REPORT OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE - APRIL 5,
2000
At the conclusion of the Business Meeting at the September 1999 Convention in
California a Study Committee was appointed and charged with two tasks.
1. What should be the name of the organization?
2. What type of organizational structure should we have?
The Study Committee compiled an extensive list of questions which were sent to
LifeRing Inc. and SOS. After the responses were discussed in the Committee, we
sent a delegation to talk with Marty N. and Jim C. individually. The following
are Observations and Recommendations derived from this process.
OBSERVATIONS
1. There already exist two major organizations: 1) Secular Organizations for
Sobriety [International Clearinghouse, SOS meetings] headed by Jim C. and 2)
LifeRing, Inc. [Press, Secular Recovery Service Center, and recently created LSR
meetings] headed by Marty N.
2. LifeRing, Inc. identifies itself as an autonomous member of the Secular
Organizations for Sobriety and SOS recognizes LifeRing, Inc. as an autonomous
member of the Secular Organizations for Sobriety
3. There is no longer an active and viable cooperation between the leadership of
LifeRing, Inc. and SOS.
4. There are no plans, nor is there an apparent desire, by either leader to
create a cooperative endeavor.
5. LifeRing, Inc. is proactive, treatment center and meeting development
in it's focus, best described as strongly promotional in its orientation.
6. SOS is a marginally reactive organization that is best described as
invitational in its orientation.
7. Over the years SOS has talked of moving toward independence from the Council
of Secular Humanism and facilitating more member involvement. A move was made in
this direction with the establishment of LifeRing, Inc. to create LifeRing
Press. However, currently Jim C. expresses satisfaction with the SOS
relationship to CSH, and offers individual contact with the Clearinghouse as a
means for increased member participation. The legal structure of SOS under the
ownership of the Council for Secular Humanism limits the power any democratic
representation could have without actually achieving independence.
8. LifeRing Inc., owned by a self-appointing Board of Directors, is primarily
run and directed by Marty, CEO. LifeRing Inc. LifeRing Inc. could modify itself
through by-law revision.
9. Some existing meetings strongly align themselves with each of the
organizations; there are members that find serious problems in what both leaders
present as an organizational model; and other's that prefer to remain uninvolved
in what goes on outside their local meeting.
10. The legal issue of the use of the name SOS remains unresolved. The appeal
process is still in effect but seems to be failing due to missed deadline and
offers no prospect of negotiated settlement. It appears that no resolution in
favor of free use of the name SOS will occur. There are serious limiting effects
on the use of the name SOS throughout the United States that are more far
reaching than just the Northern California area. It is Jim C's position that the
name of the organization should be SOS and that the Northern California
prohibition should be dealt with by using the Disclaimer and letting Northern
California use LifeRing Secular Recovery to identify the regional meetings.
11. Information distributed publicly by both SOS and LifeRing
Inc. contain figures relating to membership and meeting numbers which is grossly
inaccurate, misrepresenting both the historical and current size of the
organization.
12. The historically autonomous nature of the SOS meetings makes for a diversity
of program, specialization and organization. LifeRing, Inc. proposes a
chartering of meetings with the intent to see that quality assurance of the
meetings is maintained by the Board of Directors and meeting convenors. SOS is
laissez faire in its meeting supervision, relying of the integrity of the
membership to maintain meeting quality.
13. LifeRing, Inc. is very internet oriented. SOS is only slightly internet
oriented. In part this has occurred because SOS online development has been done
in an ad hoc manner by volunteers, a large portion of which was developed by
Marty N. and is now used to promote LifeRing, Inc. In any case, Jim C. exhibits
little interest in facilitating the expansion of SOS presence on the internet.
14. The use of the term secular in the name of the organization has provoked
considerable discussion. There is opinion among the membership that a name
without the term secular would be more beneficial in promoting the organization.
Jim C. indicates no interest in a name change. Marty N. acknowledges limitations
and difficulties in using the term secular in the name is interested in further
consideration of this issue.
15. Despite the problems evident in the leadership, we find within the general
membership a sprit of good will and tolerance of diversity that is inspiring,
and hope the this attitude will prevail within the secular organizations for
sobriety, however they may develop in the future.
NAME
1. Presently what was SOS is split by two major leadership factions using the
names SOS and LifeRing Secular Recovery (owned by LifeRing Inc.). Local
development is also taking place under different names, as in Missoula Secular
Sobriety Society and Secular Organization for Addiction Recovery in
New York. Owing to leadership and policy differences it seems likely that the
membership will not be united under one name in the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, unresolved legal problems preclude direct use of the SOS in
Northern California.
2. Uniting under one new name would be our preference, but given the
difficulties already mentioned, and the well established lack of member
willingness to become involved in ongoing national organizational work, we see
this as untenable at this time.
3. There are existing meetings that strongly align themselves with each of the
organizations: Their meeting name is or will be either SOS or LifeRing Secular
Recovery depending on their primary choice of affiliation with the two
organizations and their respective leaders. Some meeting have indicated that
they will use the name SOS/LSR.
4. A unique complication exists in the Northern California area where the
court order forced the abandonment of the use of the name SOS in April 99. In
choosing the name LifeRing Secular Recovery in May 99 many SOS members saw this
as an unfortunate necessity, but one which did not substantially alter the
original relationship to SOS. There was also some hope that this might be a
temporary name change since an appeal was to be filed.
5. Marty Nicolaus, current CEO of LifeRing Inc, which now owns the names
LifeRing Secular Recovery and LSR, declared at our Study Committee
Interview on 3/12/00 that by choosing the name LifeRing Secular Recovery (LSR)
in May
99 the Northern California East Bay meetings made a democratic decision to
support LifeRing Inc., and are therefore counted as part of the new organization
he is developing under that name.
6. Hence, in Northern California the legal situation precludes any easy way for
individual meetings to identify a preference for direct organizational alliance
with SOS, LifeRing Inc. now having moved away from it's original unofficial
connection with SOS International. Nevertheless, we expect that recalcitrant SOS
members in the California SF Bay Area will find a creative way of solving this
problem.
ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The consensus of the Study Committee is that we consider the following points to
be important in organizational development.
1. Basic essentials needed are the availability of accurate meeting lists and
contact info for convenors, informational brochures, meeting starter kits,
suggested reading, website(s), email list(s), chat rooms. Regular communication
should be facilitated between members and groups on the regional, national and
international levels though contacts online, by snail mail, and at least yearly
conventions.
2. The Organization should be member owned and operated. A representative
council should determine the nature, philosophy, mission and detailed
organizational structure of the organization.
3. Organizational processes should be open to interested members. Facts about
all operations should be presented in an accurate and straightforward manner
4. Essential organizational resources should be owned by an organization
representative of the membership.
ALLIED PHILOSOPHICAL PREFERENCES
1. We value the diversity of our free thinking, independent,
"self-help" oriented member base, despite the problems this causes in
making a clearly defined cohesive organization.
2. The primary mission of the organization should be to service the needs of our
meetings and members in supporting achieving and maintaining abstinence
3. We encourage cooperation and the sharing of resources amongst ourselves.
4. We value an independent secular orientation, one which neither allies
with nor criticizes other
philosophies, religions, or recovery options at the organizational level.
5. The desire to achieve and maintain abstinence is the goal of
membership in the organization.
6. We seek to maintain the lack of clean-time hierarchy. All members should be
treated with respect and allowed an opportunity to contribute, regardless of
addiction history.
A QUESTION FOR US ALL
What would facilitate a genuine alliance of our secular organizations as
they are developing around the
world ?
THE NEXT STAGE
The Study Committee is only a small group of interested members, and we believe
we have taken things as far as we can at this stage. What is needed now is
thoughtful member response to this Report, which we hope will stimulate a
constructive discussion leading to what the next steps should be.
The forum for this response and discussion will be online at soscon@onlist.com
which can be subscribed to by contacting http://www.onelist.com/group/soscon
or Marjorie at marjwmsjones@earthlink.net. We also suggest that local meetings
find time to consider what we have presented and feed back to us in the near
future either using the soscon email list or through written comments if online
access is not available. Please post written comments to Ron Crane, 10214
Chrysanthemum Lane, Los Angeles, California 90077-2811.
We anticipate an opportunity for a gathering of members this year to be
announced soon, either as a convention or a more informal gathering at UU in the
Pines, FL. It is our hope that discussion will have taken place amongst the
members that will create a platform for a working session to start the next
phase at this gathering.
Respectfully submitted,
The Study Committee,
Barbara Armstrong
Robert Bradley
Ron Crane, chairperson
Gregg
Tom Shelley
Don Ward