Preliminary list of Priority Article II Amendments

General Assembly 2023 Prioritized Article II Amendments
, ,
1

The Co-Moderators, in consultation with the Article II Study Commission, the UUA Legal Counsel, and the Moderation Team of the Board of Trustees (“ModSquad”), are sharing a preliminary list of priority amendments. Per the UUA Bylaws, the Moderator sets the order of priority for amendments.

This prioritization seeks to present a range of amendments to delegates and incorporates feedback from many different venues. Please note that there may be revisions to this list, and not all these amendments may be able to be considered due to time. A final priority list in order will be presented at the Article II Mini-Assembly at 12:30 pm ET on Thursday, June 22.

The following list is presented in alphabetical order, not order of priority (order of priority will presented at the Mini-Assembly):

  • Abbitt – (2.1 Purpose) adds spiritual development

  • Bayne – (2.2 Values) revises justice/democracy value

  • Egbertson – (2.2. Values) adds gratitude as a value

  • Goekler – (2.2 Values) adds peace as a value

  • Gubbings – (2.1 Purpose) “highest” purpose

  • Johnson – (2.3 Inspirations) adds language on mystery and wonder

  • Leavens – (2.3 Inspirations) adds a revised version of the current Six Sources

  • Millspaugh – (2.2 Values) revises value of Interdependence

  • Radoslovich (2.2 Values) adds current Seven Principles as historic context [note: very similar to a number of other submitted amendments]

  • Schneider – (2.5 Freedom of Belief) emphasizes individual conscience

  • Schwartz – (2.1 Purpose) adds creation of new UU communities

  • Shifferd – (2.3 Inspirations) adds current Six Sources,

  • Tolley – (2.2 Values) changes language of love and covenant/accountability

  • Wheeler – (2.2. Values) revises equity value

  • Wilson – (2.4 Inclusion) replaces “share our values” with “own search for truth”

These amendments have been tagged with “Prioritized” so they can easily be filtered: Topics tagged prioritized

7 Likes
2

Thank you for the hard work of the UUA Board. While this covers all the sections, and some multiple times, I’m sad to see nothing about the graphic made the cut! That being said, I think this is a very good list, and covers a lot of the most important issues to address and get the will of the GA delegates on. I’m also really glad it came out now, not next week, although I had only started my efforts to gather public support for graphics changes, due to the timing of all of this in the end of a busy church year. Thank you again for your commitment and service. I know this effort must have been enormous and full of deep discussion.

I’ll also say that if others like me make comments here, the list will get buried. I think it should be posted as a new post in this section.

3 Likes
3

I appreciate the links provided to each preliminary prioritized Amendment

For those like me who like to track things by number, I’ve added that information:

  • Abbitt – #30 (2.1 Purpose) adds spiritual development
  • Bayne – #13 (2.2 Values) revises justice/democracy value
  • Egbertson – #70 (2.2. Values) adds gratitude as a value
  • Goekler – #32 (2.2 Values) adds peace as a value
  • Gubbings – #11 (2.1 Purpose) “highest” purpose
  • Johnson – #5 (2.3 Inspirations) adds language on mystery and wonder
  • Leavens – #51 (2.3 Inspirations) adds a revised version of the current Six Sources
  • Millspaugh – #52 (2.2 Values) revises value of Interdependence
  • Radoslovich #61 (2.2 Values) adds current Seven Principles as historic context [note: very similar to a number of other submitted amendments]
  • Schwartz –#26 (2.1 Purpose) adds creation of new UU communities
  • Shifferd – #1 (2.3 Inspirations) adds current Six Sources,
  • Schneider – #6 (2.5 Freedom of Belief) emphasizes individual conscience
  • Tolley – #25 (2.2 Values) changes language of love and covenant/accountability
  • Wheeler – #19 (2.2. Values) revises equity value
  • Wilson – #68 (2.4 Inclusion) replaces “share our values” with “own search for truth”
3 Likes
4

And for those for whom it’s helpful to have it sorted by number:

  • Shifferd – #1 (2.3 Inspirations) adds current Six Sources,
  • Johnson – #5 (2.3 Inspirations) adds language on mystery and wonder
  • Schneider – #6 (2.5 Freedom of Belief) emphasizes individual conscience
  • Gubbings – #11 (2.1 Purpose) “highest” purpose
  • Bayne – #13 (2.2 Values) revises justice/democracy value
  • Wheeler – #19 (2.2. Values) revises equity value
  • Tolley – #25 (2.2 Values) changes language of love and covenant/accountability
  • Schwartz –#26 (2.1 Purpose) adds creation of new UU communities
  • Abbitt – #30 (2.1 Purpose) adds spiritual development
  • Goekler – #32 (2.2 Values) adds peace as a value
  • Leavens – #51 (2.3 Inspirations) adds a revised version of the current Six Sources
  • Millspaugh – #52 (2.2 Values) revises value of Interdependence
  • Radoslovich #61 (2.2 Values) adds current Seven Principles as historic context [note: very similar to a number of other submitted amendments]
  • Wilson – #68 (2.4 Inclusion) replaces “share our values” with “own search for truth”
  • Egbertson – #70 (2.2. Values) adds gratitude as a value
7 Likes
9

So, if not a delegate, we won’t get to know the final priority order? When that prioritized list of amendments is created, there may only be time to get through ~1/2 of them? I see that many of the amendments are small wording tweaks, that may have outsized impacts in meaning. I think I read that even if the amendments on the 7 principles/6 sources were prioritized/heard/voted in, they are phrased to place them in the past. For my part, as one person, the interdependence change would be first. Good luck to the delegates, it will be a challenge to poll their congregations in time for the vote.

10

I’m disappointed that a reference to Beloved Community, which is so central to our faith, and Radical Inclusion, which is central to Canadian UUs, didn’t make this list.

3 Likes
11

Could someone please describe in this thread, what the process is going to be like? Or reference the bylaws or schedule or whatever that explains it?

I want to make sure I am understanding it correctly in case I get questions as I attempt to discuss the process with my congregation. Thanks.

2 Likes
12

While I do not have the document in front of me, see the final Agenda for processes of voting and time limitations and all.

13

I’ll try; I am not an official but have been to a lot of GAs. OTOH, this is different from those; only in 2009 was an Article II revision considered, and it was my first GA; I had no preparation other than reading the program book in advance (back then, they mailed the paper book to us a week or two before GA; I think I read a lot on the plane).

Each general/business session includes discussion of Article II. I am not sure how those discussions will be structured. General sessions are available to all registrants, in person and on line, and will be live-streamed on uua.org.

Here is the list of what is available to the general public: Live-streamed events will include the General Sessions, Service of the Living Tradition, Synergy Bridging Worship, and Sunday Morning Worship,* so the general sessions may be watched by any members of our congregations/fellowships/societies (CFSs), and they can e-mail delegates with comments (after is probably easier than during the session, when we delegates will be busy).

Ballots remain open for some period of time after the general session—found it! “The ballot will open after the day’s General Session has ended and remain open until 10:00 p.m. ET, or later if extended by the Moderator”—so one could set up a huddle with one’s fellow delegates and any interested member of one’s CFS (though there are also evening services to consider, not to mention dinner). There are reports of results of the previous day’s ballot reports in just about every session, but it is not clear to me exactly what items are on which day’s ballot.

*Disturbingly, the Ware Lecture will not only not be posted for later watching, but will not even be live-streamed in real time. It is unclear to me if virtual business-only delegates will have access, as I believe that they do not have Whova access. If someone can confirm that either way, I would like to know, as I would craft a responsive resolution asking that future business-only delegates have access to all programming. The Ware Lecture is basically the keynote speech of the conference, and to block business-only delegates from it would be even more definitively making them second-class participants. (I understand not making all the on-demand workshops open in advance to business-only delegates, but once the in-person doors open, business-only delegates need access to everything to be able to participate fully.)

I hope that this is accurate and helpful, without too much of a digression.

4 Likes
15

Here are the amendments ordered by the sections in the bylaws

Amendment Bylaws Section Lines
Amendment 30 Section C-2.1. Purposes 6
Amendment 26 Section C-2.1. Purposes 6
Amendment 11 Section C-2.1. Purposes 8
Amendment 61 New: Section C-2-2 Historical Principles New
Amendment 25 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant 14-16
Amendment 52 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant 23-26
Amendment 13 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant 33
Amendment 19 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant 40-43
Amendment 32 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant addition
Amendment 70 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant addition
Amendment 5 Section C-2.3. Inspirations 45,46,48,49
Amendment 1 Section C-2.3. Inspirations addition
Amendment 51 Section C-2.3. Inspirations 45-49
Amendment 68 Section C-2.4. Inclusion 54
Amendment 6 Section C-2.5. Freedom of belief 59
5 Likes
16

I’m happy to report that it does mention Beloved Community. It’s in the Justice section:

“Justice. We work to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all
thrive.
We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of systemic oppression. We
support the use of inclusive democratic processes to make decisions.”

It’s not too surprising to me, since Paula Cole Jones worked on Article 2 as well as the 8th principle.

I believe most anything worth doing for one’s values is worth doing radically. It is interesting to hear the Canadians include ‘radical inclusion!’ I first heard that term in the context of Burning Man. )*( Here is what the new A2 says:

“Inclusion. Systems of power, privilege, and oppression have traditionally created barriers
for persons and groups with particular identities, ages, abilities, and histories.
We pledge to replace such barriers with ever-widening circles of solidarity and
mutual respect. We strive to be an association of congregations that truly
welcome all persons who share our values. We commit to being an association
of congregations that empowers and enhances everyone’s participation,
especially those with historically marginalized identities.”

17

I don’t like the term; maybe it is because I was unchurched until my 40s and am still an atheist, but it seems artificial/saccharine to me.

1 Like
18

At in-person GAs in the past, all registrants were able to attend in miniassemblies (not sure if they could participate in discussion or propose amendments, but they could certainly witness all that happened.) IDK if a video will be made available, as it was to have been after the business resolution miniassembly (not meaning to imply that it wasn’t, I simply do not know where to find it). There is generally a daily Commission on Social Witness report that might include details.

19

We released this list of 15 so that you would have time, now, to go and consult, poll, etc. with your congregants before the general session on Thursday.

1 Like
20

There is a mini-assembly before the general session on Thursday because the bylaws require that a mini-assembly for amendments to the Article II proposal occur during general assembly. We have tried to organize the bulk of the work in advance of that mini-assembly so you have time to think, consult, poll, etc. in advance of any discussions.

We are required to continue receiving possible amendments to the Article II proposal up to and including the mini-assembly.

Take a moment to consider how this process would unfold if we waited until the mini-assembly to receive all the amendments. Imagine the chaos of 80+ amendments and then immediately going into a general session to talk and vote on them! We think we have given you much more time to absorb and consider before the general sessions.

In addition to receiving any last-minute proposed amendments at the mini-assembly, we will finalize the order for discussion for Thursday’s general session, review the procedural details, and answer any questions.

At the general sessions on Thursday and Friday, we will consider each amendment one at a time. The process will follow the rules of procedure. The proposer will be given 90 seconds to speak. Depending on the amendment, that might be followed by 90 seconds for a representative of the Article II Study Commission to speak. Then we will alternate pro and con, including both online and onsite delegates until we run out of time for that amendment (9 minutes for discussion) or we run out of people wanting to speak. We can also stop the debate early if one of the lines (pro or con) doesn’t have any speakers.

(If everyone is in favor or opposed to something, we should save time and move on to the next one.)

We can get to more amendments if we don’t use the full time for each amendment’s discussion. And if you are in line and don’t get a chance to speak, you can always come here, discuss.uua.org, and post what you were going to say.

After we are done for the day, there will be a ballot available to you in the delegate platform. You can vote on the amendments until 10 pm ET / 7 pm PT. And we can extend that time if something untoward happens – power outages, internet outages, etc.

Thanks for joining us in this process.

2 Likes
21

@CharlesD The study commision mentioned the need for a focus group on inspirations if folks left the need for a list of them to be specified. How would that focus group get created if that was determined as a need? Would that be up to the board and the study commision or would delegates need to propose an amendment that specifies that need? Or would that need to have been an amendment to the rules of proceedure? For example amendments #75 and #27 suggest such an amendment to the inspirations be considered. For example one question, I could see a study group discussing is the difference or lack there of between sources and inspirations. If the study commision explained this I missed it and would like to hear from the study commision as to why they made the switch from sources to inspirations and how they see the two as different.

1 Like
22

From page 15 of the report from the Article II Study Commission:

With Inspirations, we are aware that many value the current list of Sources. Nothing in what we propose contradicts this list. We felt a better use of the Bylaws would be to articulate what our inspirations do and how we should approach any source of inspiration. We tie them explicitly to our values and to the practices of cultural respect. If people feel an official list is necessary, we would suggest a process that includes theologians, ministers, religious educators, musicians, artists/writers and laypeople.

In my opinion, it does not require an amendment or any vote of the delegates to gather a group of people, as suggested by the report, and have them develop such a list. We would then need to develop a process to determine what would make it an “official” list and how it could be updated over time.

23

I don’t know if links to the recordings of the mini-assemblies are available in a public space but they are available in the Delegate Platform. Here is the link for the recording of the Business Resolution mini-assembly: 2023 Mini Assembly: Business Resolution on Vimeo

24

Thanks, David! Glad to see you here.

25

Review of Priority Aticle II Amendments

Shifferd 4 – #1 (2.3 Inspirations) adds current Six Sources,

Johnson 3– #5 (2.3 Inspirations) adds language on mystery and wonder

I would have hoped amendment 53 (or 60) would have made this list as it is more complete. Instead, I would support amendment 5 as it is closest to the intention of those keeping to SC revision and yet improving. 51, and 1 are a different choice and add back much sources language. My own wish was to see “indigenous knowledge” or a rendition of that source in the inspirations.

Schneider 3– #6 (2.5 Freedom of Belief) emphasizes individual conscience

Gubbings 1– #11 (2.1 Purpose) “highest” purpose

Bayne 2 – #13 (2.2 Values) revises justice/democracy value

Justice, adds: within our congregation and the society at large. Leaves SC revision intact with the added language at the end of the Justice value. I support this amendment.

Wheeler 2– #19 (2.2. Values) revises equity value

Tolley 3 – #25 (2.2 Values) changes language of love and covenant/accountability

Schwartz 2 –#26 (2.1 Purpose) adds creation of new UU communities

Perhaps there is an oversight in omitting any of the three Purposes amendments that ask to consider changing “assist” to “serve” congregations. there is also language about “and ongoing injustices” that was a theme. amendments 28 and 14. Amendment 30 and 11 don’t address the intention of authority between member congregations and UUA’s purpose as do amendments 28 and 14. I will learn in hearing how we proceed.

Abbitt 3 – #30 (2.1 Purpose) adds spiritual development

Goekler 2– #32 (2.2 Values) adds peace as a value

Leavens 2– #51 (2.3 Inspirations) adds a revised version of the current Six Sources

Millspaugh 1– #52 (2.2 Values) revises value of Interdependence

I offer this friendly amendment - only if welcomed by authors. 24 We covenant to [cherish] protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, [by ]creating and nurturing and restoring sustainable relationships of care

Radoslovich 1#61 (2.2 Values) adds current Seven Principles as historic context [note: very similar to a number of other submitted amendments]

of all 17 amendments to support retaining a form of the 7 (8) principles this amendment (and 3 others very close to it) have worked to be a part of the SC revision. Although I am satisfied with the Article II SC revision without the principles, I support the further consideration of this amendment.

Wilson 2– #68 (2.4 Inclusion) replaces “share our values” with “own search for truth”

changed: share our values to will embrace our values, add: in their own search for truth and meaning. I support this amendment.

Egbertson 1– #70 (2.2. Values) adds gratitude as a value