Well, I’d say you’re welcome, if there was a point of yours I made for you. But there wasn’t. I will say though that it appears you need the help.
1 Like
Tim, I agree with another poster that your responses are starting to sound like badgering. Also a desire to have the last word. In my congregation the leadership bent over backwards not to take sides publicly and it is the best thing that happened. As far as I can tell you are about the only one in elected uua leadership taking part here, and I see that as a good thing. They have had a chance to present their case to us by an acceptable playbook of how a church best goes about changing mission or values and allowing discussion and vote. . It is time for others to speak that are outside of the inner circle. But I respect your right to express your opinions as you see fit and I appreciate your statement that you have not yet taken sides on article 2. I appreciate that you have pointed out that the discussion has degenerated somewhat in debating uu governance, but it is what it is and people may feel the idea of completely rewriting vs tweaking or revising go back to the start of the process and maybe the leadership was not sufficiently open to hearing that in the beginning. I also hope they will be open on and conciliatory no matter which way it goes and back off a little on the idea of consequences and accountability (but I don’t see that happening).
1 Like
Defeating the re-write will not itself fix the democratic process. That’s gonna require a good deal of work by UU’s of good will. In our view such reform would follow the guide of the UUA report of 2009, which found the democratic process within UUism to be broken. Try reading the Executive Summary for reference. It is worth noting that next to nothing was ever done by the board relative to this report.
As to the language of the new A2, the A2 Commission appears to care for clarity and accuracy aa good bit more that you have admitted to as they told us that every word of it was carefully considered. If that is so, and it is, then the language is intentional and Jay’s questions, which were Steve’s, are legitimate. It is also therefore legitimate to ask you those questions, or to a least assume that such questions would be important to those who support the A2 re-write.
I’ll let Jay address the issue of non-elected board and NOM-COM members, but on another point, you say that all you’re concerned with is which version better speaks to what UUism means to you. That’s fine and the way it should be. But that is true with me as well, and others here. But what do we get from you for having the same concerns? We’re MAGA types. We’re the same as your Oklahoma MAGA types. But that has all the substance of ad hominem.
1 Like
Hi Don,
I’m only speaking up because I am leaving denominational leadership. I’m frankly pissed off at the UUA for a wide number of different reasons than the folks here. UUA staff know my feelings - I haven’t kept them hidden.
If I were remaining in denominational leadership, I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to do so. I’m also only speaking up because people here keep bringing up longstanding complaints about governance and actions of 8 years ago, and not about article 2. Rest assured, if folks stopped lying about recent elections and informally slandering the nominating committee, I’d have zero reason to be in here.
There have been many attempts to subtly slander “UUA Leadership.” UUA Leadership ought to be able to defend themselves, no?
1 Like
Frank, are you one of the folks who have been calling the UUA “woke” as a pejorative? You’ll note I’ve never said people who are against Article 2 are behaving like fascists. People who are trying to denigrate the UUA and Article 2 by using woke as a pejorative, which they are doing on links people in here referred me to, are absolutely behaving like Oklahoma fascists. Your assumption that I must assume you’re a MAGA type (which, I mean, I HAVE known you for 15 years or so) seems to imply an admission you’ve using woke as a pejorative. If you haven’t been using woke as a pejorative, then I am not calling you a fascist. If you have been, then yup I am.
I am glad you acknowledge that defeating Article 2 would do nothing to address your actual concerns about the UUA.
I’m still looking forward to your justification that the NomCom should ignore all recent elections in the UUA where they repeatedly voted down the vision of the UUA you’re lobbying for.
1 Like
I spent some more time today reviewing my extensive notes on A2 over the last three years but also some time on previous elections and nom com notes I made. I made the usual type notes about A2SC and the various places for input and engagement which I’ve written about previously above. To find them you can click on my avatar and then my activity I think to read just those.
I was having a deja vu remembering some of these same types of arguments from some white UUs from GA 2021. I wrote this back in 2021 "I was deeply concerned by one of candidate’s dismissal of the Widening of the Circle and language usage like truth/science to express disbelief in BIPOC UUs direct experiences (and noted publicated works that illustrated my opinion of it at the time) and I further wrote how a candidate was actively working to weaponize UU principles to protect white fragility and uphold white supremacy culture. I wrote about not understanding whether it was intentional lying or incredibly misinformed about the COIC and UUA elections. I noted that many of my BIPOC UU community and disability community had been diligently working to fact check the misinformation campaign and I listed sources for fact checking and I wrote about trying to minister to some of the harms created by the racist and ableist language.
About elections I wrote: There has been some disagreement and some tactics of misinformation about the election of our UUA board of trustees so it was good to learn more about the board elections. What I learned is that the process by which our Board is elected can take several forms. Each form results in their election. Ballots are one process. Uncontested nomination is another process. Both are electoral processes. Both are elections. I learned that it is true that Trustee elections since 2017 have been ratified rather than balloted and it is also true that a ratified election is just as valid as a balloted election. It is no less “democratic” and in fact relies heavily upon the democracy that brought us our bylaws and elected nomination committee members. I found that many in my BIPOC UU community and disability community have been diligently working to fact check the misinformation and they have been trying to minister to some of the harms that are damaging to the health of our governance."
So, after repeatedly accusing me of using the term “woke” pejoratively, you’re now asking me if that is what I’ve been doing? Let me put it this way. First, I am hardly in the practice of even referring to the term. In this whole thread I’ve used the term only in response to your reliance on it as some kind of criteria for labeling folks as MAGA. Generally, I don’t find the term enlightening, but I know for a fact those who use the term pejoratively are not all MAGA types except in your head. I think you harp on it so that you can label me MAGA. But the bottom line on this for me is, I don’t care. If you need to label me MAGA that is your problem. But I’ll state for the record that I hate everything they stand for and love most everything they oppose.
Two final points. Your last sentence makes no sense to me at all. I’ve never even insinuated that NomCom should do anything, least of all ignore elections. That’s just you trying to delegitimize for me what you believe you alone are entitled to, advocating for the version of A2 that most resonates with the UUism I have known and loved.
1 Like
Which candidate? What did they say specifically that told you they were upholding “white supremacy”? You have extensive notes, you say, so you should be able to answer these questions.
Oh, my, I came back here to see if anyone had read or responded to my post #164, and it appears that things have devolved into an argument among just a few individuals, rather than a discussion among good-hearted people who are open to listening and considering. I admit I haven’t read the full community guidelines. However, what I see in the panel that “will only appear for your first 2 posts” says this:
- Be kind to your fellow community members.
- Does your reply improve the conversation?
- Constructive criticism is welcome, but criticize ideas, not people.
Skimming through the arguments, I do not see kindness, nor do I see much constructive criticism. I see bridge-burning, not bridge-building. Every time I read the word “you” in someone’s argument or response, I feel it was delivered with a slap.
I absolutely agree with Susan McWethy that “Most of this forum is confrontational.” Susan asks, plaintively, “Aren’t we better than this?” I echo Susan’s question.
Let me try to make my point once more. Forget all the particular issues. Please hit PAUSE and listen to a lone voice who deserves to be heard!
The late Rev. Erinn Melby told me about her experience as a student member of the Admissions Committee of Starr King School in the 1980s. She had come to the conclusion that if there were strong differing feelings about a particular candidate, the answer should always be “No”. This made so much emotional and spiritual sense to me that I have held it for many years as a useful guideline for any issue.
I try not to stand in the way of change. I’m old enough to prefer letting go and turning things over to creative people who have more energy than I. This has caused me to wrestle with the proposed changes to Article II. However, my heart is now settled. There is too much heat around the issue. The answer to making any changes at this time should be a decisive “NO!”
6 Likes
Thank you Frank Casper for your interest and the opportunity to share more about accountability and racial justice in UU spaces. I highly recommend Allies for Racial Justice https://alliesforracialequity.wildapricot.org/ as place to learn “We are all called to take bold action to undo white supremacy in our Unitarian Universalist faith communities.”
While it’s true I do have extensive personal notes going back years on my participation in A2 discussions/sessions and serving as a delegate in previous years, what I want to write about in this thread in this place and time about A2, one of the things I’ve loved about this A2 review process is that it’s really helped me nail down my UU elevator speech.
I’m in favor of the A2 changes and the Wheeler amendment but I’m going to be ok if it doesn’t pass. I’ve learned so much from this process and one is discerning UU spaces that nurture my spirit and bring me joy. One of those spaces is BIPOC UU spaces and as a reminder to my DRUUMM siblings, an additional benefit of DRUUMM membership (besides our great events, workshops, newsletter and caucuses) includes a DRUUMM Slack space for all sort of discussions and connections - we specifically have multiple GA discussion channels there and I post there regularly.
2 Likes
The big problem with the current article II proposal is that UU church members were not considered to be stakeholders. Members did not receive information directly. It went to leaders. During the pandemic leaders were overwhelmed with just providing basic elements to congregation members. Upgrading technology, ensuring people were safe, masking statements, … Leaders were invited by the A2 commission to participate, but my congregation never knew about this invitation (didn’t get, didn’t see, lost in the chaos of pandemic, etc.?). Our leaders didn’t inform members. It is about change management. It takes a lot of time, attention and discussion for people to embrace change. For various reasons this hasn’t happened. A vote NO means the proposal or something similar can’t be voted on for 2 years. This clearly needs more discussion, if we want consensus which I do. There is no reason to let this divide our small denomination.
4 Likes
Thank you for documenting the different electoral processes. What I am concerned with, however, are group behaviors that can be perpetuated by the electoral processes you have identified. When a small group nominates its own replacements with only one candidate per open position and also nominates candidates for other leadership positions, also with no opponents, we no longer can be assured that those nominations are representative of the population. Groups of human beings tend to become tribalistic and we all have read about the perils of “group think”. Our Nominating Committee and UUA Board are not immune from these too real human tendencies and over time we can devolve into a self perpetuating leadership with the result being policies and Bylaws that are not representative of our UU population.
If we want our religion to make beautiful music, we cannot have leadership groups made from only violins. We need candidates from the brass and the woodwinds and percussion. The music they will write will incorporate the sounds of each instrument and center each at various times in solos. The overall composition will reflect our varied music. Elections with more than one candidate for each leadership position is the only way we can hope to have a balanced UU Orchestra.
3 Likes
Tim, I was drawn away yesterday to assist my daughter, but I would now like to address your observations on the presidential election process in the UUA. To clarify this post, I am addressing your comment.
“And yes, so far the presidential search commission has had two rounds and there have been issues with both rounds, around candidates who once nominated by the commission resign. I personally think there should be a bylaw to tweak and spell out what happens when a candidate that has been nominated withdraws - does presidential search have to keep looking to find someone else? I dunno. It’s not well spelled out.”
In the 2017 and 2024 presidential cycles, a situation arose when only one candidate was to be presented to the GA delegates for election. How this “single candidate” situation was handled speaks volumes about the atrophy of democratic norms within the Association. The need to present two candidates for election consideration remains in the Association bylaws today.
In 2017, Rev. Alison Miller and Rev. Sue Phillips were presented for election as the UUA president. Later, Rev. Phillips withdrew. Left with only a single candidate and the prohibition of the Presidential Search Committee from finding another candidate, a petition candidate was needed.
When Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray indicated a desire to run by petition, Moderator Jim Key proactively announced to congregations that “to support the democratic process by supporting the petition of this candidate to ensure that we have a contested election for president.” Rev. Jeanne Pupke also ran by petition. Each getting the petition endorsement of 25 congregations. Voila! Multiple presidential candidates. Democracy in action.
In 2024, the Presidential Search Committee (PSC) presented only one candidate. However, this time, the Moderators did not make a plea to “support the democratic process.” There was no call to solicit and aide a petition candidate, even though a petition candidate had announced an intention to run. Why the big change?
The answer is found in the April 2018 President Search Committee Report. I will add this report is one of the more disgraceful documents produced by the Association. In a nutshell, the PSC sought to grant itself more control over the presidential candidate selection process.
“Our committee was concerned from the beginning of our work that the potential candidates could choose not to engage with us and easily run by petition, or to decide to run by petition after our process was over.”
There is much to unpack in that observation, but the PSC successfully wrestled control away from petition candidates by raising the bylaws mandated congregational threshold from 25 to 50. This new 50-congregational threshold was actually a compromise. The PSC wanted to remove outright the ability of candidates to run by petition, but “in the absence of the will to eliminate the bylaw,” this new threshold was deemed a sufficient barrier.
There is more to the story of the 2024 presidential petition candidate. Suffice it to say that the obstacles to participating in shared leadership are designed to be too steep to overcome. The result is less democracy in the governance of the Association.
2 Likes
I don’t understand your wording about leaders? Can you clarify?
I went to GA years ago and A2 revision process was explained but I didn’t even attend a session on A2, one of our delegates did and I learned about it from her when she reported back about the A2 process. I then went and read about the A2SC charge/task, I read about it on web, in the UU world, facebook pages for the UUA board and A2SC, and the UUA website. I chose on my own to return regularly for the last three years to the A2SC web resources (as this was updated all the time and had zoom registrations for open sessions) and their facebook page (would often just be a duplicate of the A2SC webpage but nicely visual).
Everything I attended after that first GA when I learned about it three years ago, I attended as just a congregant: numerous listening sessions, their open office hours open to all, I gave written feedback, participated in surveys open to all, stakeholder sessions that I learned about through DRUUMM, workshops open to all, more GA sessions, watched public webinars and public videos and attended open to the public UUA BOT sessions. And it was public all over the viewable GA sessions and past GAs. Past GAs are viewable here Past General Assemblies
All my participation in A2 processes, I did all of this as just a member of a congregation. I am serving as a delegate again and volunteer in RE but that’s it. I’m not sure how your congregation didn’t get the information. We too were pandemic-ing here, I’m still masking and making statements about it (I’m a medical provider and my office went through a lot) and I spent hours in A2 sessions open to the public and feel literally like I’ve been discussing it for years.
One of my favorite articles about the process and A2, For the First Time in Forty Years, Unitarian Universalists May Adopt New Bylaws
The UU World interviewed one of the surviving members of the 1981-1985 Purposes and Principles Committee that produced our current Article II. “I am thrilled to see that the work we did is being revisited! It is exciting to see the participation, engagement, and re-working of our core values and purpose.” - Rev. Diane M. W. Miller
Moreover, she adds, “The Seven Principles will not be lost. They are always part of our heritage. Congregations will continue to use them in various ways. But the UUA bylaws could use new insights and fresh language. We need to reach for a theology of our time.”
1 Like
Jay, I have a request for clarification.
You state: “[T]he PSC successfully wrestled control away from petition candidates by raising the bylaws mandated congregational threshold from 25 to 50.”
Wasn’t that change actually the decision of the GA delegates? I think I’m correct, but the reason I’m asking is that I’m not completely certain.
Thanks.
If you look at the Article II charge document it lists stakeholders at the bottom. Included in the list is:
* Congregational leaders, lay* and professional*
As far as professional staff, the minister had an immediate exist and the DRE chose to go elsewhere shortly thereafter when her spouse moved.
I talked to the person who was president of our board at the time the commission said they reached out to congregational leaders. She didn’t find anything electronic communications about A-II participation. She offered to go look for paper records. I said, if I want that I’ll let you know. I never asked her.
The bottom line is other than a few, the members of our congregation first learned about this with a service and town hall in May 2023. A few weeks later we had a vote to inform GA 2023 delegates and there were a huge number of abstentions.
Between pandemic, professionals leaving, suddenly becoming lay led, etc. the message and opportunities for real discussion with as many members who wanted to participate didn’t happen until spring this year. We are the typical UU church per the factset survey FACT 2023 - UU Congregational Survey Summary.pdf (uua.org): whiter, older, locally active so other than a few people our church members were not in other targeted stakeholder UUA wide groups who were active in the development of this proposal. Have you ever heard of the marketing advice. People have to hear about something 6 times before they will even consider finding out more to see if it (products, ideas, etc.) resonates with them.
We have since gathered information so people could learn more on their own. It did include the UU World article you listed above. It was an interesting article. After last year’s GA I reached out to Rev. Miller to ask this if this time seemed similar to the last time in terms of understanding and consensus. I didn’t have direct contact info so sent to office at the church. I never heard back. The article said there were some people who weren’t as open to change back then. I wonder what she would say about the level of concerns today vs. back then. The same, less or more? And, if more, what she might suggest based on her experience back then to build consensus.
Thanks Connie Hester for your reply and clarification. My congregation is predominately white and older too and smallish. I only attended one invite only session with DRUUMM, the rest of the many discussions, open sessions, workshops and webinars I list above I attended were as just a regular UU, congregant.
I sent this email to my congregation leadership about A2 in 2021
"Article II is not just related to GA and it’s not just for delegates. So how do we get involved in the Article II review?
I attended an Article II commission zoom listening to leaders and hearing about their vision. A recording of should be available here https://fb.watch/aP1iNLOJqw/ and will be up on the Study Commission’s UUA webpage early next week. Here is the commission and it’s purpose Charge to the Article II Study Commission | UUA.org
There are many ways individuals and congregations can get involved, listen and have input on the Article ii review. Here is the info Getting Involved with the Article II Study
- Theological panel series, Article II Study Commission is hosting several public conversations, bringing together a panel of speakers and asking them a few questions on a theme. Those in attendance are provided a survey link to think further on the questions being discussed to provide the Study Commission with their thoughts. I attended the one this week and afterward I filled out this survey (link no longer active as it was 2021 and I shared the dates and times of the others)
How it is described on the article II commission page “After you have participated in reflection with your local community or attended a theological panel discussion, listed below, the Article II Study Commission invites you to share your reflections through the survey.” and there will be several more zooms that folks can listen in on throughout the spring. They are all listed here mid way down the page under “theological panel series” Getting Involved with the Article II Study
-
The commission has a variety of community resources for congregations here Article II Study Resources they include events, conversation prompts, small group ministry guide, readings and workshops. I highly recommend WSUU dig into these resources and find some that are a good fit for folks and we participate in this process of reimagining and re-envisioning our faith.
-
There’ll be open office hours where the Article II Study Commission want to hear what questions you have about the process of studying—and possibly revising—Article II. Join the Study Commission (open hours were listed of the A2SC to ask any questions you have about the process and how you might be involved in the work! All are welcome, and asked to register in advance at the links at the very bottom of this page Getting Involved with the Article II Study
In summary, there are many ways WSUU and congregants could get have input and participate in the Article II review. I’ll give some examples:
A. we could use the conversation prompts in resource #2 in conversations for connections in the spring.
B. we could have a service about it and how to get involved.
C. we could have a specific article ii small group ministry and use the guidelines and resources provided.
D. we could do a write up similar to what I’m sending ya’all in our enews
E. we could announce each theological zoom see #1 as an event and remind folks how to get involve
F. we could have a kick off event about the commission see their resources #2 page"
And I kept up as I mentioned previously attended every open A2SC session I could fit in my schedule and kept our church administrator updated on new events to share in our enews to keep our congregation updated.
I probably have over 25 pages of typed notes on my individual participation even though I skipped GA 2022 because of surgery and severe disability stuff at the time but our other delegates brought back updates and info too. During those years, our interim minster moved on, we hired a minister and then mutually he left, were without a minister, hired a new one part time, and mostly felt like we were winging in through weird pandemic times (and other staff changes were difficult firings and hirings). One of the other places I got information and updates on A2 has been CLF and their public videos the VUU which was so lovely during the lockdown time to connect that way.
1 Like
Wish we had you in our congregation to let us know earlier and keep us up to date. We have been playing catch up. It has been hard and taken an enormous amount of time. Personally, I am starting with zero knowledge. I listen to the UUA board meetings because the minutes run 6 months behind. It wasn’t until the UUA board retreat in April where Exec VP. Carey McDonald mentioned we are years into this effort and I learned about The Commission on Institutional Change | UUA.org including the Widening the Circle Report released in June 2020 and the resolution to proceed. And, there are yearly reports on how we are accomplishing the recommendations. I understand, correct me if I have wrong, a lot of the elements of the A-II charge document, bylaws renewal team charge, etc. are from this document and the yearly plans.
If you haven’t had anyone in the congregation following along and informing (e.g. your clone) it is a lot to comprehend in a few months.
1 Like
@ Connie Hester: Yea, I’ve been thinking about that today: your perspective and it’s a lot to catch up on for sure. My congregation definitely makes me feel valued. For example until this month, I kept all my personal A2 notes on my participation linked off our A2 resource page so folks could just read my notes when they had time and my church administrator compliments my organization skills <3
I took my whole long notes document link down this last week off our resource page and instead have a link to my two page summary. I took the long version down because I put all my comments from this space and from whova in there and folks can just go there directly to read them.
I’m not sure how I would characterize it’s COIC inclusion, I mean I heard the A2SC commission talk about it and the 8th principle. I can’t speak for them but when Widening the Circle came out I devoured it and felt so included and heard. I see so much work towards anti-racism in the A2 proposed changes.
Have you gotten the book Widening the Circle? It’s on my UU bookshelf. I’m reading Love at the Center right now and I’m deep into thinking about UU theologies around love and what it calls us to do.
One way I find more UU connections is going (virtually) to things outside my home brick and mortar congregation that especially interest me and following through on those. So my UUism is much more than just my home congregation and maybe that’s really my answer. I participate in several other groups and spaces like EqUUal Justice, Uplift, CLF and other UU events that aren’t GA - these are places I learn about more things that are happening too and I try to follow up on those that lift my spirit, fill my cup and bring me joy.
2 Likes
Elizabeth, you raise a good point that delegates voted to raise the congregational threshold from 25 to 50 congregations. I, like you, wish that we could hold up a GA delegate vote as the gold standard of democracy, but evidence shows such is not the case.
Delegates generally tend to vote with leadership. But did those delegates actually read the 2018 Presidential Search Committee report and understand the implications of their vote that limited choices for UUA presidents?
This lack of delegate knowledge is not a new problem. As early as 2009, the Fifth Principle Task Force Report concluded that the ability of GA to conduct the business of the Association was “dramatically broken.” Continuing, “GA is not really democratic in that delegates are neither representative of their congregations, other than being members nor are they accountable to them.” The report also cited the lack of knowledge that delegates have regarding the business before them.
So, pointing to GA delegates as giving informed consent is a bit of a stretch. Nor does their lack of knowledge negate the intent of the Presidential Search Committee to limit choice at the presidential level. Outrage should properly be directed at the PSC for advancing the amendment.
We must also recognize that a delegate vote at GA is not determinative.
In 2021, delegates at GA rejected an amendment to reduce the number of presidential candidates from “two or more” to “one or more.” Clearly signaling a desire for choice in our presidential candidates. Excuses aside, that General Assembly vote was not honored.
Likewise, at the 2023 GA, delegates voted to accept the wording of Amendment 52, but that decision was also not honored.
We need reform and some critical thinking on how well GA functions in the Association’s governance.
Thanks for commenting.