Thanks so much! Got it!
The Zoom link in the Delegate Platform is the last connection option offered — the farthest to the right. In my panic last night, I either did not look far enough to the right or did not scroll far enough over.
Just edited to clarify in case this might help some equally panicked delegate today or Friday 
Hi Charles,
I enjoyed listening to and watching the Wednesday General Session, including the introduction by you and Meg Riley.
But something one of you said has raised questions in my mind that I’m hoping can be answered either here or during the Article II mini-assembly on Thursday.
First, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounded like you were encouraging folks to vote “yes” by saying that if they vote “no,” we can’t come back to it “for years.” You didn’t say “we CAN come back to it in JUST 2 years,” or just neutrally, “2 years.” I thought your role was intended to be neutral, but I realize I may mistaken about that too.
So what are my actual questions? I’m struggling to formulate them, but here goes one attempt:
Can you offer your (or others’) thoughts on WHY I and other delegates should ask their members to support continuing work on this Proposed Revision?
I’m hoping you can answer the question in the context of delegates like me, who represent communities struggling mightily with how to make enough changes to be satisfied.
So far it seems the only Amendments likely to even be HEARD are the 15 currently prioritized by UUA. Most in my congregation are not enthusiastic about those 15 Amendments and/or perceive the process of selecting them to not be an inclusive democratic process.
My question put another way, is "What assurances - more than “we assure you” - can be given that our concerted efforts to find common ground between the Current and Proposed Article II will be given further consideration if we vote “Yes”?
Without such additional assurances, my congregation would need the 15 Amendments to themselves be Amended in order to vote “Yes” on the package!
I do feel the discussions on discussuua.org have been very useful, but there has not been enough time or moderating support to figure out where consensus lies. Could we possibly continue this discussion venue and be assured that the Commission, etc. will be reading - or even participating in the discussion?
Thanks for your consideration.
(I hope my discouragement at the moment is just pre-mini-assembly jitters!)
Hi Kara,
I think you are referring to some things that Meg said, so I want to be careful about how I respond. The remarks you are quoting were not part of my welcome.
It is true the bylaws require a 2 year break if the proposal does not get at 50% this year. The language is awkward:
“If the Article II proposal does not receive the requisite approval at the General Assembly following the completion of the study process described in subsection (c)(3)(iv) or subsection (c)(4), above, neither the proposal nor another proposal that is substantively similar shall be placed on the agenda of the next regular General Assembly.”
A yes vote is a vote to continue the conversation. Nothing changes in the bylaws. Next year, it will take a 2/3 vote to implement the change. There is a lot about this particular bylaw process that is awkward, but the idea of taking another year to imagine how a new version of Article II will work is appealing to me.
The Commission is reading all the ideas that have been posted. The created and participated in a process that engaged thousands of UUs as they created their proposal.
I am asking you to be curious. I’m not offering assurances that anyone’s demands will be met. Let’s explore this for another year.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I hope my post did not come across as a “demand”! I’m just stating the current position of my congregation as I understand it. Perhaps my emotions came through in a way I didn’t intend.
I am still curious - including about how the mini-assembly will go. (With the lack of advance answers to a few questions about it that have been posted on this discussion board, I am admittedly anxious).
I am still curious about the last question I asked in my post above, which I will re-word in case it was misconstrued as demanding or perhaps rhetorical.
Since the discussions on discussuua.org have been very useful, but there has not been enough time or moderating support to figure out where consensus lies, could we possibly continue this discussion venue and be assured that the Commission, etc. will be reading - or even participating in the discussion?
I would like UUA to either “serve” or “assist” in an “inclusive democratic process” - admittedly in my own vision of that process 
But perhaps I misunderstand the possibilities and limits of the process, and someone else can suggest other ideas?
Thanks again for your consideration.
@Matthew Johnson. Is there a way for you to set up a zoom room for discussion about how we might all cooperate in how long we’re going to take so we can try to get all 15 in given the time?
O.K., what happens if this does not pass is clear; whatever discussion continues, the result cannot be brought back to the GA agenda for 2 years.
What is less clear to me is what happens if the vote is in favor. The first step is clear, the A2SC or board or moderators or some combination of these works to release a new version in 6 months. Then what? What is the process for discussing that version (will a new area on discuss.uua.org be opened? what happens to results of such discussions?)
If there are amendments suggested, they would need to get agreement from 15 congregations/fellowships/societies. How would the rest of us learn of them? Will there be a REAL miniassembly, with discussion and voting (even if straw polls only)? Would it be during GA?
I would feel more comfortable voting in favor (depending on the outcome of the amendment votes, as some I feel are critical to approval) if I knew more about the future process.
ONE MORE RELATED QUESTION that I asked but was not answered in the CHAT in the mini-assembly:
If the Proposed Revision is passed, does the Commission have to restrict its changes to JUST what was literally in the Amendments? Or do they have more freedom than that?
Alternative to answering my detailed questions above, can ANYONE tell me where I might be able to find my own answers in the Bylaws? Rule 6 of Procedures says, “If the proposal receives preliminary approval, it will continue the process for Article II to be further discussed, considered ,and revised as defined in the UUA Bylaws . . . .”
Or another alternative: Can you suggest who I should direct my queries to?
Excuse me for all of my posts. This is only my 2nd GA, and I feel overwhelmed and anxious.
[/quote]
gaonlinesupport@uua.org is best for technical sort of support, though they might be able to redirect you
you could try moderator@uua.org, but they are likely to be overwhelmed before a general session and it might take a while to get back to you
delegates apparently can go to an information desk, which would be visible in person but may be harder for us virtual/off-site/on-line delegates to find; IDK if they would want to take that question during the session, but they might, because it is something that many delegates will wonder.
I am and remain astonished that “democracy” is no longer considered valuable enough to warrant something more than a footnote. Disappointing that this foundational and definitional virtue has been abandoned, and given the challenges of the world we face, yet another bafflingly missed opportunity.
Agree with the above. I am disappointed in the discussions and the lack of clarity (simple clarity) on what each meeting is doing, etc. Each amendment is given 9 minutes of discussion time (90 seconds each person) which equates to approx. 5 people getting to speak. Not many people.
My impression from most of the speakers is that they feel the new Article 2 is a ‘done deal’.
From the hundreds of comments, to shrink items down to 15 amendments does not support all the viewpoints. It seems the congregations mostly are NOT in favor of A2, however, the commission and UUA staff ARE. I hope the congregations carry the day and A2 is voted completely down and activity on A2 suspended for 2 years.
Actually, there is no reason that activity need stop; although it could not be brought back to GA until 2026, discussion and discernment could certainly happen outside GA, either based on this draft or on something totally new. I am worried about what happens if (when?) this passes and how it changes before GA 2024 and the second vote, especially as the results of the amendment votes will not be incorporated until after Saturday‘s vote, so we are basically voting on the same draft that we had last week, no idea of how the amendments for which we vote will be incorporated.
Here is a copy of the email I just sent to gaonlinesupport@uua.org:
&&&&&
Hi,
I am wondering what is going on with the unmuting problems that you seem to be having. Apparently, Robert Murphy could not present his prepared remarks yesterday on his Health Equity AIW as no one unmuted him. The very same thing seems to have come close to happening to Howard Tolley as well. I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to have put so much time into preparation only to be stymied at the last minute by a technical glitch!
Is this issue being looked into and resolved?
Thanks,
Janet Leavens (she, her, hers)
Delegate
University UU Fellowship
Orlando FL
Thank you, Sally, for this graciously worded post, with questions similar to my earlier post.
I emphatically agree with your last sentence:
I also need to be able to describe to my congregation the reason behind and consequences of my vote if I choose to vote Yes.
It took me a while to figure out that the following quote is in Article XV, Section C-15.1 (c) of the Bylaws at https://www.uua.org/files/2023-05/uua_bylaws_05222023.pdf
Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so take my interpretations with a very large grain of salt.
But now that I’ve had time to find and read the entire subsection (c) regarding Amendments to C Bylaws in Article II, here are the main points that stand out to me:
If the proposal is not approved, the same or similar proposal cannot be placed on the next year’s GA agenda. (Presumably, that means that in theory, the same or similar proposal COULD be placed on the GA agenda in 2 years.)
However, nothing stops SOME sort of process from continuing.
In order for it to be an official UUA process, first there has to be a proposal passed to have the Board appoint a commission to study, then the study is to be completed in no more than 2 years (but presumably LESS than 2 years is ok). Presumably, the information from a prior commission’s study would be fully available for the new commission to include in its study.
Or “a motion to dispense with the study process shall require 4/5 vote for passage.”
From what my experience of GA has been thus far, I must say that I’m leaning toward a “NO” vote - because while I believe the process needs to continue, I do not believe it needs to be rushed in the way it is being rushed.
Complete statement offered at Article II General Assembly amendment 6-23-2023 - Inspirations 51
Delegates and all of us, 51 is one of 3 prioritized Inspiration amendments for your consideration. I had the privilege to choose to commit to reading 1,900 comments and spend 40 plus hours with revised Article II. Of all the work I saw, Becca Boergers, amendment 53, was the most inclusive short form Inspirations amendment. It did not get prioritized for this GAs vote, but the work continues.
Of the two long form Inspiration amendments, prioritized by the Study Commission and Moderators, I preferer the holistic Janet Leavens (51) rather than the literal Patricia Shifferd amendment 1. But I believe a shorter form of Inspirations better represents our UUA article II.
At the same time, I won’t vote for Mathew Johnson’s short form amendment 5, even though I very much resonate with the Johnson’s inclusion of the phrases “scientific understanding” and “making meaning.” Johnson’s emphasis of “direct experience” is right but the amendment is incomplete.
*Cut off here: by Time. not it makes any difference. i could not see a timer in the breakout room as I did not have my view set on “speaker” my error.
The rest of my statement was inclusive, giving context to Inspiration Amendments 51, 1 and 5 which is relevant for understanding the vote for or against 51. The text of my statment below.
I hope we do not settle for the binomial description of inspirations, “sacred and secular”. I believe that some part of all of us is touched by the inspiration’s phrase- world religions, wisdom traditions, indigenous knowledge, humanist teachings, science, and the arts.
I will not vote for Inspirations amendments 51, 1 or 5. And I will vote for allowing our association to continue amending the revised Article II.
I believe we are headed toward a beloved consensus with the Study Commission. I Also believe we need to improve what our bylaws allow us to do together.
I am sorry to have taken more space than just one pro or con statement. Had I had a better understanding of when amendments were going to appear (more than having just one hour prior to the Thursday General Meeting) I would have withheld comment until today (Friday 6/23). It is important to me to be in accord with all attending and I mean no disrespect to our Study Commission or moderators.
Someone posted the following on one of the discuss threads what is below. Is this true?
Remember it won’t be entered word for word as written. Amendments will be incorporated by the A2 study commission using their discernment and judgement. I will vote for amendments whose ideas I want to see incorporated, understanding that amendments are not in their final form.
I am not sure; they will “incorporate“ amendments within the next 6 months or less, but if they are word-for-word or not is unclear, as is exactly what happens then (other than vote at GA that requires 2/3 to pass).
I’m not sure the Article 2 process is the way to get UUs towards a Beloved Community.
If love in “beloved” is the future in our evolution of UU principles, our metamorphosis - rather than clinging tightly to a status quo (or even a fabricated imagination) - then avoiding spiritual violence is likely part of the love.
If UU has to change and adapt, into who knows what, and to show up and have courage in the face of that change, does this new article 2 adequately frame all of that change for enough of the UUA congregations/congregants?
There may be some digging in of heels, but I wonder if that is less obstruction by small groups, than it is uncertainty that we are boldly going in the direction of belovedness?
How do the new Article 2 values, rather than the 8 principles, enact policies that actually oppose the “triple evils” (of King, link/reference below)?
I think genuine, widespread, heartfelt discussion on how to get there, over the next two years, is a better outcome than either accepting or rejecting this one version of UU (past, or current, article 2).
I think I’ve seen the conversation between A2old and A2new that seems to have pressured for the new version.
I hope that we’ll get to know more about how to be-friend the change process, to wherever it is leading UUs, and that we’ll share in the spirit of community discernment.
-“The Triple Evils of POVERTY, RACISM and MILITARISM”, which seems to mean inequality, all the discriminatory isms, and all forms of violence, the principles and steps of non-violence
If the proposal receives 50% support at this GA, all of this – messages posted here, statements made in the general session, and amendment submissions – will influence the version with incorporated amendments. The Commission and the UUA Board have been receiving all of your input.
The bylaws don’t provide any requirements for “how” the amendments are incorporated. I expect the Commission to use care in how they do it. I have found that they always have an important rationale behind their choices.
And before we can make any changes in 2024, it requires a 2/3 vote.
Thank you, @CharlesD for your response.
I appreciate that you answered some of the questions on my mind. I know you are busy, and that I have asked a lot of questions!
But I also know one of the stated UUA goals is to help delegates understand the process so that we can represent our congregations well. So I will ask another question. (I submitted it to the Covenant Team, but they have not gotten back to me - perhaps due to a miscommunication?)
Here’s the question:
“If the proposal receives 50% support at this GA, will the discusss.uua.org platform (or one like it, or some other method of UUA support) be available to assist Congregations in finding consensus among 15 to make further Amendments after the Commission’s final revision?”
In my mind, that would be an important component of “continuing the process.”