Consent agendas can be used for reports. They can also be used for anything the group (Board, General Assembly, etc.) is willing to “consent.” We rarely use it at GA, and this seemed like a good opportunity.
There are two ways that this goes back to a regular discussion:
(1) At least 10 delegates want to remove it from the consent agenda.
(2) It stays on the consent agenda, but the consent agenda gets less than a 2/3 vote.
If either of these happens, we move it back to the regular agenda for a full discussion.
This is somewhat unique in that there is only one item on the consent agenda. For those of you considering removing it from the consent agenda with 10 objections, perhaps you could leave it there and just vote no.
Instead of 10 delegates forcing a discussion of this item, perhaps you would be willing to skip the discussion unless 1/3 of the delegates object.
I am fine with the amendment and plan to vote yes on it, whether or not it stays in the consent agenda. And I don’t plan to try to remove it from the consent agenda, I was just confused about the process. I understand the process now.
I am a person not interested in having a discussion on it. I will vote yes for it whether consent or regular agenda.
This makes sense, I don’t see that it breaks anything, it gives the committee flexibility as needed, and there are several checks and balances in the process to add a new member to the committee.
Would rather save discussion time for more substantive topics at GA; or if the time devoted to other topics is locked, spend that time doing not-GA things like resting, eating, meditating, physical activity, etc.
It seems that any change to the by-laws, no matter how innocent, should be able to be discussed (other than typo’s and scrivener errors). Maybe not now, but too much could be adopted or changed in the future without transparency.
Update 6/20: This bylaw amendment was removed from the Consent Agenda and will return to its original place on the agenda (General Session III - Friday 6/21).
Thank you for your consideration of this bylaw amendment. I am on the RECC, for about four years now. This change came from the RECC members, knowing there are times when an added person will help us with the work load, and of course the benefit of their added perspective. I am confused about the comment that this expansion might affect a “balance of power” as that is not the way we operate together - I believe the named categories were put there (my guess, it predates me) as a way of having a minimum variety of perspectives enriching our work for the good of the UUA congregations and Religious Education. More people of whatever background brings more perspectives.
Thanks; I agree about the need to be able to add a person for busy times, and “which category” would not matter much for temporary appointments. Overall, I have been aware of some trust issues with leadership organizations, and would prefer that credentialling teams making decisions have a balance of perspectives (balance of power) for the long-term work.
Just popped in to say I really liked hearing you speak on this. I have nothing to do with this issue personally, but I enjoyed your contribution to the discussion at GA and will take your word for it!
