Thoughts on Tradition Two from the Shropshire (UK) Intergroup of AA (More HERE):

Short form

For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

Long form

For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority— a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience.

Unusually this is the only 'long form' tradition that is shorter than the short form!

Tradition Two Discussion Questions

In group conscience meetings am I looking to find God’s will or am I secretly trying to push my own agenda?
Am I in sufficient contact with my Higher Power to consider myself able to try to speak on Its behalf?
Am I too trusting of AA leaders? Do I take enough responsibility for my own understanding or simply parrot what I’m told?
Do I try to save face in group discussion, or can I yield in good spirit to the group conscience and work cheerfully along with it?
As a leader, do I drive by mandate or lead by example?
In group discussions, do I sound off about matters on which I have no experience and little knowledge?
Do I attend my group’s group conscience meetings?

Thoughts on Tradition Two

So this means that AA has no leaders? Not at all. AA has many leaders, some formal, some natural but the crucial difference is that they are not in charge. They are bestowed with responsibility by the group or service body but not with power. In actual fact, no individual is in charge. The groups are in charge. This can be seen by the upside-down triangle of the service structure below.

The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions gives examples of two types of longer serving members; the elder statesman and the bleeding deacon, with one clearly being more desirable than the other. Bleeding deacons are full of self-pity and connive for reelection, Bill even suggests that these people are at increased risk of relapse. So how do we avoid becoming one of these? To become the elder statesman we must learn to accept and respect the group conscience, even when we feel it may be wrong. This is challenging but allows us to become more use to the group in the longer term. The elder statesman becomes a respected individual in the group whose council is often sought.

This is highlighted by the concluding comments of the paragraph where it says "They become the voice of the group conscience; in fact, these are the true voice of Alcoholics Anonymous. They do not drive by mandate; they lead by example. This is the experience which has led us to the conclusion that our group conscience, well-advised by its elders, will be in the long run wiser than any single leader."

In some Intergroups there are groups who are run by unelected steering committees. These groups rarely, if ever, have group conscience meetings. Often, the newer, less well informed members will see this as the only form of group leadership because it is all they have ever known. But all groups who wish to adhere to the principles of the traditions ought to have group conscience meetings.

The second part of this tradition, if they can truly be separated, is the definition and role of leaders in AA. Our leaders are only trusted servants. It is perhaps worth dwelling on that word – servants. While most leaders of quality serve, in AA it takes on a deeper meaning because AA leaders are not in charge. While they certainly have responsibilities, any attempts to force their will on a group or committee would directly contravene not just this tradition but also Concept 12. The author has experience of an Intergroup meeting where the chair got up and left the meeting because the Intergroup would not do as he had told them. Even those who intend to serve can be misguided and misinformed on how we serve in AA. Titles in AA do not confer authority, nor are they badges of honour, they simply define a responsibility.

So what is a group conscience meeting? Very little guidance exists on this subject. So the following are suggestions and ideas inspired by the principles of AA.

The purpose of a group conscience meeting is not just to find what the group wants. The true purpose is to find the will of God. Here spirituality and democracy mix.
Often, any person present at at group conscience will feel that they have the right to vote on group matters, even if they are only a visitor. It is worth considering who the group members really are, who considers the group to be their home group. It is these people who truly have the right to vote. Some groups find keeping a list of group members useful. This prevents non group members from trying to influence a group in a way that suits them. One example the author is aware of came from the time when groups were beginning to vote to go smoke free. Members who smoked would go to groups taking this vote en masse and try to swing the vote in their favour. This is not a group conscience. To have a true group conscience it is perhaps wise to allow only group members to vote. The importance, therefore, of having a home group cannot be overstated.
If the purpose is to find the will of God, then perhaps it is worth considering a period of silent reflection before discussions begin.
While it is common practice in many meetings for the Group Service Representative (GSR) to hold the meeting, this is nowhere to be found in our literature. If we consider the role of the GSR – to carry information between the group and Intergroup – then perhaps they can better serve the group by listening and participating in discussion. This is harder to do when chairing a group conscience meeting. While most groups no longer have a chairperson, perhaps the group secretary is better placed to run the meeting and keep minutes.
Like any meeting, having an agenda and minutes, even brief ones, can be very useful. This allows group members who were unable to attend to remain informed. It also enables group members to keep a record of decisions they have made.
Consider applying Concept 5. The view of the minority is to be valued and actively sought. It is possible that they are right.
Throughout our world service structure, a traditional “Right of Appeal” ought to prevail, thus assuring us that minority opinion will be heard and that petitions for the redress of personal grievances will be carefully considered.
It's common for groups to be eager to vote on a matter. This is entirely understandable, but often it is wise not to rush to a vote. Consider allowing some time to consider any proposal and perhaps vote at the following meeting. This time can be used for further research, to seek guidance and to allow the opportunity for careful deliberation.
A group conscience meeting needs to be well informed. This is one reason why an agenda prior to a meeting is worth considering. Taking a rushed vote on a matter that members have not been fully informed on can be unhelpful.
Concept 12 states that, "that all important decisions be reached by discussion, vote and, whenever possible, by substantial unanimity." It is worth considering applying the principle of substantial unanimity (a more that two thirds vote) for important group matters.