I was unable to make either of the June 2 or 3 sessions. (THANX for hosting them, tho.)
Are there recordings of these sessions available?
Blessings ~
Bob W
I am quite energized by the resolution. And I understand the concerns raised about the swiftness involved and the amount of $ that would come out of the UUA portion of the UU Common Endowment Fund.
On the $14M concerns - Unitarian Universalists raised $5.8 million in just a couple of years to support Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism, which was beautiful. Yes, this is more than two times that amount; however, I would love to see if Unitarian Universalists across the country could lean into the challenge of replacing as much as possible of the $14 million over time and using it to shore up budget shortfalls and eventually help with investing in non-fossil fuel funds â that perhaps could have a better return. Yes, these are times where inflation has taken a bite out of a lot of things, and some congregations are shrinking. So raising the funds might be harder, but letâs imagine how much energy might exist around such an effort.
A few other thoughts:
It is a fact that business resolutions are submitted by petition. It would be nice if that were mentioned in the original post. And the procedure for completing a petition like this is spelled out in the UUA bylaws. I am guessing that perhaps the board can propose a resolution, and that they might not need a petition, but Iâm not sure. There is nothing unusual about this being submitted by petition.
On shareholder advocacy and holding onto shares to engage in it â how is that working out across the country? Do we still have giant fossil fuel companies sucking fossil fuels out of the ground and harming communities despite organizations trying to engage in shareholder advocacy? I think so. I believe that the only way shareholder advocacy works for the industry of fossil fuels is if you own 51% of the shares and can say âstop doing x and start doing y.â
I have faith in the process of delegates, experts and advocates discussing the issue and coming up with a decision. Ultimately, it may not be the exact resolution that the proposers submitted, but thatâs how things go, and at least it would be a start and perhaps more could be done another year.
We have a climate emergency. This calls for bolder steps.
8 Likes
On May 18, 2023, âView,â the UU Church of the Larger Fellowship weekly program, had a session on the proposed 2023 Business Resolution on Divestment. The program may be viewed at: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=2Rb1fB&ref=watch_permalink&v=258884656541618
4 Likes
Many thanx. Iâll check it out.
Bob
There are environmental movements to call on the âBig 4â banksâJPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and . . . Citi?âto stop funding fossil fuel projects, and that likely includes either threat of or actual divestment (or both). I am not 100% sure about including all banks and funds with a low percentage of fossil-fuel exposure, but the 4 big banks should be included among the âhold no more than $2000 worth for shareholder advocacyâ companies.
2 Likes
Yes, the board can propose business resolutions on their own; I am not sure if there are other groups that can do that, but my understanding is that the Young Adult Divestment Team was told that the only way to accomplish their goal was to submit a business resolution, and they exceeded the number of signatures substantially. They (apparently unlike the Investment Committee, which only this March, it seems, decided to do what was required of them between 2014 and 2019) are following the established procedures.
2 Likes
There is no reason that the 2 reparations policies could not start out coexisting, and be brought together. I appreciate that the UUCEF Social Justice Fund (in which my societyâs Womenâs Alliance is invested) is doing some microfinancing in communities of low wealth, few resources, etc., and do hope that continues, but that is only part of what is needed.
1 Like
If thatâs right then considering that the board does not require buy in from significant amounts of congregations across the country, business resolutions by petition require more work, community building, education, and outreach. Its so funny that the board uses the petition process to paint this as coming from outsiders when their own submission process would just require the approval of a small handful of people in comparison.
5 Likes
The way this resolution is phrased, the two policies canât be reconciledâthis reparations provision would control and any other forms of reparations could only be made with the resources that remained, if any. Budgetary decisions should be made with the whole picture in mind at the same time, not piecemeal. Iâm not sure about your point about microfinance â that is not the same as reparations.
UPDATE 6/10: Amendments #1 & #2 were made by the proposers of the Business Resolution and during the mini-assembly after discussing both, were deemed friendly amendments and incorporated into the Business Resolution.
2 Likes
My understanding is that in a sense microfinance can be part of reparations, when it provides financing for projects in communities that have been harmed. I donât know a lot of details, this was from a discussion with a member of our Womenâs Alliance who was concerned about the impact of this resolution on the WA investment in the common endowment fund.
1 Like
I am just an alternate delegate and havenât been in these discussions, but I am passing on a comment from Don @manningmiller (who is 2 hours ahead of me). He says he will try to comment further tomorrow.
âRemoving 14M from the unrestricted funds (25M), constitutes 56% of the totalâ
2 Likes
I agree with you; they seem to see us as intruders (that is too strong, but it is late) into governance, when we are in fact the governing body.
1 Like
KM, indeed, it is critically important that delegates realize what this Business Resolution on fossil fuels and reparations entails: âremoving 14M from the unrestricted funds (25M), constitutes 56% of the totalâ.
Thank you to delegate @manningmiller for putting this so clearly.
3 Likes
If Iâm understanding the timeline here correctly, GA instructed the fund to divest in 2014, and they didnât, and have said they wonât without a binding resolution.
Google is telling me $100 invested in the S&P in 2014 would be $266.50 now. I wonder if thereâs a way to know what portion of that 56% is money made by refusal to divest.
1 Like
After viewing the miniassembly, I have changed my view about the reparations piece and will vote against the amendment (ie keep the reparations piece in the proposal). I encourage people to watch the recording of that if they havenât (2023 Mini Assembly: Business Resolution on Vimeo). Iâm still torn about the proposal overall from not knowing if itâs the best way to forward justice work, but am supporting keeping the reparations piece in as it is fundamental to the proposersâ intentions and because of their profoundly justice-oriented ideas. I am also interrogating my own thoughts about whatâs âbestâ in the sense that justice delayed is justice denied.
4 Likes
My congregation is fortunate enough to have a sizable endowment (at least for the size of our congregation), half of which was invested in the UUA Common Endowment Fund at the time we received the funds. This was done based on holding congregational meetings to discuss how to properly invest the funds. This endowment has allowed us to make several capital improvements over the past 15 years or so, including paving our parking lot, adding air conditioning, and most recently installing a new roof. It also currently helps sustain our operating budget although we are working toward not needing that. Note that I was on our endowment committee when the funds were received and invested as well as when some of the expenditures were approved.
I was forwarded this morning, from a current member of the endowment committee, two emails that were sent from the UUA to our treasurer and other UUACEF investors, one on May 26 and the other on June 9 encouraging all investors to vote against this resolution. They listed several reasons for their stance, as well as several links that I have not yet checked out that apparently note the progress that has been made regarding divestments.
One my concerns is that the authors and supporters of this resolution do not have the same opportunity/mechanism to reach out to investors to share their reasons for the resolution. Additionally, as far as I saw, the emails do not even share the link to this discussion forum (which I only discovered about a week ago) which is one way investors could hear from more voices. I find this disappointingâŚ
10 Likes
What portion of the $14M is returns on investments that were banned by the 2021 resolution or the 2014 resolution depends on when the fossil fuel industry investments were made and which were sold and when.
To know accurately how much of the $14M is principal that was invested and how much is a return from global warming pollution, you would have to look at brokerage statements and compare to the 2021 divestment resolution and the 2014 divestment resolution.
A quick estimate is that âroughly about halfâ of the $14 million is profit on unsanctioned investments.
2 Likes
Thanks. To me this seems like an easy vote, especially after yesterdayâs illuminating Mini Assembly (thank you to the Board & Charles for that).
I assume those who gave generously to the Common Endowment Fund did so to give us long term opportunities to live out our values. Voting in favor of divestment & reparations accomplishes this in several ways. Not just the the obvious environmental justice angle, but also respecting the democratic vote of UUA membership, delayed nearly a decade now. And reparations, which everyone is in favor of (at least in theory). The truth is, itâs hard to start reparations. Itâs easy to say âI live on occupied territoryâ - but we canât be just talk. This is the moment. Itâs a beautiful opportunity, given to us by investors into the common endowment.
7 Likes
In NO WAY is it true that âeveryone is in favor of reparations,â even in theory. And further, donât we all pretty much in the world live on occupied territory? Everyone.
1 Like