For comparison, I plugged in the 162 words I read last night in support of my Rules of Procedure amendment into the calculator Sally mentions (wordstotime). At normal speed it’s 1.3 minutes–and I didn’t go into detail at all.
If I’d wanted to give detail that’s personal to my own experience, say three sentences, a tiny anecdote, to paint a picture of why getting to know the speaker a bit more matters, I would have needed more time. Yet those three sentences, that vivid detail, can make the difference between something generic that feels too repetitious and something warm and personal and worth hearing.
My understanding is that with this all-virtual format we won’t be able to extend debate on motion. Speakers can take less than the maximum time, and so that can be a source of flexibility…
Well, time is needed. I needed more than additional seconds to realize what I was hearing in the discussion the evening of June 4. Only now can I articulate what I think I heard.
Seems that in general we all want more time to be heard. Will more time to speak do this? If listeners aren’t really listening, then more time won’t matter. If meeting attendees aren’t attending well - aren’t hearing their own or the speakers emotions, aren’t wondering why, aren’t seeking understanding - then more time won’t matter much.
I heard that people wanted to be heard. And, I think the problem is bigger than these added times. Getting through an agenda is typically what UU meetings and workshops are all about. Reflection and discernment procedures and time aren’t typically build into these business meeting systems.
This is my first GA, so I will do my best to notice, wonder and seek understanding. I will also need to take time reflect as well.
All this said and all the thoughtful remarks by others, I will take into consideration on my vote.
The time change would increase the time for discussion of each amendment to Article II from 15 to 60 mins (an increase of 45 mins per amendment). There are 4 amendments, thus an increase of 3 hours, plus an additional hour increase for the full proposal. Thus a full 4 hours of increased time.
I am a person who favors/adores long and thorough discussion of almost any/every subject, but there is a time and place for everything, and election day is too late and too full to offer everyone more time than it takes to offer reasoned arguments or express generalized feelings.
Article II is very nuanced and subject to understandings based upon personal perspectives and understandings. It seems necessary to ask people to give it the deep consideration that it deserves, and to distill their thoughts to an essence that can be spoken in the time it takes for 1.5 commercials on television, rather than a repetitive infomercial.
I would have been more likely to be in favor of this if it was just changing 90 to 150 seconds. 5 minutes to introduce the submission is way too long though.
@Uutimatkins@CharlesD I understand from last night’s discussion that friendly amendments will be permitted, and I’m happy to help with that process. 150 seconds for the sponsor to introduce the submission instead of the 5 minutes works fine in terms of the intention of my amendment. CharlesD I’m not familiar with the mechanics of friendly amendments; I hope to be needing your advice on this once the votes are in later tonight. There were lots of good points made at the mini-assembly and continuing here on the Discuss site - I am grateful to be in this community!
In the past, there have been friendly amendments during the mini assembly. This is the question I asked the parliamentarian during Monday’s mini assembly. It did not happen during the mini assembly, so the amendment went out on the ballot as originally submitted. It is now too late for a friendly amendment.
Essentially, someone would have to suggest a change and you, @KHyde, would have to accept it as a friendly amendment in the moment. I paused the discussion and there did not seem to be any consistency in the room. There were several different ideas being offered.
Yeah, that is what I feared—and as we have eliminated the procedural mike, IDK if that ability will return in Baltimore. Something to consider when looking at next year’s Rules of Procedure.
We will now discuss Article II for 30 minutes at General Session IV. With 90 seconds allowed for each speaker, 20 speakers can speak. Assuming equal PRO and CON voices, delegates will hear 15 minutes of CON arguments. This is after they have heard or seen nothing but PRO comments in UUWorld and on the UUA Website for almost 2 years now. Does this process demonstrate “learning from one another” and “living into” our values? It is massively unfair leaving those who believe in a “free and responsible search” no choice but to defeat the Article II Proposal so that a true discussion of both PRO and CON positions can be aired and understood.
As someone who struggles with deep engagement on a screen, I especially appreciate the efficiency of the discussions when we are all virtual.
As someone who needs to arrange for childcare whilst I attend GA sessions and business sessions, I REALLY appreciate that the moderators and parliamentarian(s) have tight time limits.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think it’s that important to hear from “all of the voices” on the day of the vote. I think it is more important to hear from all of the viewpoints on the day of the vote. Last year, it really frustrated me when we we couldn’t consider very many amendments to A2, because folks used up the full discussion time for each amendment… repeating points that others had made. Like, I feel there’s a time and a place where everyone getting to individually express their opinion is important, but maybe the business sessions of GA are not that time or place, if the words you would have said have already been uttered? I don’t want us to make a rule about this, but I wish folks would be mindful that it is quite a hardship for some of us to spend a looooong time in business meetings, and consider if they are bringing something new to the discussion.
Tim,
I do not accept results of processes that are NOT democratic. Amendment 52 is a perfect example. The delegates voted to remove the words “repair harm and damaged relationships” in the INTERDEPENDENCE value. Both the Study Commission and the UUA Board chose to ignore the vote of the delegates and left the words in the final version of the value. There were other options they could have chosen. But they did not. That is not democratic.
Second, no member of the Board of Trustees or the Nominating Committee faced an opponent in their elections. This has been going on for almost a decade. “I don’t care who does the voting, as long as I get to do the nominating,” said Boss Tweet of Tamany Hall. Apparently, we agree with him. Our supposed democratic elections have become appointments. That is not democracy.
Third, more votes were cast than attended the Monday ZOOM meeting making me wonder if those who voted NO on the amendment had already made up their minds before hearing any arguments that were presented at the meeting.
There seems to be an impatience by many people who have been closely following the UUA that we should just get on with things. That’s the 70% you speak of. They believe we have talked about Article II enough. Nothing can be further from the reality in the congregations. Discussions have been discouraged. Dissenting articles have been censored. Congregants are unaware of the details and have not been given access to anything but UUA material. That is not democracy. How delegates can represent the will of their congregations without having heard discussions or taken congregations votes is beyond me, but that’s reality in many congregations.
You are just so deeply incorrect about the recent history contested elections.
Let’s look at our recent history:
-This current cycle: No one filed to run by petition. Why didn’t you?
-GA 2023: Dick Burkhart ran by petition for UUA Nom Comm, saying much of the same as you. He lost (He got 600 votes, the rest got between 2100-1600 votes. You can’t do exact percentages in a pick 4 out of 5 race, but looking at the lowest vote from the slate and Burkhart, it’s about 70-30.)
-GA 2022: Rebecca Mattis and Beverly Seese ran for UUA Board by petition, saying much of the same as you. They both lost by around 90-10.
But let me guess. Election results don’t matter if you don’t agree with them. You can be angry at me all you want but you can’t rewrite our recent history around contested elections.
General Assembly had clear opportunities to tell the UUA Nom Com in 2022 and 2023 they didn’t like the direction the faith is moving towards. GA chose instead to affirm by overwhelming margins. In a democratic process with contested elections.
5 candidates for 4 positions means essentially no opponents. Why aren’t there 8 candidates for 4 positions? Maybe it’s because the rules have been made so difficult that congregations cannot hope to muster sufficient support for a petition candidate?
And why is the Nominating Committee not required to nominate more than one candidate for each position? Maybe it’s because it’s easier to find candidates who support their particular world view that way.
When candidates have the weight of the UUA Nominating Committee and the Board behind them, what petition candidate has a chance to win?
If election results mattered then tell me why the Board and the Study Commission ignored them for Amendment 52. I’d love to hear your explanation.
As for the delegates being independent thinkers, look at the results of the Amendments voted on at GA23. Whenever the Study Commission spoke against an amendment, it failed by wide margins. When they remained silent, it passed, including Amendment 52. When going against the Study Commission risks being labelled a racist, it is not hard to explain the delegate’s votes. The Study Commission should not have been allowed to speak at all. They presented their work. Let it speak for itself.
We have chipped away at democracy to the point where we no longer know what it means or how it should function. And if highly educated UUs can slip this badly, I worry about our country.
Why do you think that following the UUA bylaws, created through democratic processes, is anti democratic behavior? It’s fascinating to see.
If General Assembly wanted to, at some point over the past few decades it could have passed an amendment that requires NomCom to do two or more. It never has. So instead of blaming NomCom for not meeting your arbitrary standard, you could have proposed an amendment requiring it. You never have. Imagine that. It appears a theme.
Youre saying it’s the responsibility of NomCom to find two people per slot when you yourself refused to run. Why is it the job of the NomCom do what you yourself were unwilling to do?
So let’s recap
-You’re an election denier and refuse to accept the results of elevations you don’t agree with.
-you were clearly proven wrong about our recent history of contested elections. But instead of apologizing for lying to everyone, you’re choosing to double down. What a surprise.
-why are you choosing to lie about matters of fact? Are you hoping people don’t go and research it on their own? Did you realize you can’t make your argument without false data to back it up? Or are you the kind of person who won’t let facts get in the way of your rhetoric?
The bar for petition candidates isn’t very high. It’s getting folks from 15 congregations to sign on. Every one of our elected positions is national level, at large. If someone can’t get 15 congregations to sign on, that’s not very at large. Compare these requirements to actual ballot access and petition drives - it’s really not that hard to get on petiton in comparison. And again, if you don’t like it, where is your bylaw proposal changing it?
Are you waiting on someone else to doo the work for you?
The UUA NomCom is accountable solely to General Assembly.
The General Assembly has never told the NomCom, through bylaws, that every election should be contested. It could if it wanted to. It hasn’t.
The General Assembly could have sent a strong message to the NomCom last year and elected the protest candidate. It could if it wanted to. It didn’t.
The General Assembly could have sent a strong message to both the NomCom and the Board two years ago and elected the protest candidates. It could if it wanted to. It didn’t.
Instead, every message from the General Assembly to the NomCom has been supportive of what it’s doing.
Why should elected committees ignore clear messages from whom they are accountable? Wouldn’t that be the undemocratic behavior?
You complain on one hand the Comission ignored a vote and that’s undemocratic, but want the NomCom to ignore all votes in recent history.
You are proving my point about declining understanding of democracy. Why should there have to be an amendment to have two people nominated for one position? I was taught in school that a choice in an election was the basis for democracy. I thought everyone knew that. Silly me.
You have yet to answer for Amendment 52. The election deniers are the Study Commission and the Board.
I chose to simplify my explanation of one candidate for one position. Calling me a liar is childish.
So, Tim, before calling me names, I suggest you answer my questions. Or are you unable to?
Thanks Sally - Problems of being new to a community, understood!