Sobriety Survey Elicits Unprecedented Response
[Convention planners decided that the convention business meeting, traditionally dealing only with matters pertaining to conventions, would, in this case, also bring up other matters. It was stated at the beginning of the business meeting that any suggestions or recommendations made on such other matters would be suggestions only, not binding on the fellowship.—Ed.]
[A member in Germany shares his concerns about length of sobriety required for voting in SA business meetings.]
The overwhelming response to the survey shows how SA is passionately concerned about the issue of how sexual sobriety is interpreted. Over 75% of responding groups hold to traditional SA sobriety (see the report inside). However, over 18% hold to non-traditional sobriety; we have a house divided.
In 1985 and 1988 Roy K. was asked to give seminars at the Walther Lechler Psychosomatic Klinik in Bad Herrenalb, Germany. He told his story and discussed the program of recovery to mixed audiences of persons in various Twelve Step programs, including SA.
[Many have asked about the Central Office Advisory Committee, what it is and how it came about. The following is taken from Roy’s taped conversation with another member 9-15-90.]
As has been previously announced, the SA logo (gender symbols on a circle) appearing on our literature is a trademark, registered with the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office. In future reprintings of SA literature and letterheads, the TM symbol will be changed to the R symbol, indicating the mark is now duly registered. Due to current legal issues and to safeguard SA’s principles and interests, the marks SA, Sexaholics Anonymous, and Essay have also been registered.
One motion made in Oklahoma City suggested more communication between the Central Office (CO) and the fellowship. The sobriety issue is currently the top news in SA. Hundreds of SA members have received letters from New York City on the sobriety issue and the role of the Central Office in relation to NY Tri-State Intergroup. This has caused considerable confusion and misunderstanding.
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).
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.)
Hazelden has just placed their first order for SA literature (all three of our books, plus brochure), to be listed in their April catalog. A couple of years ago, at the suggestion of members in the SA fellowship, the Central Office advised Hazelden of our new book Sexaholics Anonymous and provided copies of our literature.
