There is a story on this board about a woman who in 1941, before our traditions were in place, was kicked out of AA.  And was informed of it on the same day that Japan flew over and bombed Pearl Harbor.  Her name was Irma Livoni.  

http://aa.activeboard.com/t44123765/irma-livoni-the-woman-who-was-kicked-out-of-aa-tradition-thr/

The Akron Intergroup archieves have correspondence between Bill W and the group of men who were promoting her "termination" from AA, and in it, it suggest rather clearly she was very promiscuous and hooking up with some of the married men in the group, destroying families and jeapardizing the continued sobriety of those men.

The situation created a good bit of division in the group, and this is what caught Bill's attention.  Also he states that this person is spiritually ill, and needs to be treated with an agape love that the the group could use collectively to bring her to a better place of self respect.  But that instead of looking so closely at her actions, they might want to also look at the men's actions, as they too were showing signs of not being spiritually fit and destroying their own families and jeapardizing their own recovery by engaging in such behavior.

In the end the letter from Bill to the group states the group needs to protect itself from this sort of distraction at all cost because while they are focused on who is doing what regarding this issue, someone is likely sitting in the background dying of alcoholism that is not even getting noticed.

It is said by a variety of elders in the program at that time that this situation gave birth to the traditions... Tradition 1, Tradition 2, Tradition 3, Tradition 4... and who knows what others... 

************

Now, utilizing the Traditions long form, which can be read at http://www.prismnet.com/aamen/trad.html I would believe we can't kick someone out of AA, as stated in Tradition 3 if they have a desire to stop drinking, they do not have to conform to a bunch of rules and regulations, to be a member of this fellowship.

And some will lean on Tradition 4, "Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole." "Well, we arn't kicking them out of AA, but out of our group because... (but arn't we then setting up another group in the area to be the receptor of that preditory behavior?)

I think Tradition  1 and 2 stands out very clearly on this... that the common good of the whole of comes before the good of the individual, and that the group must seek its ultimate authority through a "loving" God as expressed collectively by the group, so unity is heard in its determination of action.

Our group has had to put a member in what I like to refer to as the group "hot seat" at times.  What we have found is that the behavior is changed, amends are made and everyone gets back to the primary purpose, or the individual leaves on their own accord, never to be seen again, or at least until the pain of alcoholism propels them back into the rooms with enough force that they final "stick" to the program and not try to "stick" its members. :)

Each group needs to find that spiritual solution which allows us to practice the principles of this program and forgo letting any personalities take charge and entice a bashing committee into doing something that suddenly becomes another group policy.  I have seen a sick group of people come up with some pretty sick solutions that didn't reflect our code of Love, Tolerance and Patience.

I tend to agree that the first step of action to put on the floor is that 3 of the groups elders, get with the offender (together, not separately) and in very clear, firm words inform them that their behavior is not acceptable and should it be continued it will be taken to the next level of group involvement so that everyone becomes aware of their perditory conduct.  

Lastly, the big book states that "We are not the arbitors of anyones sex conduct. We all have sex problems. We'd hardly be human if we didn't."

But it also says more will be revealed.  Keep in mind that if you saw the woman in AA when the Big Book was written in 1939, they didn't have to worry themselves with arbitrating sex conduct too much... LMAO  most were homeless bag ladies who had more years drinking under their belt than many of our members have sucking air on earth today.  Our membership and society has changed a great amount since those early days.   It was written before the sexual revolution of the 1960's, and sex outside of wedlock, and especially sex with someone still married was condoned so harsely that to even bring it to light at all, could have resulted in many people dying from utter embarassment, and humiliation that resulted in that first drink being taken.  Today, we have a new playing field, a much younger, more sexually vibrant population and we have over 75 years of collective experience and wisdom to pull from.  The unwritten suggestion of no sex for the first year of sobriety comes from that experience and wisdom, it cannot be found to be elluded to prior to 1971, why? Because at that time we realized were literally screwing each other to death! :)

And to this day...when someone tells me they relapsed in their first year I ask.."what was his/her name?" And the majority can give me a name....

John