By letter of 12 December 1990, I invited all SA groups to express themselves regarding the interpretation of SA’s sobriety definition. Although the letter was from me, it was written with and received the unanimous consent of the Central Office Advisory Committee on 8 December 1990. The actual wording of the statement was suggested by members of that Committee. (A brief sketch of the origin and service of the Advisory Committee is included in this mailing.)

As new members and groups have come on the scene since 1981, there has been less direct encounter with the spirit of SA’s origins and principles. One result is that some people and groups have different views and conduct about SA’s fundamental principle of sexual sobriety, yet continue to call themselves SA. This has raised serious issues regarding trademark and copyright infringement involving unauthorized changes to SA’s Traditions, Steps, literature, and statement of sobriety. (See Report on the NY Legal Issue.) Thus it became necessary to determine whether SA as a whole—the majority of groups—did still in fact hold to SA’s interpretation of sobriety.

The sobriety survey was thus intended to provide a “sense of the Fellowship” on how SA’s sobriety was being interpreted by its groups. It was not intended to discriminate. It was not intended to suggest a change in SA’s literature. It was not a vote to see what SA wanted for a sobriety definition; that was settled in 1981. It was to get the sense of the percentage of groups adhering or not adhering to the commonly-held view of SA sobriety.

Let me reemphasize: SA, as always, is inclusive, welcoming those from any sexual experience “who want to stop lusting and become sexually sober.”

We decided the 12 December survey should go to groups instead of individuals because SA decisions in the past have been made on a group basis. It was also felt that members might want to know where groups stand on the sobriety issue.

A number of groups felt that a more “formal” vote should have been taken, such as by the IGC. But the status of the IGC is still unresolved, with only two active (?) members remaining; the fellowship should be dealing with that shortly if it investigates what went wrong. It would have been totally against its Procedure to ask that divided and incomplete IGC to conduct any vote in its present condition at this time. The IGC was so divided on the sobriety issue that it could not function. How could it conduct an objective IGC on the sobriety definition?

Since the IGC was not functioning and this matter had to be brought to the fellowship now due to the current legal issue (see the above-mentioned Report), the only option was to have the Central Office initiate the survey. Not to have acted on the NY issue would have been giving tacit approval to copyright and trademark violations, setting a dangerous precedent, and betraying the fellowship’s trust. The Central Office action in taking the survey followed the precedent of how SA group consciences were taken prior to the IGC, since 1981.

The survey indicates that SA is vitally concerned about the issue of how sexual sobriety is defined and interpreted. Over 170 groups responded to the survey (whereas as recently as 1989, only 31 groups voted to institute the IGC Procedure). This rivals any survey, expression of opinion, vote, or determination ever taken in the fellowship of SA.