Following are portions of two reports sent to SA-Net by Dorene S., chair of the delegate assembly, regarding the Cleveland “Statement of Principle” vote:

First I want to clarify what was actually voted at the Cleveland conference. It was this statement of principle: “In SA’s sobriety definition, the term ‘spouse’ refers to one’s partner in a marriage between a man and a woman.” This statement was formulated and approved unanimously by nine delegates and seven trustees during the last half-hour of our discussion.

Second, I want to give a timeline of events. Between the January 1999 Sacramento International Conference and the July 1999 Cleveland International Conference, I received conflicting opinions about the meaning of the January 1999 vote that we do not need to clarify the SA sobriety definition.

Many (probably most) were convinced this vote meant that we are already clear on the meaning of traditional SA sobriety and no further clarification is needed. Others were equally convinced this vote meant that “spouse” and “marriage” could be interpreted as understood by each member. Some were convinced that SA is afraid to “say what it means and mean what it says,” so several groups and intergroups clarified the definition for themselves, calling it a “reaffirmation” of SA sobriety.

In addition, in January the assembly delegates directed the SA Literature Committee to work on original literature (such as Member Stories 2000) and literature that does not contain quotes from existing SA literature (the “White Book,” “Recovery Continues,” and the SA pamphlet with 20 questions). This was influenced by a recommendation by the founder that no new literature be published until confusion over SA’s sobriety definition was resolved.

As July drew near, there still seemed to be an impasse in resolving these matters. The delegates were experiencing unity, partly I think, because of more frequent contact, and partly because we were studying AA’s Twelve Concepts for World Service, which enhanced our understanding of our “trusted servant” role. However, we seemed to have no solution to disunity about the sobriety definition, and the creation of new literature was still “on hold.”

So in early May, I drafted a proposal to put on the agenda for Cleveland. That proposal underwent several revisions, and was finally submitted in this form to the delegates and trustees:

“Agenda item: SA sobriety and Fellowship-wide group conscience:

“A Resolution Offered by Southern California Area Intergroup, amended by Southwest Region delegates, request to be affirmed at the July 1999 Board of Trustees and Delegate Assembly meetings:

“BE IT RESOLVED: Regarding SA sobriety: In our sobriety definition, the interpretation of ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ as marriage of a man and a woman in progressive victory over lust is clearly inherent and explicit in the entire scope of SA’s origins, its reason for existence, its early failures, its history, and its literature.

“AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD: That neither the Twelve Steps of Sexaholics Anonymous, nor the Twelve Traditions of Sexaholics Anonymous, nor the understanding of SA sobriety as stated above, shall ever be changed or amended except by first asking the consent of the registered SA groups of the world. (This would include all SA groups known to SA International Central Office around the world.)

“These groups shall be suitably notified of any proposal for change and shall be allowed no less than six months for consideration thereof. And before any such action can be taken, there must first be received in writing within the time allotted the consent of at least three-quarters of all those registered groups who respond to such proposal. (Last two paragraphs adapted from The AA Service Manual, 1996-97 Edition, page S35.)

“This ‘resolution’ is for discussion in Cleveland. I hope it may provide a basis for unity in SA, and a method for change firmly grounded in the openness and honesty of 12-Step tradition. I also hope it may help end the current stalemate in publishing new SA literature with quotes from prior SA literature.”

When submitting this resolution, I hoped to spend a maximum of an hour and a half discussing it in the delegate assembly meeting. God had other plans. That Friday in Cleveland, I began by spending time alone with my Higher Power. I prayed for a quiet and gentle spirit. I did an inventory on my fear of division in SA. I admitted self-reliance had failed me. I committed my will and my life in SA to God’s care. I asked God to remove my fear and direct my attention to what He would have me be.

In the afternoon when it was time to discuss the “resolution,” we began by each delegate expressing his or her view. We then opened discussion to the floor. When the floor finished its input, the delegates voted. The result: six in favor of the resolution, two opposed, with one abstaining.

Then one of the “minority” vote requested an opportunity to rephrase the first paragraph so that he could also vote with the “majority.” The other opposing delegate also supported rephrasing the first paragraph. So we took a 15-minute break while an ad hoc committee went to work on that first paragraph.

The resulting revision was acceptable in its simplicity, except that several delegates felt it did not adequately exclude opposite sex committed relationships as being SA sober. The ad hoc committee tried unsuccessfully to figure how to add this wording without using the word “legal.” But we were tired; it was 6 p.m. and time for dinner. We did not want to vote “yes” on the second two paragraphs until we were sure the first paragraph said everything intended.

So we voted on the one sentence we could all agree on. In a gesture of unity, the delegates invited the trustees to vote with us on the new wording. The result was total unanimity: nine delegates and seven trustees voted “yes” on that one sentence.

I feel strongly that God was at work in Cleveland. I don’t think any of us expected what actually happened. Yet we all seemed satisfied with the outcome. I think God wanted us to know for sure that the results are in His hands, not ours.

(Here is additional background information on the Cleveland “Statement of Principle” vote. I’ve outlined my understanding of the Concepts used in arriving at the vote.)

First a brief overview of the three “legacies” of AA:
Recovery (for individuals): 12 Steps
Unity (for groups): 12 Traditions
Service (for the whole Fellowship): 12 Concepts for World Service.

The assembly delegates began a study of the 12 Concepts this last six months. In our discussions, we have used the AA Service Manual, two AA pamphlets (12 Traditions illustrated and 12 Concepts for World Service illustrated), and a set of tapes from Glenn K. (a panel discussion about AA’s three legacies). We are coming to understand the 12 Concepts better. Of course there is room for improvement.

Concept I states that “final responsibility and ultimate authority” for world service lies in the “collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.” Concept II states that the groups delegate their authority for the maintenance of world service to the Conference (in SA terms, to the Delegate Assembly in session).

Concept III gives the “Right of Decision” to each world service entity. Thus, “trusted servants” can “decide which problems they will dispose of themselves and upon which matters they will report, consult, or ask specific directions.”

In the Cleveland vote, instead of first consulting the groups, the delegates exercised their “Right of Decision” under Concept III. The consensus was that the groups are tired of discussing the sobriety definition, and some expressed hope that settling the issue would enable groups to concentrate on their primary purpose—to carry their message to the sexaholic who still suffers.

To balance Concept III, there is Concept V, which grants a traditional “Right of Appeal.” This assures “that minority opinion will be heard.” “This ‘Right of Appeal’ recognizes that minorities frequently can be right; that even when they are in error they still perform a most valuable service when they compel a thorough-going debate on important issues. The well-heard minority, therefore, is our chief protection against an uninformed, misinformed, hasty or angry majority.”

The Southern California Area Intergroup exercised its “Right of Appeal” when it asked delegates and trustees to affirm what it sees as a founding principle of SA. In Cleveland, after the initial vote, a delegate exercised his “Right of Appeal” by requesting a chance to reword the first paragraph of the resolution.

In my understanding, the unanimous vote of the delegates and trustees can be appealed under Concept V, if members feel strongly that they have not been heard and wish the debate to continue.