Actually, friendly amendments to this amendment may be made in this afternoon’s session. They must be accepted by the proposer of the amendment and if so are incorporated immediately, no vote necessary. It is the proposer’s amendment until voted on, so the proposer has that authority.
Rebecca, just saw your comment on the proposed amendment to the divest proposal. You were clearly correct about the intent of the proposer. It eliminates all mention of reparations, unless the first proposed amendment passes. For reasons too complicated to explain here I just note for your informtion that i am opposed to the entire proposal, in favor of amendment one, and against amendment 2 and 3.
I am unsure why you would be opposed to #2 in particular. How do you propose blood relation to enslaved people should be determined for possible recipients? It obviously makes the reparations the resolution brings up more viable and less complicated to implement. The only reason I can imagine is to undermine the proponents of the resolution.
1 Like
I am glad you picked up on that.
Members of the youth divestment caucus were iced out and silenced in meetings with CEF and the board prior to the petition deadline. There was no chance for working together in relationship.
After it became clear this would be voted upon during GA, they scrambled to say look we are already divesting so we won’t need this resolution. What an obvious attempt to undercut our work. They waited until March of 2023 to do what we already voted on in 2014 and in 2021? It’s clear that we need to see this whole process through.
2 Likes
100% this. Reparations for those impacted by fossil fuel investments makes perfect sense to be paired with divestment.
2 Likes
When I read the original proposal my first thought was “Yes!” AND “I wish they were separated.” However, after just being at the mini assembly, I have changed my mind. It is time for us to not “talk about” or “study” reparations, but do it! And this shouldn’t be us wiping our hands together and saying, “Well, we took care of that” - it should be a beginning. I would encourage everyone to watch the video of the mini-assembly and see if it impacts your thinking on this matter. Hopefully the chat will show up as well.
5 Likes
I hope it’s clear how carefully the young uus built this business resolution. Then we submitted two resolutions to fine tune our work in response to feedback. Every step had the intentionality that we hope will be evident in the work of the Reparations committee to come.
This amendment #3 was submitted without care. The original draft even would have the resolution end on the word ‘and.’ It reeks of the White Backlash we see as a knee jerk reaction to Black and Brown people getting anything. That viewpoint is TIRED.
A racial justice educator I admire would call this “Bleach in the swimming pool” energy.
Yes to the resolution. Yes to divestment. Yes to reparations. No to amendment 3. I’ll gladly talk offline with anybody who doesn’t yet see how our liberation is tied together.
1 Like
I suspect that the lack of care was partly because it was a rush, but I will say from listening to the info session y‘all held and the discussion today, the resolution was very well thought out, the coöperation that one would hope for from UUA leadership was not extended, and the late March 2023 compliance 4 years late (and 9 after the passage of the original resolution) is troubling.
I supported the 2 friendly amendments that the team put out in response to feedback during the process, and oppose this one not because of assuming ill intent, but because I DO respect the care that went into the original, the communication by the team, and the fact that even after the difficult process, they have the faith to trust that the UUs who become part of the team to make it operational—they are leaders not only of the future, but now, and I believe that we should put aside our worries and support them as much as possible. Yes to Resolution, No on Amendment 3.
2 Likes
Having arrived at this discussion late, I am glad I was able to attend yesterday’s mini-assembly as well as watch yesterday the discussion recorded with the Church of the Larger Fellowship a few weeks ago. It is evident the care and thoughtfulness with which the young adult UUs have crafted this resolution and their attempts to widen the circle during the discussion process, some apparently more successful than others.
While I don’t necessarily want to speak to the intent of Amendment 3, it does seem it was submitted hurriedly without complete thought as to its ramifications as proposed. That it is tied to white backlash may or may not be the case for the submitter, but I do recognize that this is still an issue in UU communities.
I agree with voting Yes to the resolution as now revised (incorporating amendments 1 and 2) and voting No to amendment 3.
1 Like
I’m inclined to vote for this business resolution, and against Amendment #3, because I’d like us to move quickly from talk to action when it comes to reparations. I agree with the supporters of Amendment #3 that there is a lot that is still unclear about the exact structure of reparations, but I believe the best way to achieve that clarity is through an iterative process in which we start taking action, carefully analyze the consequences of our actions, and then improve the actions going forward. It seems to me that the language of the Business Resolution allows sufficient flexibility for such an iterative process.
That said, I’d love to hear from the proposers of the Business Resolution about what sorts of flexibility would be within the spirit of the resolution, and what sorts of flexibility would violate that spirit.
For example: proponents of the amendment argue that the UUA cannot afford an immediate loss of $700,000 in annual income. One possible solution might be to immediately move the $14M in endowment funds into “community investments”–fixed-rate CDs that provide loans for low-income housing, green energy, and other activities that support poor communities and communities of color. The income on these investments would still be available for the annual budget during an interim period in which the reparations committee discerns the ultimate fate of the $14 million, presumably a fate that would move it out of the Common Endowment altogether. This would give the UUA a longer window of time to plan for the loss of annual income. Annual income would likely be lower during that period, but not by the full $700,000.
Is this the sort of approach the proposers have in mind?
4 Likes
Dan, I am feeling the same way. I believe this Proposed Business Resolution will implement and follow through with all that UU’s value but I am also concerned about a large loss of funds that could gut the long term goals of the Association to fulfill the rest of what we want to accomplish as an organization.
On a personal note (as a prior LRYer) I really believe it is important to support our young UU’s in any leadership form they take (or we risk the loss of another generation of leaders). And it appears to me they have worked very hard on what may be the most important topics of our time.
4 Likes
I agree with prioritizing Divestment and considering Reparations separately. There do not seem to be guidelines in place regarding specific goals, conflicts of interest, fiduciary responsibility, etc.
Relating “UUA Reparations” to specific sins, crimes, actions, or failures by our current or ancestral organizations should be an important part of this work. For example, making Reparations in Indian communities harmed by our UU ancestors who operated Indian schools would be a concrete action.
1 Like
Is it clear that the proposed amendment 3 will effectively end the document at line 307 with a period after 2024.
?
There is now no Therefore paragraph if this amendment passes
1 Like
I believe that the business decision was made to divest from large exploitative fossil fuel companies. I’m very concerned as to why it hasn’t been done. We voted and agreed that it should be done. Why has it not been done? Do we need to fire the person, persons, or company that is supposed to be following our wishes with our investment? Is an additional resolution going to result in anything different?
I tend to believe that how we invest our money should be separated from how we spend our money. I do believe reparations to Black and Brown, Native American and others affected by all means of unjust actions should be made. I dislike paying outside companies to study this. I’d prefer that UUs look at and suggest reparations and begin immediately, within the year to invest in some existing social justice organizations.
Some appropriate organizations might be those that loan bail money at no interest. Or give home or school loans at low interest to affected parties. Free lunches to school children and elderly and even anyone else who would need or them is a good investment in humanity. We should start with some of these within the year and maybe have a committee to discuss and support and delegate funds to others as available.
4 Likes
The voting has closed at this point and I’m anxious to know the result. In the meantime, I commend the group that proposed the overall resolution for how beautifully and kindly they presented their POV at the meeting yesterday. (@amariescully @jolly). Know that it was not in vain. I went in thinking I would vote one way, heard what you had to say, and changed my mind. I see some others mentioned here that they did too. Fingers crossed. I’d like to see the full resolution get to GA for discussion/vote.
6 Likes
Hi there. I’d like to take you up on that offer to talk offline, if you have the time over the next couple of weeks (before GA). I don’t want to add to your (I imagine) already full plate, so if that’s not convenient, no worries. If it is, let’s figure out how/when. Thank you.
2 Likes
Yes, I support the amendment.
The votes are in and proposed amendment #3 did not receive enough support to be considered during General Session. There were 286 votes (46.5%) in favor of the amendment and 329 votes (53.5%) were against the amendment. Full details are published on https://uua.simplyvoting.com.
Note: Since congregations can assign member delegate credentials at anytime, the balloting system shows the total number of possible electors to ensure all delegates are able to vote as soon as they receive their credentials.
1 Like
GA is going to be unproductive if “white backlash” is trotted out to dismiss anything that seems to be in opposition to a proposal. “It reeks of” is an assumption that requires further dialog, not attacks.
1 Like
I’ve heard comments like this from a few people. We aren’t ready for reparations. We need dialogue. We need to get to a place where we can have a dialogue. We are thinking of what steps would be needed to get us there. Funding reparations would interrupt that important work.
But, maybe funding reparations would actually be what fosters that dialogue. Gives it weight. Makes it deeply meaningful. This was an argument made more cogently by someone in the mini assembly (I apologize, but I can’t remember which speaker it was off the top of my head). It was a useful re-framing for me.
3 Likes