learn about how to change the string on a weed eater, they came here to learn how to stay sober one day at a time.  They are not getting what they came here for, and as a result may not make it back.

When someone with a developmental handicap is repetitously disruptive, deminishing the ability of the group to carry a message of recovery and hope to the newcomer, for the group not to interceed could be killing another alcoholic that reached out to us for help.  Groups all over the world have a format, that while varying a bit, have a common theme, to bring about a meeting that has a strong potiential of reaching the newcomer with a message of hope, that they too can recover, and how this is done.  When any individual repeatedly disrupts the groups ability to carry out its primary purpose, while we cannot remove them from AA as a whole, we can elect that it is in the groups best interest to have them seek their recovery needs else where.  An alcoholic that is drunk and disruptive may need to be escorted out of the meeting, or even allowed to sit through it, being a drunk.  There is a good possibility he will be sober and cognisent tomorrow and start his journey of recovery.  The developmentally disabled is still going to be developmentally disabled tomorrow with the same level of mental cognisence.  Drink or no drink.  This person is outside our purpose and scope.  We need to keep tradition 5 in play here, we are best suited to do one thing well, not be everything to everyone.

I venture to say the person who is so developementally disabled that they cannot be compliant to meeting protocol or format, and interfers with the attention others are able to pay to those who are trying to share a message of ES&H, did not come on their own accord, but were brought to the meeting as a standard procedure of a institution.  This being the case, the group can elect to address the institution regarding the individuals disruptiveness, and even request that they refrain from bringing any one who is not cognisent enough to handle themselves appropriately in such a 12 step meeting environment.  Another reasonable request is that at the first indicator that someone from their facility is going to be disruptive they are escorted out of the meeting by their staff member immediately.  My experience with such situations reflects that when the institution is approached they will often do their own banning.  If they think it will adversely effect the others from their facility attending the meeting, they will weed out the troublesome one on their own for the benefit of the others.

As for banning a 13 stepper, I fully support it.  Yes, they may go back out and die. Taking adventage of the vunerabilities of others in the rooms is a strong indicator they were already headed in that direction.  If the elders of the group has addressed them about it to no avail, my concern for them will never supercede my concern for the newcomer they are attempting to take adventage of.  Whispering sweet nothings, deceptive and manipulative isolation, creating dependence upon themselves, in short grooming the vunerable who have yet to learn how to deal with a twisted emotional center, places the vunerable member at more risk of a relapse that they may not return from, than banning the con ever will. 

The groups best interest has to come first. 

Having said all of this, let me insert here, that I also fully agree with and support our code as outlined in the Big Book.  Our code is "tolerance and love".  Not exclusively, but inclusively, for the greater good of the whole.

John

All persons showing up at any AA meeting are put there by God. When I was new to AA I did not know that. I thought that they were put there to annoy me because I did not like their behavior. Over the years I became aware that those people were put there to teach me things about myself, like my lack of patience, tolarence, and love. God has yet to teach me how to like some of them, but as said in the Big Book, he does allow me to show patience and tolerance toward them.

To remove a disruptive person from an AA meeting is one thing. To ban any member of AA from a group is quite another thing. The third traditions does not say that the only requirement for membership is the desire to stop drinking and any other thing that we can think up. If any person is banned from any group of AA, who is the next person to be banned? will it be you or will it be me?

Agreed Tom, great post.

As far as the tradition is concerned, yes you can be expelled from a meeting. You have a right to be there, drunk even, but you do not have a right to disrupt. You cannot be expelled from AA as a whole. That's what that's saying. Our common welfare should come first, personal recovery depends upon AA unity. If AA dies, we die. As trusted servants it is our responsibility to help make sure continues. The 13th stepper? I'm sorry, but if that was their concern then they were there for sex not recovery. But as long as the issue was properly addressed and it continued, it would be a violation of the tradition not to. This goes for all such situations.