The following are plain-language summaries of the eight motions being considered at the 2026 SAA International Conference. Each summary is written for the general fellowship — no procedural background needed. We encourage every member to read through these and come to your own sense of where you stand.
Motion 2026-D001 — Updating the Wording of Tradition Eleven
What it proposes:
Change Tradition Eleven’s anonymity language from “at the level of press, radio, TV, and films” to “across all public platforms.”
Why:
That list was written in 1946. Today we carry the message through social media, podcasts, Zoom, and platforms that didn’t exist when the wording was last updated. Rather than keep adding to the list, this change covers everything — now and in the future. The principle of anonymity itself doesn’t change, just the words describing where it applies.
If passed:
All SAA literature containing the Traditions would be updated as new print runs are ordered. No immediate cost to groups.
To consider:
For — The current wording leaves real gaps and could cause confusion. Broader language is cleaner and future-proof.
Against — Changing foundational documents is a big step, and some may feel the old wording is sufficient.
Note: This requires a three-fourths majority at two consecutive annual conferences to pass.
Motion 2026-D002 — Fixing the Literature Revision Process
What it proposes:
A small but important change to SAA’s Bylaws governing how our literature gets updated and approved.
Why:
In 2023, a rule was added requiring that any meaningful revision to Conference-approved literature must go back to the Conference for re-approval before it can be printed. Well-intentioned as that was, it created an unintended problem: there’s now no way to share a draft revision with the fellowship for feedback before it goes to the Conference. The Literature Committee can’t circulate updated material for review, so needed improvements are stuck in limbo.
What the fix does:
Adds one sentence clarifying that only the Literature Committee can submit literature to the Conference for approval. This restores a workable process: revised literature can circulate to the fellowship labeled “Literature Committee Approved,” gather feedback, and then be brought to the Conference for a final vote — either approving the new version or reverting to the original.
To consider:
For — The current process is broken in practice. Groups are stuck with outdated literature and there’s no path to fix it. This restores a transparent, feedback-driven process.
Against — Some may feel the 2023 rule was put in place for good reason and want more deliberation before changing it again.
Note: This is a Bylaws amendment requiring passage at two consecutive annual conferences.
Motion 2026-D003 — Cleaning Up the Conference Charter
What it proposes:
Five targeted changes to the ISO Conference Charter — the document that defines how our annual Conference operates and relates to the Board of Trustees and Literature Committee.
The five changes, in plain terms:
- Remove “proportional” voting language — The Charter currently hints that some members may vote in proportion to their representation. The Bylaws already clearly state everyone gets one vote. This change brings the Charter in line with that.
- “Binding upon” → “a directive to” (Board of Trustees) — Conference decisions are currently described as binding on the Board. But the Board has legal and financial responsibilities that mean it can’t simply be bound by a vote. “A directive to” better reflects reality — Conference decisions carry serious weight and must be taken seriously, but the Board retains the legal authority to act responsibly.
- “Substantial unanimity” → “majority vote” (Literature Committee) — The Bylaws already say the Conference can overrule the Literature Committee by a majority vote, but the Charter says it requires near-unanimous agreement. This fixes that contradiction.
- Remove an outdated paragraph — A section envisioning the Conference eventually taking over much of the Board’s committee work is removed, since that never happened and isn’t the direction we’re heading.
- Broaden delegate participation — Delegates would be encouraged to serve on any committee within the ISO service structure, not just Conference committees — opening up more ways to participate year-round.
To consider:
For — These are largely housekeeping fixes. The Charter and Bylaws have been out of alignment for years, causing confusion. This cleans that up.
Against — Some may feel that weakening the “binding” language on the Board reduces the Conference’s authority over leadership, and may want to study that carefully before voting yes.
Motion 2026-D004 — Updating Our Prisoner Outreach Pamphlet
What it proposes:
Rescind (withdraw) Conference approval of the existing pamphlet “Writing to Prisoners” so it can be replaced with an updated version titled “Supporting Incarcerated Addicts.”
Why:
The current pamphlet was approved in 2022, but it’s already outdated — it describes administrative processes the ISO is moving away from, and it undersells the real purpose of our prisoner outreach work, which is written sponsorship, not just pen-pal correspondence. There are currently over 200 incarcerated fellows seeking correspondent sponsors, making accurate literature urgent.
A 2023 Bylaws rule means the pamphlet can’t be meaningfully revised without going back to the Conference. The Literature Committee and Prisoner Outreach Committee have already collaborated on a new, ready-to-go version. To get it into fellows’ hands, the old approval needs to be formally rescinded first.
If passed:
The new “Supporting Incarcerated Addicts” pamphlet would be immediately available to the fellowship under Literature Committee approval, with a feedback period before the Conference votes on final approval.
To consider:
For — The current pamphlet is inaccurate and a replacement is already written and ready. Over 200 incarcerated members need better support now.
Against — Some may want to review the new pamphlet’s content before voting to pull the old one, or may have concerns about the rescinding process itself.
Motion 2026-D005 — Conference Approval of a New First Step Pamphlet
What it proposes:
Grant full Conference approval to the pamphlet “An Intimacy and Sexual Avoidance-Focused First Step.”
Why:
This pamphlet was brought to the Conference in 2024 but wasn’t approved at that time — more editing was needed based on fellowship feedback. The Literature Committee went back to work, incorporated that feedback, and has had the revised version available on the SAA website for over a year. They now consider it ready for the fellowship’s highest stamp of approval.
What it is:
A First Step resource specifically for fellows whose patterns center on intimacy issues or sexual avoidance, rather than compulsive sexual behavior. It’s designed to help both recovering members and their sponsors work the First Step with greater specificity and relevance to their experience.
To consider:
For — The pamphlet fills a real gap for a significant portion of our fellowship who may not fully see themselves in existing literature. It’s been through a full review cycle and fellowship feedback period.
Against — Delegates may want to read the pamphlet itself before voting. Those who were involved in the 2024 rejection may want assurance that earlier concerns were adequately addressed.
Motion 2026-D006 — Updating the Intimacy Avoidance Pamphlet
What it proposes:
Rescind Conference approval of the 2022 pamphlet “Intimacy Avoidance — Another Aspect of Sex Addiction” so it can be revised and reissued.
Why:
The same dynamic as D004 applies here. The 2023 Bylaws rule locks Conference-approved literature in place until the Conference votes again — but there’s no current mechanism to circulate a revised draft for fellowship feedback first. The Literature Committee needs to rescind the old approval to get the updated version into fellows’ hands.
Two specific issues drove the need for revision: the newer First Step pamphlet from D005 overlaps with portions of this one, creating redundancy; and sections of the original are out of alignment with the Literature Committee’s style guide and with feedback from intimacy-avoidance focused meetings within the fellowship.
If passed:
The revised version would be immediately available under Literature Committee approval for the fellowship to read and respond to, with a full feedback period before the Conference votes on final approval.
To consider:
For — The pamphlet serves a meaningful segment of our fellowship and deserves to be current and accurate. The revision is ready to go.
Against — Some may want to see the revised version before voting to pull the current one, or may have concerns about rescinding approval of literature that groups are actively using.
Motion 2026-D007 — Raising the Bar for Conference Motions
What it proposes:
That motions brought to the Conference should ideally be backed by a group conscience — meaning they’ve been reviewed and affirmed by an SAA group, intergroup, area assembly, or ISO committee before being submitted. Individual members can still bring motions, but group backing would become the recommended standard.
Why:
Motions submitted by individuals without broader input sometimes lack context about the history of an issue or the practical impact on the fellowship. Running a motion through a group or committee process helps catch problems early, improves the quality of the proposal, and means it arrives at the Conference with more credibility and preparation behind it.
What it doesn’t do:
It doesn’t block individuals from submitting motions — it just sets a recommended standard, not a hard requirement.
To consider:
For — Better vetted motions mean more productive Conference discussions and fewer proposals that miss important context. Group conscience is at the heart of how we operate.
Against — Some may feel this creates an informal barrier that could discourage individual fellows from participating in the Conference process, which has historically been open to anyone in the fellowship.
Motion 2026-D008 — Adopting SAA’s Own Twelve Concepts of Service
What it proposes:
Conference approval of an SAA-adapted version of the Twelve Concepts of Service — a set of guiding principles for how our service structure operates at every level.
Why:
SAA has long relied on AA’s Twelve Concepts for World Service, but that document is full of AA-specific history and organizational references that simply don’t apply to us. This project — over ten years in the making — adapts the Concepts to reflect SAA’s own structure and language while preserving the underlying spiritual and organizational principles. The fellowship has had a year to review the current draft.
What the Twelve Concepts cover:
In plain terms, they describe how authority flows through SAA — from the groups up through the Conference, the Board of Trustees, and service committees. They address things like the right to participate, the right to appeal decisions, how leadership should be chosen, and the financial safeguards that protect the fellowship from concentrations of wealth or power.
If passed:
This is the first of two required Conference votes (three-fourths majority needed). If ratified next year, the Twelve Concepts would eventually be included in the SAA Green Book and other literature.
To consider:
For — SAA deserves its own foundational service document rather than borrowing one that doesn’t quite fit. This has been carefully developed over a long period with fellowship input.
Against — Some may want more time to study the specific wording of all twelve concepts before voting. Any concerns about particular language should be raised now, as this becomes significantly harder to change once adopted.