I’m a first-time, online, business-only delegate. I knew next to nothing about what happens at GA before this week. I have been reading as much as my life with two young children allows, but that and the large amount of legalese is not very conducive to comprehension. Can someone explain some things to me in plain terms?
What is the difference between a CSAI and an AIW?
Why was the voting process different between the two? (CSAIs starting with a vote between 3, and AIWs with a vote up/down for each individual issue)
Will there be a final vote for a AIW “winner” tomorrow?
What exactly happens with whichever one of each “wins”?
What happens to the “losers”?
Why do we have to debate and vote to limit ourselves to just one? Aren’t we all in agreement that they are all important?
Thank you for your patience with a newcomer to the business side of things.
The reason for only picking one CSAI is so that the UUA, as a whole, can dedicate resources and time towards studying that one issue. If we picked 2 or all 3 it would be a lot trickier to manage.
Whereas the AIW’s are more about holding that these issues are important to us and align with our values generally, the CSAI’s are more about building study curriculums and taking actions.
Would it be trickier? I’m all for focused attention, but it seems like there are people out there willing to dedicate time their favorite one, and aren’t we more powerful when we’re all allowed to bring forth our stengths and passions? Instead we are debating which one is more “important”? So, again, what happens to the “losers”?
Yes, I concur, it would be trickier. AIWs respond to an issue in the moment and only carry the authority of this GA. It’s a commitment to do something right now.
But CSAIs lead to the formulation of a Statement of Conscience which is a long-term commitment of UUs and the Association to work consistently on an issue. To say, “we’re in this for the long haul,” and how we will be responsive in the long haul requires serious thought over time. Perhaps our largest churches could sustain an investment in 2 or 3 things besides their regular ministry commitments, but no small church could. With the CSAI process, and eventually a Statement of Conscience, the Association has thought, reflected, practiced skills, and refined all of that to be able to move together in a significant way.
All of that allows others looking at us to know we’re a serious and faithful partner on these things. When I do interfaith work, these statements are very helpful in explaining our justice commitments because many partners are confused by the lack of dogma.
As the process unfolds, we’ll receive more material than could ever be addressed for the study work. It will range from academic understandings and data to theology, from individual choice considerations to influence the issue to group and congregation choices for hands-on engagement to understand the issue in our bones and meet people touched by it in our neighborhoods.
I have done it several times now and am always impressed by the amount of energy it requires—and the quality of product that results. Hope that helps.
That does help. I’m still not sure I agree, as there is so much need in the world right now it feels very limiting to choose just one, but I will take your word for it as I have not been through this process before myself. I guess I’m also just being a bit of a devil’s advocate, because challenging the status quo needs to be done from time to time.
I appreciate the enthusiasm. Of course, there’s nothing to keep you from working on all the issues yourself! Or maintaining all three in your congregation’s attention and work if you have that capacity. But it wouldn’t be realistic to coordinate 1000 congregations in deep consultation on all three major topics for 3 years—while they also do their usual work. A CSAI and Statement of Conscience are on that major scope.
I’m also willing to bet that when we actually come to vote on the Statement in 3 years, we’ll have delegates tell us their Congregation never gave them the documents in advance—and they didn’t do the consultations in their Congregation! It’s not because they’re disinterested, they’re just juggling too many balls! I wouldn’t want to multiply that by 3!
Enjoy your GA!
In a nutshell (oops, more like tl/dr!): AIW: a statement by the specific General Assembly of a particular year about a timely issue that does not call for a long discernment process. Implementation does not get UUA funding, there is no specific requirement for any CFS (congregation/fellowship/society) to do anything specific, but it does give guidance to staff should they have occasion to address the issue. These do become part of the record, and as a single-payer healthcare activist, when in 2008 the Ft. Lauderdale GA passed an AIW supporting single-payer healthcare, I was able to cite that to legislators, media, etc., and used it as the basis for a presentation from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) at my society. (A friend/fellow member was a delegate that year, and told me about it; I was the Social Responsibilty chairperson and my first reaction [other than Yea!] was, What’s GA? I had been a member 10 years at that time. I went to GA in Salt Lake City the next year as a delegate, and have attended every one since, either in person or off site, usually as a delegate.)
Any number of Actions of Immediate Witness may be proposed, and the Commission on Social Witness (CSW) works with proposers to finalize them; before GA, delegates vote to choose up to 3 for possible inclusion on the GA agenda (this selection had been done by the CSW previously; we objected, saying that delegates should have input, which happened during the feedback sessions during the first week of June, with a vote from June 11th to 16th to narrow the 5 proposed this year to the 3 that are to be discussed, I believe tomorrow). Wedo not have to choose a single AIW; we can affirm 1, 2, or all 3 after a pro-con discussion. CS/AI: A complex topic requiring, or at least conducive to, a multi-year discernment process. These have been suspended for a few years, and many of us are glad to see them return. There are materials created, either by presenters, UUA,/Commission on Social Witness, or some combination thereof, with workshops at the following year’s GA and in Year 3 a proposed Statement of Conscience, which becomes a permanent, official position of the UUA. It would be impractical to try to do such an intensive process for more than 1 topic; so this does need to be limited to 1, based on what we think is important, on which a UUA statement would be most valuable, which is most important for UUs to learn deeply about, where UU CFSs (congregations/fellowships/societies) can have the greatest impact, etc.
Agreed; my first GA was in 2009, and when I went searching for materials, I found that I needed to vote on both a Peacemaking statement of conscience and a revision of Article II’s principles and purposes, neither of which I had heard anything about previously. (In fact, I think the first I heard about the Article II vote was on the plane reading the program book, which in 2009 was mailed to each delegate through the post office). We also had a vote for president that year; I was able to assemble a group to watch the presidential campaign videos (that group agreed iwith my choice, fortunately enough!) and another group to read through the Peacemaking Statement of Conscience (SoC) together so I could bring suggestions. That SoC was retitled Creating Peace, as “peacemaking” is a specific term of art.
Please know that the Commission on Social Witness also has some ambivalence about hierarchical decision making on how we choose what we focus attention on. We are hoping for deep conversations in the next few years as the bylaws get revised to determine a way forward that doesn’t fell “competitive” but is both nimble in response to immediate concerns and also addresses long- term concerns that require thoughtful consideration from our congregations.
The work of Justice needs to be strategic and responsive.
Onward the work!!!
Blessings- Rev Nancy
Of note, it’s been a LONG time since there has been a CSAI at GA and so it feels new to a lot of people. Charles Du Monde mentioned speaking to Barb (the previous moderator) about processes and he hadn’t gone through it either. You are not alone in this feeling overwhelming. I am a part of a congregation that is not terribly GA aware, so the AIWs haven’t really seemed to accomplish much in my opinion. It feels a lot like screaming about something into a closet. I’m Hopeful that this will not be the case with the CSAI. I am confident that something will come of it if the Abolition one passes as I have seen the passion with which the proposers have acted to get it heard.
The Actions of Immediate Witness have been helpful to me in working with nonUU advocates and lobbying legislators. At times, they also make GA attendees aware of new issues—e.g., in 2011, an AIW was proposed to support Tim deChristopher (subject of film Bidder 70); it did not make the final cut, and I asked on the GA floor what happened to it, as there were only 2 Actions admitted (decision was made exclusively by CSW). There was an explanation that there was some technical flaw (perhaps not a specific action to be taken? long time ago, not sure). Someone asked about the subject, and someone else asked if the Assembly could override the CSW and support it anyway. (hte parliamentarian said No). Both of those questions came from the procedural mike and were heard by everyone. Today, they would be asked at the information desk and nobody would even know that there was a question, let alone the answer. This sort of thing is why I do indeed miss the procedural mike.
One thought would be to keep this discussion site active all year, as the GA e-mail list used to be. Yes, it got most activity from May to just after GA—but periodically there would be a flurry, such as when text of an SoC was released, or a February voting deadline approached, etc.
