How and when do we have that discussion before this resolution is voted on? If there is no such opportunity, I think a No vote would be in order until that can be resolved.
Personally, I think that it is important to have GA funds clearly identifiable, and am not sure that they would be if they were merged with operating funds.
Wasn’t the miniassembly that happened last week the opportunity to propose amendments? And this forum right here the opportunity to discuss the resolution? This has been a great discussion, IMHO!
And that happened before GA, when delegates might not have been prepared to attend, just as the turnout for the vote to narrow down the list of Actions of Immediate Witness was hastily arranged (deep appreciation to the CSW for being willing to do that, and to the tech folks who made it happen) may have left delegates unaware that it was happening.
Yes, I think that this is a great discussion, but it would have been nice to have it start a month ago, so that people could have been ready with amendments by July 11th. A work in progress, I guess; continual improvement!
The website has been full of announcements that the process started in May. I think until we get used to the idea, a lot of us (me included) will forget that and not tune in until GA week.
I am very concerned about the arbitrary de-platforming of views from GA without an appeals process or accountability, as I understand it. This sort of censorship violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Principles, harms us all, and is damaging. I understand this has happened to more than one would-be exhibitor I would certainly have allowed.
(My understanding is, and this might be incorrect, is that a staff person can make the decision, and there is no appeal process. The only appeal would be filing a complaint with HR. That doesn’t make sense!)
I believe there needs to be an appeals process for disallowed GA Exhibitors. The appeal process should be timely and transparent, and the final arbiter should probably be the Board.
Does anyone know why we don’t have practical workshops at GA – like workshops on hospitality and welcoming, developing meaningful programs for children, and for young adults, or navigating conflict? What a great opportunity it would be to exchange ideas from all across the country!
Thank you. These concrete examples are very useful and important. Otherwise I’m left only with Trust Us (feels parental), and no factual understanding (needed for adult interaction).
That’s great inside information. Thanks for providing that context for those of us that haven’t had those experiences!
Proposals may be made by any UU group, and I don’t know if any such were proposed, or what the criteria are for acceptance. Also, there are discussions on Whova on such topics, and it is easy to set up a meet-up there—not suggesting that it is an equivalent substitute, but an option for this year. Also, check out the on-demand programs, there might be some there—I know that there is at least one on conflict resolution.
it appears to me this amendment is simply a way to avoid electing new members to the GA planning committee , which is to occur in odd numbered years. So, the effect of the amendment is to avoid elections in 2023 GA and permit the powers that be to continue to exercise their excessive “wokeness” at GA. Why are there no workshops on how to build your own theology; on meditative practices; on world religions; on multiplatform challenges for congregations for comparing antiracist strategies; for activating individuals re: climate change and so on and on and on…
Why was UUMUAC (unitarian universalist multi racial unity council) denied a booth in the exhibit hall? Why is the leadership pushing the 8th principle? Why does this GA center antiracism above all other social justice issues and clearly above all theological issues and above all practical issues of “how to do UU religion” ? Why? Why was Todd Eklof defellowshipped? Why are UUA leaders taking us into this swamp of “wokeness” at the expense of all else? Why?
A GA I attended many years ago (Charlotte NC?) was rich both practical and issues oriented small group options.
a) Because they broke some rules at a past GA.
b) Because we voted for them to do so at the last GA, overwhelmingly. They take their instruction from us, the delegates.
c) Because the issue of anti-racism is one of the most pressing issues of our time, we focus on it, but not to the exclusion of our theology or other issues as you suggest.
d) Because.
e) Because he failed to meet with the MFC, and it is a requirement that if a minister has a complaint filed against them, they must respond to the MFC when asked to do so.
f) Because we, the delegates, have instructed the leadership that this is the direction we want to go.
g) Again, because.
These questions have been answered dozens of times, particularly the questions about Todd Eklof, and I know you’ve seen those answers, so this repetition, plus the hyperbolic language, is not adding to discourse.
There are 54 On-Demand sessions for the virtual attendees covering a wide variety topics. For the next three days I see many workshops scheduled, including children’s programming, navigating conflict, welcoming, and lots of environmental issues. Maybe not as many as some GAs in the past, but they are there in the agenda.
There is no authority either in UUA bylaws nor in Roberts Rules of Order to
“suspend bylaws”. So how can this be done following our parliamentary rules?
Todd met with the committee that evening. They asked him to come agsin the next dsy. We know that the complaint was baseless. No one yet has pointed out the racist homophobic or sexist sentences pages … they required s second meeting becsuse of the contents of the book …, snd the complaint itself showed no evidence.
Anne Schneider, Phd. Retired political science professor and Dean, College of Public Programs
Arizona State University.
Never do something routine if you can do something truly special.
You’re mixing up your events and your meetings. “The committee” that Todd Eklof met with at the GA was not the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. It was his failure to meet with the MFC that led to his being removed from Fellowship. If you’re asking why he was removed from the GA, that’s a separate (albeit related) question, and more relevant to this discussion at hand.
A comprehensive timeline of what happened has been provided here: The UUA Truth Zone: Get the Real Facts - Dennis McCarty
They required a second meeting because (a) the first meeting was a preliminary meeting and incomplete, (b) they were receiving a volume of complaints, and they were following the process of what is usually done in cases of complaints, (c) they were trying to find solutions/resolutions. Todd refused to meet. Like with the Fellowship Committee, if you’re asked by the GA folks to meet regarding complaints, and you refuse to do so, there are are consequences. We’re a religious organization with covenants and commitments. Central to our way of being and resolving problems is the commitment to sit down with one another and discuss things. Todd was given chance after chance to do so in system after system, and refused them all.
My understanding is that he wanted to bring a representative of his choosing and was refused. If that is true, it is deeply troubling.
I don’t know about the MFC or UUMA. But that is entirely untrue of the GA process.
And I can’t imagine it is true of the MFC or UUMA.
Debra
Why not? Isn’t anyone in such a situation allowed counsel of choice? One certainly is in civil society.