Preliminary list of Priority Article II Amendments

@Steward #51 and #1 are very different (as one of the co-editors of #51).

What were the criteria used by the Moderators, et al, to select the “amendments”, (i.e., “edits”) to the Proposed Revision" ?

How were the final 15 amendments out of the 86 prioritized “amendments” selected?

Is there any record of how those decisions were made?

2 Likes

I’ll take it that the Co-Moderators are indeed presenting a “Preliminary List of Priority Article II Amendments” and thus it is in order to make a final plea to amend the last sentence of Article II, Section C-2.1 to add the words “and the universal realization of our Values and Principles” to the end of the sentence so that it reads: “The purpose of the Unitarian Universalist Association is to actively engage its members in the transformation of the world through liberating Love and the universal realization of our Values and Principles.” (See my Amendment #29, item 3)

I am very pleased that one of the selected priority amendments is #61 to retain in Article II our current Seven Principles (although I would prefer a more full-throated affirmation of the Principles).

I think the statement that we can transform the world just by “our liberating Love” is unrealistic, amorphous and, frankly, will turn away those outside our denomination (and who might consider joining us) who see the statement as meaningless or fanciful.

What can transform the world, in addition to our liberating love, is the universal realization of our human rights principles and values. Adding principles and values also harmonizes the sentence with the preceding sentence in Section C-2.1 that among the UUA’s “primary purposes” is “to advance our Unitarian Universalist values [and I would add “principles”] in the world.”

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal,
Jim Hall, Amendment #29

1 Like

It is not the content which confuses me, but the process. The Article II Study Commission has spent the past year gathering input and deliberating to bring us a carefully crafted document. UUs and their delegates have been given a small window in which to consider the amendments to the Proposed Revision. Made evident by the discussion threads accompanying the amendments, the crafters of the proposed amendments have followed an earlier instruction from Widening the Circle of Concern, “to bring the margins to the center.” They have been very sensitive to those with specific concerns.
The fifteen “final” priority amendments omit a lot of good work. If it is the concern that the GA does not have time to deliberate on at least the first priority cut, then shouldn’t we come up with a process that honors and uses this good work in order to have a thoughtful revision to present to GA 24? Otherwise I fear everyone’s good work will go down the drain.
My approach will be “this and that also” not “either/or”. So I’ll end up supporting amendments because they contain an element that I think is important… but does not necessarily contain everything. When all the voting is complete, will there be a process for amendment proposers to work together to craft similar ideas into an amendment for GA24?

5 Likes

I agree. Amendment #51 is a considerably more comprehensive revision of the proposal’s Inspirations which thoughtfully updates the current Sources while integrating them with current issues. It was developed through a thoughtful collaborative process engaging the efforts of many. Please take a close look at this proposed amendment.

3 Likes

Any specific process for amendments GA2024 hasn’t been fully established yet. It bears noting that the UUA Bylaws are very restrictive around how this process occurs.

One element to be clear about is that there is a much higher bar for amendments in the second year. Bylaws Article XV Section C-15.1(c)(4): During the second year vote, amendments may only be submitted by the Board of Trustees or at least 15 congregations. Additionally, any submitted amendments at GA2024 must receive a 3/4ths vote in favour in order to be incorporated.

The process still continues as the Article II Study Commission will work to incorporate any amendments adopted at this year’s assembly. No one’s amendments have been a waste of time, as each has informed my thinking and reflection on the proposal. I am so grateful for everyone who has contributed (and will contribute) to this reflective experience. Thank you for your engagement!

1 Like

I urge the Co-Moderators, the Article II Study Commission, the UUA Legal Counsel, and the Moderation Team of the Board of Trustees (“ModSquad”) to take a closer look at Amendments #49–Welch and #83 Richardson–each of which thoughtfully updates the current principles. They were each collaboratively developed and deserve inclusion on the list of Priority Article II Amendments.

2 Likes

The by-laws are restrictive on that intentionally; this is changing a critical section of our by-laws that need 2 votes to pass, and it would be expected that there would be only minor differences between the 2 years; the time between taken for discussion of what was passed. If that is substantially changed between the 2 votes, then there is not that full discussion time. I am actually concerned that the Board may submit amendments on its own during that time; I think that is something that we may want to consider changing in the future. Given how difficult it is to connect with 14 other congregations, I think that 15 is probably reasonable; I wonder if a requirement for geographic distribution makes sense?
I agree that none of this work has been wasted; we have all had a chance for deep reflection that has been productive.

I’m sure the bylaws task force will consider these points as we all continue to reflect on and reimagine the future of our living tradition of Unitarian Universalism.

Sorry for the repost. Had an issue with my phone.

Thinking about the June 18 posts by @CharlesD replying to AmandaP and skoseksills, I’m reflecting on the specifics that underlie the pronouns “we” and “you”:

Pronouns are great for streamlining, absolutely! But naturally the references can differ depending on context.

Sometimes “we” means “the leadership,” meaning “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”).” And in such cases, “you” is meant to refer to “nonleadership delegates,” right?

Other times “we” can mean leadership and nonleadership delegates all taken together as a body taking action at this assembly – “The General Assembly,” or “everyone voting at this GA,” or something to that effect.

I’m hugely grateful for the work of the small peer group, the leadership peer group. I do want to make sure I know when “we” means the small peer group and when it means the big peer group, the one I belong to along with CharlesD and all the other delegates, leadership and nonleadership.

So, to give one example: When CharlesD says “At the general sessions on Thursday and Friday, we will consider each amendment one at a time,” he means that the considering is being done by the big we, the big peer group of everyone who’s going to vote, right? And then the big we, all delegate peers, leadership along with nonleadership, are the ones who will get access to the ballot in the delegate platform, and vote on however many amendments were presented and discussed that particular day, whether Thursday or Friday.

Because this big “we” operates on a small-d democratic, one-person-one-vote basis, right?–and we’re all in this together… Sometimes for better or worse, but that’s fine, that’s real life, not always everyone in sync with each other!

I hope I have understood this correctly, thanks.

Yes, consideration at general sessions is done by all present, with those with delegate status being able to speak Pro or Con and vote on ballots that are open for a few hours after the session closes. There may be opportunities for general conversation (or chat, for virtual folks) as was done last year; IDK about that, but all present of course participate in those informal chats.

My concern is that anything that happens between GAs is done with full participation by any UU interested and communicated early and often. Past practice has been weak in that area—so I am looking for by-law revisions to encourage that.

I do see that there are important language differences between 51 and 1. I am not attempting to comment on the favorable language of either. 51 and 1 both share the characteristic departures from the SC revision’s paragraph format/cadence which I am in favor of retaining. By listing sources we gain detail and, I think, lose the continuity of meaning with the other Values. I agree with others who ask that proponents of longer versions of Inspirations consider that retaining the descriptions can continue, just not as part of the action emphasis of the revised Article II.

I remain in favor of retaining the form of the SC revision and support the one amendment (and not at all reluctantly) 52. that retains the SC revised form. I have made a request to the authors of 52 (and all authors of Inspiration amendments) to consider inclusion of a rendition of “indigenous knowledge.”

What I have come to understand in making the appeal to all delegates to consider “indigenous knowledge” as a source, is that for many “indigenous knowledge” is not a source. As much as we have benefited from the elders who taught our indigenous forebears to “walk each step as a greeting to mother earth”, we are not (in the majority) drawing our inspiration from this view of Turtle Island. Not all sources need speak to each and every one of us, who are members of UU congregations/associations, so long as we can recognize that they are inherent in the Inspiration value language.

I am concluding that, as a faith tradition, we have yet to learn to draw upon the view of being two legged siblings sharing the planet - as a source of Inspiration.

How to start?..It feels like a complete rewrite of article 2 fundementally changes what UU is. OR If it is just a bylaw, then the commission, can, has, and will, change that minor part of the bylaw. There will still be tension between the purpose of changing A2 and the way that change feels?
The draft proposal, now with draft amendments, for A2, exists. But how can a vote bridge the differences in view, nevermind the differences across all UUs perspectives.
Anyway, if “Article II of the bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association…Only the purpose is required by Massachusetts law.” perhaps shortening A2 proposal down to just the purposes, and the amendments to the purposes, would be enough given the time allotted during the mini-GA? (just a thought, from one lone UU)

@Steward , thanks for the clarification, and I understand. However, describing the two other Inspirations/Source options with the same wording may give a misimpression to others. They are very different approaches (Amendment 1 is more about retaining both the Sources and new Inspirations in their current form, while 51 synthesizes, edits, adapts and hopefully updates with both added and deleted language. Different approaches that may seem more appealing to different people). For a reply from the co-editors to your specific comments and concerns re Amendment #51, please see that thread. Thank you.

@DebJ thanks very much!

My little amendment would add just a dash more Beloved Community.

1 Like

I support a listing of the sources. I think it is especially useful for people new to UUism as it helps to clarify how we draw on other religions.
I did like the early proposal #447 in its statement of sources as it included Unitarians and Universalists. I don’t think any of the formally submitted amendments include that.
On another note…
I am wondering about how this process will work out… it seems like there is a lot of revision to do. Personally, I like some revised sections much more than others. Is there a possibility of splitting the proposed revision so that we could vote separately on each section, e.g., inspirations, belief. If I understand correctly, a person who who does not like one section of the proposal would have to vote down the package. Is that correct?

2 Likes

I hope delegates stay focused on the fact that this is a BYLAWS amendment, not editing the Bible of UUism. The language need not be perfect, nor complete, and should above all be succinct, clear, and guide the Board of the UUA. Nothing is lost.

3 Likes

Where is the Zoom link for the General Session?

I am only getting YouTube access via the Whova app. Is there no Zoom tonight? How about General Session tomorrow? How do off-site delegates participate?

I thought there was a Zoom link in Whova, but not seeing it, nor on the Delegate platform

You have to go back to the home page on the delegate site. There’s a Zoom link option there.

1 Like