Dave, I love concrete examples myself, but for this topic, I feel like all I need to know is that there hasn’t been a complete review of the bylaws in 60 years. Bylaws should be reviewed much more frequently than that. What we’re voting for here is a review and recommendation process, not specific changes–proposed changes would be voted on at a future GA. The world was a significantly different place when the bylaws were drafted.
2 Likes
I think it is misguided to try to make big changes to Article II and bylaws at a time when our Association is in great upheaval. –
(1) Congregations are divided over the 8th Principle (when they dare discuss it at all), which has resulted in congregations splitting, members leaving, congregation members and UUA ministers being excommunicated (use your word of choice there), UU ministers resigning, etc. – and the UUA not allowing a breakaway congregation(s) to even use the Unitarian Universalist name anymore (apparently because they support the 7 Ps, not the 8th).
(2) UUs have not read, do not understood, have discussed or debated, and approved with informed consent the Widening the Circle of Concern report as the roadmap for UU. – The report is a very difficult read and understand, not to mention, it is based on complaints from a group of people rather being than a systematic comprehensive study in the first place. It should not be the roadmap for redesigning the UUA for all of those reasons.
(3) All this is so very divisive that many congregations avoid talking the 8th Principle or Widening the Circle of Concern. (That alone should tell us something.)
(4) Our Association and nation are both very polarized over Critical Race Theory, the very basis of the Widening the Circle of Concern report. (Being polarized means that we are emotionally reactive, angry, upset, increasingly extreme in our views, have difficulty even allowing contrary views to be stated, we engage in enemy formation of those we disagree with, and we are generally unable (emotionally and cognitively) to seek understanding of contrary views).
If we want an inclusive Association, and if we truly respect one another . . .
This is miserable timing for turning our Purposes and Principles up-side-down.
This is miserable timing for doing a sweeping overhaul of the bylaws.
And this is all a tragic distraction from addressing the substantive issues of our day.
We need stability, a chance to calm down, listen to one another, and so on, without the stakes being so high.
If GA bylaws need re-envisioning, re-envision GA! I would suggest that a representative committee be struck to come up with a recommendation as to how GA should be run and managed. This should be talked about in numerous Town Meetings. Then if bylaws need revision, revise the GA-related Bylaws, all Bylaws in one piece.
3 Likes
Typo correction:
Then if bylaws need revision, revise the GA-related Bylaws, NOT all Bylaws in one piece.
Apologies if this is a repeat; I sent a few comments last night from my e-mail, and one or more bounced:
Definitely; I was one of the few who ever commented on the old Web forum, and was frequently alone. . . . this has taken off pretty well; I hope people continue after GA.
1 Like
Apologies if this is a repeat; I sent a few comments last night from my e-mail, and one or more bounced:
No, it’s not— but it is easier to connect at a district or regional meeting, and we had a stronger connection to a board member when they were region-specific. That may not be true for all, I realize. Still waiting to hear about “clusters”; we have informally worked with the other 2 UU societies in our county, but it is sporadic and only somewhat effective. Support from the UUA might be helpful.
I just want to be clear Sally, the revised bylaws will have to be voted on to go into effect by delegates when they are ready. This doesn’t not mean that bylaws are automatically changed just that we are empowering the board to do the work of revising them so we can then vote on what they present.
I realize that—but there have been comments here on how hard it is to know how to vote when arriving at GA, to read up on all the discussion that has been happening over the past year, or even past month or 2, and get feedback from one’s CFS*, and participate in workshops, business sessions, miniassemblies (this year before GA), etc.
There could have been a better-thought-out process presented, rather simply a request for an open-ended review (I appreciate the amendment to require an annual report to GA, but why was that not part of the original plan?).
I am not opposed to a review of the by-laws; if I were king (or at least board chairperson, moderator, or UU president), I would have suggested putting out a call for suggestions preparatory to making such a request, with a platform for discussion of the possibility opened some time between last year’s GA and, say, April of this past year. That way, delegates could actually have discussions with their fellow CFS members and know on what they were voting.
CFS = congregation/fellowship/society
Not sure what is intended by “clusters”. My congregation is part of the UU Council of Greater Cincinnati, five congregations that collaborate on programs and actions in our area. We have been fairly successful at accomplishing joint goals. No support from the UUA that I am aware of.
1 Like
Hi from one of your neighbors in Lexington!
I think the UU Council of Greater Cincinnati is exactly what was intended by clusters, as is KUUJAN (Kentucky UU Justice Action Network). As I remember it the concept of clusters was intentionally very non-prescriptive, assuming that local clusters would know best what their form and focus should be. The trade-off was that the clusters will not have a lot of guidance or resources from “Boston” (unless they sought them). Very UU, IMO.
I’m sure that @shawntrapp isn’t the only delegate with this question about the 8th Principle. Yours was a very helpful response @Lambo. Thank-you.
1 Like
After reading most of the most recent comments that basically are just " WHY??" I have to wonder if anyone actually bothered to read the bylaws before they joined?
Because the bylaws themselves say so.
The UUA Bylaws mandate a review of Article II, containing the UUA Principles and
Purposes, every fifteen years. Section C-15.1(c)(6) reads:
If no review and study process of Article II has occurred for a period of fifteen years, the Board
of Trustees shall appoint a commission to review and study Article II and to recommend
appropriate revisions, if any, thereto to the Board of Trustees. T
answered. We are a living tradition.
4 Likes
Thank you, christystockman. I knew that was in the bylaws but I was not able to find it.
1 Like
That is not my understanding of the word theological and there is no official “UU understanding”. The Seven Principles are not a theological statement.
Hello - does it make sense to do the Article 2 work and the Bylaws revision at the same time, or would it make more sense to one and then the other? I am a little unsure about that.
Thanks.
Personally, I think finishing Article II, at least to the point of a first vote, and maybe some of the simple technology-related tweaks first makes sense, and then diving into the bigger project. I know that they are different teams, but the work of one should inform the other, no?
I had hoped to speak against this business resolution as an online Zoom participant, but was intentionally ignoring the (very busy and distracting) “Chat” function and missed my opportunity because the “Chat” is where the instructions to do so were posted.
Here is what I had hoped to have an opportunity to say when I spoke:
My name is Lynn Jinishian and I am the current Board of Trustees president at the Unitarian Universalist church of Spokane where the Reverend Todd Eklof remains in our pulpit because of congregational polity and our 5th principle.
I’m respectfully speaking in opposition of this resolution—even though my own congregation just spent more 16 months undergoing this exact process—and for the exact same stated reasons. Following the 2019 GA in Spokane and the subsequent gadfly affair, we turned to our governing documents looking for insights that may have caused or prevented our schism.
We learned two very important lessons in our bylaws revision that can be applied right here today: 1) The truly liberal ancestors of our church who framed our original bylaws, and the subsequent amendment writers did an amazing job of seeing into the future and knowing what would be necessary to stay true to our liberal roots of freedom, reason, and tolerance. At their core—our bylaws were rock solid—as documents written with values, virtues, and principles should be. They needed a bit of clarity and definitions of terms—so we took care of that and 2) Bylaws not only have to be written—they must be followed. That is where we went wrong, and I believe that is where the UUA is going wrong too by recommending a “wholescale rewrite”.
By all means, tidy up the sections that have volunteer positions requiring unreasonable time expectations or that need clarity of roles and responsibilities—but do a complete re-write to redefine us and the UUA will become unrecognizable as the service organization it is intended to be for the diverse congregations it serves and establish itself as “power central”—something SO many of us left behind from our childhood religions, seeking something different and finding it here-- in our liberal, free and responsible UU home churches and fellowships. I respectfully encourage you to vote no on this business resolution.
Thanks, Lynn, very well said, I hope folks come here to read before they vote. I am not a delegate this year, so do not have a vote of my own, but I appreciate your first-hand experience. I hope that, if this goes through, the rewriters will find what you did and keep the basics intact. If it does pass, I will be looking for ongoing updates and ways to participate, and encourage all to do likewise.
Sally
This Business Resolution as amended received significant support and was adopted by the General Assembly. Discussion is now closed.