Hope you don’t mind me joining the conversation at this late date, but as someone who used to work for a state psychological association, this sounds like normal association board-type stuff. (Either this happens, or the meetings run long.) I add this in case it helps to know that other organizations go through this too (fwiw).
How about a “definitions” section? Laws have those, and I see the appropriateness of the new bylaws having one as well.
I like that idea! Yes to a definitions section.
I agree. Also, the primary “stakeholder” of UUA is UU congregations, perhaps best accessed through their leaders. This is the primary group that should be consulted with, which would be facilitated by returning to direct nomination and election of Board members through UU regions/districts.
yes on the primary stakeholder, but no on how to access—I was a member for 10 years before I even heard that GA existed, and that was only because one of our delegates was also working on single-payer health care, and brought back information about an AIW that year in support of Medicare for All (2008, Ft. Lauderdale). I have been a delegate almost every year since, and what I learn about GA business I learn from my own research, formerly the GA e-mail list (which had a lot of this sort of discussion, but was shut down by the administration for unknown reasons [not fashionable enough to use e-mail, especially text-based? too much effort to moderate? not clear, but it left a gap]). I bring material to my society, I hear nothing from leadership there.
I also agree about a more-direct connection between board members and regions/districts. I, with my society president, whom I explained about the dissolution at the district meeting just before the vote, were 2 of the few voting against our district dissolution. There were lots of promises of “clusters” and the ability to organize our own regional meetings, but no follow through, just further isolation.
1 Like
Wait – nominations via districts or regions isn’t the same as direct participation by congregations.
I was on the UUA staff when we tried to move the GA mailing list to a web-based forum, and it was a complete bust. This wasn’t an attempt to quash discussion, it was a (failed) attempt to move to new technology. This discuss.uua.org website seems much better.
I’ve been thinking about our shared comments. I know it is too late to suggest an amendment to the language in the items on the agenda, and am wondering how we raise this subject for the future, or if there will be an opportunity to talk about the language during this GA.
The key is to watch the UUA Web site like a hawk for publication of agenda items, and start discussions with your local folks and in whatever online spaces are available. If you are a delegate, you can be ready to propose amendments; if not, you need to find a delegate to do so. It used to be that all the miniassemblies were during GA—this year, they were a couple of weeks before, and the AIW vote was a last-minute improvement.
Those who are in CFSs that are involved in UUA governance have an easier time than those of us who are the de facto denominational affairs person in ours.
(CFS = congregation/fellowship/society)
1 Like
After reading nearly every word of the discussion (okay I skimmed some) I was not persuaded to change my initial reaction to vote in favor of the proposed rule change. I pretty much agreed with the reasons people were for the change and I felt the arguments against were not compelling enough to stand in the way of change. Forward ho!
4 Likes
Greg,
as an Asian American, I found your comment off-putting that we’d be offended by the idea of opposing logic. Please don’t speak for me or any other Asian American. Feelings are just as important as logic; both should be balanced together. Logic used alone can be weaponized and distorted. Don’t get me wrong, I have a PhD in a biomedical science and logic has its place in certain endeavors. Even science is full of bias, though it has its place we need to recognize its limitations. To me, logic has many flaws especially when we’re using it to make decisions about subjective topics and people’s feelings and lives. This is not an either/or topic, it’s a both/and. It’s possible we’re all saying the same thing but getting caught up in semantics, where we’re both arguing about two sides of the same coin.
4 Likes
I’d like to know what / who are considered by the drafters to be “stakeholders”?
I find myself wondering what role money and control of money has to play in this by-law revising initiative? Now I’m wondering if the UUA includes a financial report in GA or where that information is available? I haven’t looked for this information, just wondering in this moment. “Follow the money” is often a relevant consideration for understanding what’s going on and why.
I haven’t been following this topic. Being late to the party I’m still trying to understand specifically what’s wrong with the bylaws and what the negative effects are. I’m afraid I need some concrete examples in order to understand the type and effects of the perceived problems stemming from the current bylaws. Given my own informational limitations here and the brevity of GA I’m left with “trust us, we know”. Maybe I shouldn’t have come to GA if I can only rubber stamp proposals on which I’m poorly informed and now haven’t time to become well informed?
Greg voices my own concerns very well, and I am grateful to him. I would add as a progressive myself (liberal with social democratic leanings) that “woke progressivism” as I understand it typically involves accepting a new and misleading concept of “white supremacy”, an emphasis on “whiteness culture” that is arguably racist in its rash generalizations about white and nonwhite people, and a fondness for the controversial ideas of such thinkers as Robin DiAngelo (on white fragility and universal white racism), Ibram Kendi (on anti-racism vs. racism), and Tema Okun (on white-supremacy culture).
#1 Primary Stakeholders = congregations. Congregations are represented by their elected and duly appointed leadership.
#2 Democracy would be strengthened by the direct nomination and election of members to the Board from specific geographical areas, as we had with the District system. Direct nomination and election from geographical areas has accountability built into it, as well as direct connection to the congregations being represented. – Direct representation could occur with the Regional system IF direct nomination and election were built into it. But unfortunately all seats are “at-large,” right now. A central Nominating Committee (which takes direction from the Board in terms of what the Board is looking for) nominates people who agree the Board’s views. Thus, the Board is missing the diversity of perspectives and accountability that would result from regional nomination and election process.
1 Like
MargyLY, you were right. Two issues were being intertwined, leading to confusion! I tried to disentangle them above, as #1 and #2.
It is difficult to catch up on everything in the brief GA—and it can be difficult to find information early even if you have the time and interest to search it out. This year, with a miniassembly before GA, makes it especially bad. My instinct when I don’t know about a question on a ballot (in any election, UU or otherwise) is to either abstain (if I really don’t know much at all) or to vote No, more as a delaying tactic so that more learning can happen before the issue is raised again.
On this question, my main concerns are (1) who are considered “stakeholders”, (2) how will changes to Article II affect the rest of the by-laws (including, what is considered the purpose of the association—is it still to support member congregations, or something else), (3) how will ordinary UU folks, particularly those of us who hear nothing from congregational leadership, able to follow the process so that we don’t come to a future GA expected to do a year’s worth of learning in a couple of weeks.
Regarding what is wrong with the by-laws, the rationale for this seems to be that they are perceived as more complex than necessary (I am not so sure; we are a national association of ~1000 member congregations; lots of situations can arise that all need to be covered in by-laws), that certain parts may be obsolete and/or may not comport with how things are or would like to be done, and basically that there has not been a full review in a long time, if ever. One concern that has been raised is about “ Theologically Grounded and Mission-Focused Governance”—what does that mean? Theological pronouncements from UUA headquarters? Dogma to be followed? Purity tests? What happens to congregational polity—there has already been something of a push to focus more on interconnectedness than independence, which some worry could mean more centralization (already seen in the closure of districts and board members no longer being elected regionally, but at-large nationally) and congregations being seen more as branches of the UUA rather than local entities banding together in mutual interest.
If some of these questions were more clearly answered up front, if a process for inclusive participation by all UUs were laid out, I would be more comfortable with this. Failing that, I would lean toward a No vote.
1 Like
Karen, I agree; #2 is a big problem, and I don’t know that this revision would fix that. A few years ago, delegates rejected a board proposal to make the Commission on Appraisal a board committee; and I hope we reject the proposal to suspend the GA Planning Committee to preserve its independence as a committee directly elected by delegates. If there is reform needed to streamline the procedures, communication with staff, etc., then specific proposals for such could have (and IMHO should have) been brought instead of a blanket suspension for a period of 3 years. Similarly, just saying “we should revise the by-laws, give us blanket authority to do that” does not work for me. The amendment for an annual progress report is an improvement. (I find it sad that an amendment was needed, that sort-of gives me an impression of how respected the GA delegates are—wouldn’t that naturally have been part of a plan in a democratic institution?)
1 Like
I understand the Board rationale for eliminating the GAPC. I suspect that the administrative issues cited might be better managed without eliminating the directly elected (and therefore somewhat independent of the Board) GAPC. I prefer that GA should be primarily responsive to the congregations (I don’t know how GAPC does or might accomplish that) with the Board an obvious and essential partner but not controlling GA. This preference is strengthen by the fact that the Nominating Committee only renominated already sitting (well qualified) Board members while offering no Committee vetted options. This leave me wondering, as if UUA level governance might be a rather “insider game” and heading further that way? I own that I am generally suspicious of such situations, my bias for sure.