A bit of background: I asked for the IGC to be implemented in Bozeman in 1987; it was to be the beginning of a new attempt at self-responsibility in SA (we had tried it before in 1983). As of July 3, 1990, the IGC Committee has been stalled due to internal division within the Committee on the sobriety issue and other matters (refer to memo of the chair 3 July 1990 and my 27 August 1990 letter to the fellowship). The five who continued meeting on their own are now down to two, the other three having left the IGC, SA, or both. After the split stalled the IGC, I felt that the CO should not continue to fund conference calls while that incomplete and dysfunctional condition persisted. (The IGC Procedure is based on a full committee of nine representatives.) What made it such an important decision was that the IGC split was based on irreconcilable differences concerning SA’s most fundamental tenet—sobriety. SA monies are a sacred trust.

I support the motion from the recent Oklahoma City convention, that the IGC “try to determine what went wrong in the IGC procedure as it has so far been implemented, and to offer suggestions for improving the process in the future, or else to offer the recommendation that the process be discontinued.”

Unless there are fellowship objections, the CO intends to fund the investigation per the above motion. I do suggest that the investigation might be better served if an independent group of SA members prepares the final evaluation, that all IGC members past and present be involved, and that SA members be allowed to submit any questions they want answered in the investigation. (I myself have a list of questions.)

In the light of the recent sobriety survey, I believe it would be inappropriate for the IGC to go back into business as usual in its existing condition, divided as it is on SA sobriety. Since SA is divided (75% for and 19% against) on its interpretation of sobriety, we have some real soul-searching to do, both as a fellowship and as individual groups and members. Some groups are choosing to leave SA and affiliate according to their own principle of sobriety. I feel this is the conscionable thing to do and that we should have an understanding and cooperative attitude about this. Let no one be misdependent on SA. Thank God, no one is being left out in the cold, and we can at the same time be true to our own individual principles.

I challenge us to become of one mind and heart on our most fundamental principle first—sobriety—before we set the existing divided situation into organizational concrete. Perhaps this hiatus in the IGC has served a purpose, seeing as we do now the full extent and impact of the division within SA on sobriety. (See “Group and Member Comments On the Sobriety Survey of 12 December.”) After we come to be of one mind and heart on sobriety—whatever that takes—then let’s start taking a long hard look at the future needs of SA self-responsibility, including means of doing what the IGC was intended to do, but also covering more of what tomorrow’s needs will require. We can learn from our current experience. More about this in the future. For now, First Things First is the way I see it from here.