tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137392982024-03-06T23:27:17.787-08:00CLF Delegates' NotesWe are delegates to General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association for the Church of the Larger Fellowship (CLF). This blog is our report to the CLF Board of Trustees.Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-7864670052744325332012-06-28T17:28:00.004-07:002012-06-28T17:28:52.749-07:00Better Than Nothing (Louise)The final Plenary session of General Assembly 2012 was the longest, and promised to have the most "meat and potatoes" of UUA business. Even while conducting only the minimum amount of necessary business, I hoped for lively discussion on the items brought to a vote.<br />
<br />
However, I was rather disappointed. As Sean said in his last report, the By Laws changes that we agonized over in 2010 were calmly presented without opposing words from the "Con" microphone and passed quickly and handily.<br />
<br />
This made me a little sad. Being so isolated from other UUs means that I rarely have a sense of what is important to individuals in the movement. Without coffee hour to hear that someone was moved by the sermon, or energized by their social action witness, or passionate about a budget line item, I've come to really look forward to GA plenary hall debate to take the temperature of the group. Without that debate, I don't have any detailed sense of what the crowd
thinks or what it wants. We voted in some important and necessary changes, so the Yes vote was good; however, to me, "Yes, but..." would have been so much better. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, the discussion around the Responsive Resolution to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery helped. It's good to see fellow religious liberals in the throes of argument. Puts a nice glow on their cheeks.<br />
<br />
Other business items that caught my attention: UUSC President Bill Schultz, whom I admire greatly, announced a joint venture with the UUA called the College of Social Justice, starting with a single $1M donation. Wow, that really came out of left field! Obviously, there has been a lot of work done to get to this point, especially to get such a large financial backing already. How did this come about? Is the UUA Board empowered to set up this sort of thing? We were not asked to donate, yet, even though we are regular UUSC supporters.<br /><br />Several times in the course of the on-line delegate chat, folks mentioned parts of the country where finding other liberals is difficult. These areas (Arizona and Alabama were mentioned specifically) were explicitly labeled "bad," which saddens me. In our travels, we have visited each of the 50 states, and spend quite a bit of time in areas that aren't typically full of UUs. Counties with a great deal of poverty, or low levels of education, or with many conservative mainline churches. Truly, in our experience, there are good people everywhere and to label their homes so negatively struck me as deeply disrespectful.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Overall, though, the experience of attending GA via teleconference was pretty good. Not great, but okay. Not nearly as stimulating and rewarding as being there in person, but certainly much better than missing GA altogether. My ongoing commitment to attending GA is reaffirmed, and I look forward to being in Louisville, KY next year if at all possible. Thank you for trusting me with the important role of delegate; it was an honor to serve.Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-50581140199026216682012-06-28T16:49:00.001-07:002012-06-28T16:49:17.326-07:00Final plenary and GA2012 wrap-up (Sean)Sunday evening we wrapped up our participation in this year's General Assembly with the final plenary session, #5. Expecting, as is so often the case, the session to run over by a few minutes, we fixed our dinner ahead of time and made plans to have a final cocktail hour with our friends and generous hosts in Des Moines around 8:15 or so, Central Time. As it turns out, however, we finished early, and got a break in the middle to boot.<br />
<br />
That's because the meat-and-potatoes business part of the meeting, passing amendments to the bylaws, uncharacteristically flew by without debate. I was relieved, in particular, to read the amendments to Article XV (sorry, as I was, to have missed the debate on these changes last year), after I spent so much energy discussing the problems with that section right <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2009/06/ammendments-to-article-ii-sean.html">here</a> in this blog three years ago. They were spot-on, and now that these have passed, we can return to revising Article II next year.<br />
<br />
So all three sets of bylaw amendments passed handily and, as I said, without debate. Of course, a half hour was budgeted for debate on each of the three, and we suddenly found ourselves more than an hour ahead of schedule. Because we had informed our partner organizations (for the Justice theme of GA) approximately when the discussion of the Responsive Resolution on the Doctrine of Discovery would transpire, the moderator felt that we could not simply proceed to that order of business so far ahead of schedule, and instead she called for a half hour stretch break before going into her report.<br />
<br />
Unlike the bylaw amendments, the Responsive Resolution generated a good deal of debate as well as proposed amendment. As with so many of what I like to call "mom and apple pie" resolutions that we've taken up over the years, it is hard to dispute any of the sentiments embodied in the resolution, and, unsurprisingly, several spoke in favor of it. The voices opposed fell roughly into two camps. One argued credibly that this was not really a Responsive Resolution at all, which generally can only be proposed in situ in direct response to a report of an officer or committee delivered at the Assembly, but rather an Action of Immediate Witness in what amounts to an end-run around this year's proscription on the AIW process.<br />
<br />
The other opposing camp felt blindsided by the resolution, arguing that congregations did not have enough (or, in some case, any) time to review it and develop an opinion on it. The rebuttal to that argument was that a link to the resolution had been included in the pre-GA packet sent to congregations in March.<br />
<br />
For the record, I voted against the resolution, not because I disagreed with the premise or the text, but because I firmly believe that it was out of order, and I am nothing if not committed to rules and process. I do remember marking my own words after the 2010 Assembly that, despite a lot of lip-service about having a minimalist GA with only a small handful of attendees and absolutely no business taken up that was not legally required by bylaws, that we would end up having a mostly full-size GA and a way would be found to include non-essential business. That has proved to be true.<br />
<br />
Beyond that, I could not help but be somewhat irritated about how the notion of immigrant justice and/or immigration reform somehow morphed into repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery. While certainly there are common elements, it seems a far cry from what we came here to achieve. Lastly, as you have heard me say in regards to many "mom and apple pie" resolutions, it appears to me that there is little to be done on this matter by a denomination such as ours, in stark contrast, for example, to immigration reform or reproductive rights, wherein our voice is an important one in the chorus. Resolving to oppose (or support) so many things dilutes our focus and compromises our ability to be effective where we can have the most impact.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the Resolution passed by a wide margin, and so it will be. An actual responsive resolution introduced by an actual delegate in actual response to a report at GA did not fare as well. While it was not shot down outright, it was far enough out of left field that a motion to postpone debate indefinitely passed readily; at this writing just three days later I can no longer even recall the gist of it.<br />
<br />
The remainder of plenary comprised reports, final credentials, and the inevitable jubilant invitation to the next GA, in Louisville, Kentucky, complete with a humorous slide showing the various phonetic pronunciations of Louisville. We hope to be there, again representing the CLF.<br />
<br />
Before I conclude my report on this year's GA, I would like to make a couple of observations about remote participation. First is that we need to do a better job of ensuring that remote delegates have access in real-time to the same information that on-site delegates are seeing. For example, the real-time captioned translation of native-language speakers, while available in the hall, was not visible to us. Along these same lines, any items that are handed out to delegates as they enter the plenary hall should be made available to remote delegates <u>before</u> the start of the session. That would include any text revised by mini-assemblies, the ubiquitous Social Witness handouts, etc.. If there is time to print 1,000 copies, there is time to upload it to the web site.<br />
<br />
On a more positive note, having the real-time chat available was great, and the support folks did a bang-up job, so kudos to them. I am sure all this will improve as it becomes more routine. All in all, we'd much rather be at GA in person, but this was a reasonable alternative for us, and I would encourage more congregations or other CLF delegates to use it if travel to the site is not feasible.<br />
<br />
Lastly, before I close I will note that we also participated in the annual CLF business meeting, normally held at GA but this year held yesterday by teleconference. Being able to join in to this made our GA virtual attendance that much more complete, and it's always good to hear other CLFers gathered together. I'm sorry we missed in-gathering this year, but being on the call helped just a little.<br />
<br />
Here endeth my formal report to the CLF Board on my participation as a delegate to the 2012 General Assembly of Congregations. Thank you for allowing us to be of service and we hope to do so again in the future.<br />
<br />Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-29875414019622177872012-06-24T11:05:00.000-07:002012-06-24T11:05:48.442-07:00The penultimate plenary (Sean)I did not post here covering Plenary #3 as I think Louise covered it. I, too, voted for CSAI 3, reproductive justice, on the theory that we, as a movement, can be more effective there than on the other issues. One of the nice things about voting on-line is that we can see the results of the on-line poll almost instantly, in graphic form. As Louise wrote, CSAI 4, exploring class barriers, was the front runner among on-line participants.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, especially after seeing the on-line results, no single CSAI attracted more than 50% of the vote. It turned out that CSAI 3, when all on-site votes were tallied, was actually the front runner by a fair margin. Nevertheless, without a 50% majority our process calls for a runoff vote, and in this case, CSAI 4 came in second place. So the only voting order of business in yesterday's Plenary #4 was to vote in the runoff, and we again voted for CSAI 3, which won handily.<br />
<br />
I did not have the presence of mind to capture what the multiple-choice poll results looked like in Plenary #3 before they disappeared from the screen, but we did capture yesterday's result, just so you can see what it looks like after we vote:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4L_FE8KEai_BFk7yKPQ2WG8a-cpGQ_YP-n4B2OVBWE7AqBBOz-cUX41Qsnl-ENX_rbLvOb2w-jtcTe9k85xY08aiTRnx_ppgzO9daZnbsIcflNuRBNtjImpgBw9K5FyLbkCBA/s1600/vote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4L_FE8KEai_BFk7yKPQ2WG8a-cpGQ_YP-n4B2OVBWE7AqBBOz-cUX41Qsnl-ENX_rbLvOb2w-jtcTe9k85xY08aiTRnx_ppgzO9daZnbsIcflNuRBNtjImpgBw9K5FyLbkCBA/s320/vote.jpg" width="250" /></a></div>
<br />
The rest of the plenary comprised reports and testimony. The budget report can be summed up basically as "times are tough, we need more money." The take-away for me from the BOT report was that the Beacon Street HQ is at end-of-life and moving HQ operations to a different facility is going to be both more cost-effective and more productive than trying to revamp the existing facility.<br />
<br />
Although I have some mixed feelings about certain concepts, the testimony was moving (you can read it for yourself <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbNBxjU9I4Y0jZPt-jiN4rsp9IbA2LPvVr456qSWj00/edit?pli=1">here</a>). Unfortunately, the first speaker spoke in her native language, which was apparently translated via open captioning in real-time for those in the hall. For whatever reason, though, we who were logged on to the streaming video did not get the captions, and so could not follow along. My Spanish is pretty feeble, but I got the gist, yet still I had to divert my attention from the next speaker to catch up with the translation when it was posted. Something for the streaming team to think about for next time, but let me also acknowledge that they have been otherwise doing a great job under what I know to be trying circumstances.<br />
<br />
Today's final Plenary #5 will be late for us, 4:15-8ish. We're fixing some dinner ahead of time -- this is the first GA where I've been able to attend morning sessions in my bathrobe, and evening sessions at the dinner table. I hope to have my final report done tomorrow evening or perhaps Tuesday morning.<br />
<br />Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-50307895400783331622012-06-22T11:02:00.000-07:002012-06-22T11:02:52.845-07:00Offsite Community (Louise)Plenary III has just closed. The main business was to hear presentations on the five proposed Congregational Study Action Issues and then to vote for one of them.<br />
<br />
This was the first time that we were simultaneously watching the live streaming video and participating in the offsite delegate chat. The chat is a box on the computer screen next to the video window. After choosing a screen name, it was easy to type comments into the chat box. The words of each chatter showed up in a continuous flow in the chat box, recording the reactions and thoughts of the participants.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk_enAvy-46FbQf4FwCLrWI8bITsq9R_O_EQUvTM2f6bc5svsMXGzdi4F2sk2CdNyOwbjsdx3l6BbT14nsYDxwicP540eNES6JwyB79-mm50JiwnuqReaXBgXZT5vVMxwn547U9Q/s1600/screengrab.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk_enAvy-46FbQf4FwCLrWI8bITsq9R_O_EQUvTM2f6bc5svsMXGzdi4F2sk2CdNyOwbjsdx3l6BbT14nsYDxwicP540eNES6JwyB79-mm50JiwnuqReaXBgXZT5vVMxwn547U9Q/s320/screengrab.bmp" width="320" /></a> <br />
<br />
This led to a thoughtful discussion of the proposed CSAIs, and the distinct process of choosing one vs. implementing it in the congregations. As an isolated CLF member, this was a whole new facet of General Assembly for me. I've never talked about the CSAIs with other CLFers before.<br />
<br />
And it is also not something that usually happens during Plenary. This sort of conversation would be disruptive and disrespectful in the live Plenary Hall. And with over 1,000 delegates, opening a typed chat up to the entire assembly would be chaotic.<br />
<br />
But for the 60 to 80 of us online, it was a wonderful opportunity to listen, learn and feedback with each other. The discussion helped me clarify my own position and led to my final choice for CSAI 3: Reproductive Justice. Our on-line votes were displayed immediately, and CSAI 4: Exploring Class Barriers was the front-runner. The final tally from the entire delegate assembly won't be available until tomorrow's plenary session.Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-6422490933172703292012-06-22T08:25:00.001-07:002012-06-22T08:25:30.849-07:00No business (Sean)Yesterday morning we attended Plenary #2.. We had a brief moment of panic when neither the phone conference nor the web login for voting was working for us, but we finally realized that there was no actual voting business on the agenda for the 45-minute session, and reasoned that they simply did not turn the system on. A quick email to support confirmed this.<br />
<br />
We did watch the entire session on streaming video, and it consisted mostly of procedural details, repeated at every GA, for the conduct of business through the remainder of GA. This year there are mini-assemblies only for the CSAIs (5 of them) and a single resolution, repudiating the doctrine of Discovery. Again I will not repeat it all here as these can be found in the Agenda, available for download.<br />
<br />
As long as we already had the streaming up on our large-screen TV and all was working smoothly, we remained on-line for Worship, another two hours. This is the first time we've ever streamed any part of GA (we usually attend in person) and so it was a bit surprising to me to find some of the service blacked out due to music copyright issues. Perhaps those of you who stream GA regularly are used to this aspect. Louise also likes to sing along with the hymns, but the stream does not show us the lyrics so she can only do the ones she knows. Other than that is was a nice service.<br />
<br />
We opted not to "attend" any of the mini-assemblies. We seldom do even when there in person, and in this case, they are not streamed on-line but rather are being teleconferenced by phone. None was particularly moving to us in any case.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes we will be back on-line for today's business session, Plenary #3. We will be voting on the CSAIs, and Louise is on-line right now looking for any updated text from yesterday's mini-assemblies. This is another first for us; in person, delegates are handed printed copies of any updates as they enter the plenary hall.<br />
<br />Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-37945259780944761662012-06-21T09:14:00.001-07:002012-06-21T09:14:49.057-07:00A first impression (Louise)General assembly is appealing to me for two big reasons. First, I love the plenaries, the governance process. I find it fascinating, and participating via video conference so far has felt very similar. I rarely want to speak at any of the microphones in person, so losing access to this part of the process should be fine.<br />
<br />
The second opportunity I enjoy in person at GA is singing, both with the choir and with the crowd. Obviously I will not be able to join the choir this year. Sadly, the music on the livestreaming video is subpar. The fidelity is not great, and the microphones are not necessarily picking up all the participants. The sense of unity and musical fullness that comes from singing hymns with thousands of other people is completely lost.<br />
<br />
I am also not enjoying singing the hymns in Spanish. As a trained singer, I have learned hundreds of songs in foreign languages. When the words are unknown, the power of the music itself is what carries me then. But in this setting, where the harmonies are lost and the camaraderie of the crowd is unavailable, I'm left with reading nonsense syllables on the screen while hearing many of my beloved melodies. The words that go with those melodies are now...wrong. Just wrong.<br />
<br />
Does this make our Spanish speaking members and guests feel welcome? Or are we patronizing them by mangling their language as we dilute our love of the melodies? How do non-singers feel when they are presented with yet another barrier to participation?Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-91062499196924466942012-06-20T22:51:00.000-07:002012-06-20T22:51:55.843-07:00Justice GA 2012 (Sean)Welcome, once again, to our report as voting delegates for the Church of the Larger Fellowship for this year's "Justice" General Assembly, which is being held in Phoenix, Arizona. We, on the other hand, happen to be in Des Moines, Iowa, parked at the house of some friends so we can use their high-speed Internet connection to stream the live video of the Plenary sessions and exercise our votes on-line, in the first-ever GA to utilize such technology.<br />
<br />
Because we are not in Phoenix, we did not attend the CLF in-gathering as is our custom (and, technically, a requirement for voting delegates, at least those arriving in person). Our first event for this year's GA was Plenary #1, which ran from 7:30 to 9:30 MST. That's actually 9:30-11:30 here, and because the session ran over, we were actually on-line to around 11:45, when the on-site attendees proceeded from the hall for the first witness event of the assembly.<br />
<br />
The only voting business of Plenary #1 was the approval of the Rules of Procedure which passed handily. This was our first opportunity to use the on-line voting system, and I am happy to report that our votes in favor were properly recorded. I did not see any cards raised for "nay" in the hall, but one soul on the on-line system voted against, which we assumed to be a mistaken keypress.<br />
<br />
There were actually several practice sessions for online voting leading up to GA. Unfortunately, the nature of our on-board Internet system, which is satellite-based, precluded us from using the online voting system until we had some alternative Internet access, and our travel schedule did not permit us to have the necessary access until now. So we were quite relieved to find we had no trouble accessing the system, all our credentials worked, and our votes would be properly recorded. We had a brief moment of panic when it appeared that we'd each need to be dialed in on our cell phones along with the Internet access, given that we each have a limited number of cell minutes, but that turned out to be non-essential, and we hung up the phones early on in favor of watching the session stream on our large 32" monitor in the living room.<br />
<br />
The rest of Plenary #1 consisted of the usual welcoming speeches, banner procession (including a number of "on line" banners from congregations who have only on-line, and no on-site, delegates), introductions, and briefings. All of these are now available on the UUA web site and so I won't repeat them, other than to say that the Native American speakers were particularly moving to me, especially having just traveled through the part of the country where so much conflict played out.<br />
<br />
Given the nature of our remote participation in this GA, we're a bit discombobulated and are scrambling to catch up. With no hard copies of schedules, agendas, programs, and the like, we're having to download it all and try to keep it all straight, on top of the byzantine procedure for accessing the on-line voting system. I have yet to figure out how we, as remote participants, will be able to speak on any business if we so choose. So please bear with us as we get our bearings -- I hope, for example, to update the graphic here on the blog to the 2012 edition before closing (as I am typing, it still shows the graphic from 2010, the last year we attended). And now, if you excuse me, it is very late here... good night.<br />
<br />Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-43655487820629607192011-06-15T13:50:00.000-07:002011-06-15T14:06:43.617-07:00Parking in Charlotte (Sean)I am posting here, uncharacteristically, outside of GA to ask for help.<br /><br />We were actually not planning on attending GA this year, because we expected to be in the intermountain west right now. Readers of our <a href="http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com">other blog</a> will know, however, that we were deployed by the Red Cross to two relief operations in Alabama and Mississippi, responding to the tornado outbreak and flooding, respectively. And so it is that we find ourselves in Jackson, Mississippi today, just a week before GA. While the relief operation here is ongoing, Louise has put in five weeks and is ready for a break; the operation that I worked in Alabama just ended.<br /><br />At this writing, we are planning on driving to Charlotte and attending GA as walk-ins. However, we've done none of our usual advance planning for parking the bus during our stay. I'm hoping some of our readers here may have suggestions or connections. Perhaps one of the UU congregations in the area can accommodate us, for example, as did the First Universalist Church of Minneapolis during GA <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-gathering-sean.html">last year</a>.<br /><br />I'll be working on accommodations from now right up until our arrival or until I nail something down. Feel free to post here in the comments or email me directly at slwelsh -at- gmail -dot- com if you can help. Ideally, we are looking for someplace within an easy scooter ride of the convention center.<br /><br />If we do make it to GA, I am guessing we will not be CLF delegates this year, as there are only a limited number of slots and we did not ask in advance. Nevertheless, I am sure we will share at least some of our thoughts and observations here.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-48359110939624141702010-06-30T08:10:00.000-07:002010-06-30T10:15:37.255-07:002010 Wrap-up (Sean)I promised earlier to come back and fill in some gaps in my coverage of Friday and Saturday. Since then, Louise has posted her report, and she's covered many of those points. Louise also takes better notes than I do -- I'm a slow writer, and all my life I have had the problem that I can either pay attention and be present with what is being said, or take notes, but not both. I won't rehash the items that Louise has already covered.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">I wrote on Friday</span> that I would explain my "nay" vote on the SOC on "Creating Peace." In hindsight, when I reflect upon those reasons, I should have simply abstained. What it really came down to for me was that the "Calls to Action," while laudable in purpose, struck me as overly burdensome (as I have written elsewhere) for congregations that, in many cases, are struggling for their very existence. As I have said before, I am concerned that we are asking them to expend a great deal of energy and resources on a goal (world peace) that is largely beyond our influence.<br /><br />Spending the same amount of effort on, for example, marriage equality, or more outreach to those marginalized in our society such as people of color, LGBT, or recent immigrants, would have more of an effect in the world (and, yes, I know that we are already working on those issues). That being said, if the delegates, who theoretically represent their congregations, are willing to step up and take on this challenge, who am I to suggest it is too much. (Although I must repeat my oft-stated concern that perhaps the very congregations that are already stretched too thin are the ones who are not sending delegates to GA.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">That's a good segue</span> into one of my wrap-up points, which is that I am convinced now more than ever that the GA business process is broken and needs to be fixed. That goes hand in hand with the Association's organizational structure being byzantine and cumbersome, a fact that is now recognized by the board and is being addressed. But, as I wrote last year, I am most looking forward to a more robust democratic process as proposed by the Fifth Principle Task Force, wherein a much smaller number of delegates who are more focused and empowered will carry on the business of the association. Funding for delegates and a stronger mandate to bring with them the will of their congregations and carry back the action items will, I hope, lead to more intentional and purposed actions at GA.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On Sunday morning I wrote</span> that I would have more to say about the Phoenix discussion Saturday afternoon. Since then, as Louise has written, we received some clarification and background from Gini during her Moderator's Report. And, not having gone to the mini-assemblies on the topic (in hindsight, a mistake on my part), it is not reasonable to be too critical of the resolution that ended up before us. What I can say, though, is that more time could have been spent sharing with the assembly how the compromised was reached, and, more importantly, what was the shared vision of how the 2012 event would look.<br /><br />At one point in the debate on the floor I went to the Procedural microphone to ask just what the BOT considered the "minimum business" of the assembly, and whether the proposal implied an overall event that was much smaller, much larger, or about the same size as a "normal" GA (whatever that means). I got a dismissive answer to my first question (they defined the term, rather than enumerating the list of required business), and no answer whatsoever to my second. When I sat back down, I turned to Louise and said that I must not have been clear, and she immediately shot back that, no, my question was crystal clear and the Board and Moderator chose not to answer it. We had dinner later with three other delegates who all concurred with her assessment.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On Sunday,</span> Gini asked for a show of hands of the assembled delegates during her report, on several questions. One was whether everyone understood that what was asked for was a much larger event than a normal GA, and it was clear to me at that point that this was the answer to my question that she was unwilling to give before the vote. This does strike me as an aberration in the democratic process; if that was the vision of the framers of the resolution (as amended in mini-assembly), then it should have been stated thus, especially under direct questioning.<br /><br />I suppose I have an axe to grind in all this, because Louise and I happen to own (with about a half dozen partners) a pair of restaurants in downtown Phoenix, just a short walk from the convention center and most of the hotels. (And we do hope that you'll dine with us in Phoenix.) I was well-prepared with a 2-minute "con" speech for the original resolution (an outright boycott of Phoenix), which went something like this:<br /><ul><li>Neither we nor our partners support SB1070 (but most of us being out-of-state, we don't have a vote).</li><li>If any of the businesses around ours ever supported this bill, I can assure you they don't any longer.</li><li>The economy nearly put us out of business, and SB1070 is threatening to be the final nail in the coffin. We send money to Phoenix every month now just to keep the doors open.</li><li>We do that not only to protect our investment, but also to keep our workers employed. Many of those workers are Latino/Latina.</li><li>Phoenicians in general are not supportive of this legislation and that includes the Mayor and the police department.</li><li>As with all boycotts, businesses like ours and their employees bear the true cost, and state legislators are unlikely to "hear" any message sent by people who don't show up.</li><li>How much more effective would it be for us as a movement to show up in force instead, and take our message to the streets?</li></ul>I never had to deliver this, of course, and in the end we are pretty satisfied with the compromise. Someone else got up to speak against boycotting local businesses that are in many (most?) cases opposed to the bill. In the end, it was a contentious and divisive issue and I am impressed with the respect and thoughtfulness of the debate, the compromise, and the ultimate charge. That has not stopped some rancor, I note, on <a href="http://blogs.uuworld.org/ga/2010/06/26/delegates-resoundingly-approve-resolution-on-ariz-ga/">UU World</a> over the outcome.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">I think that mostly catches me up here.</span> I have one more item to add, which is that we both very much enjoyed marching to Loring Park on Saturday to deliver our Standing on the Side of Love message at the Pride Festival. (Although that seems a bit like, uhh, preaching to the converted.) We had not realized the Twin Cities had such a large and well-organized festival; after listening to the speech we spent what time was left wandering around, and I would say we barely made it through a third of the enormous event.<br /><br />In all, we had a great GA and, as always, we are grateful to the CLF for allowing us to participate as your delegates. We are also grateful to the First Universalist Church of Minneapolis for allowing us to park <a href="http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Odyssey</span></a> in their parking lot, which we will be departing this afternoon.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">One final note,</span> for those reading here real-time or subscribed via RSS: today is the last day to make your donation to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (<a href="http://uusc.org/">UUSC</a>) for this year's <a href="https://secure2.convio.net/uusc/site/Donation2?df_id=1800&1800.donation=form1">annual fund</a> and have your gift matched by Shelter Rock. We've made our donation, have you?Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-16420123604589163662010-06-29T07:46:00.000-07:002010-06-29T09:37:54.536-07:00GA 2010 (Louise)I was unable to write daily reports this year because of the way GA was structured, so I'll try to summarize my thoughts from my chicken-scratch notes.<br /><br />Scheduling all the plenaries on Friday, Saturday and Sunday was a mixed bag. I love plenary, and having concentrated days of business and governance helped keep the flow of ideas and discussion going. However, for delegates in the choir, like me, it meant that Saturday and Sunday had no breaks longer than 30 minutes. That's not enough time to purchase and eat a meal, so I carried food with me. It held body together, but soul got really, really tired.<br /><br />Thursday and Friday had some chunks of time available, so that's when we <span style="font-weight: bold;">worked the CLF booth</span> in the exhibit hall. It is always a treat to see the CLF staff again, and I enjoy booth duty because they are all so much fun. This year I was able to wear a name tag that said, "I have a UU Prisoner Pen-Pal, Do YOU?" which helped start several conversations about our prison ministry.<br /><br />We did not attend any evening events. By our second or third GA, we figured out that there is just too much going on and not enough of our time and attention to go around; something had to give. So, no Service of the Living Tradition, no Bridging Ceremony, no Ware Lecture, and this year, no Closing Ceremony. That makes me sad, and I'm always tempted to push just a little harder to fit it all in, but I have to respect my physical limits.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Choir this year</span> was less organized than usual. We had four rehearsals to learn music for both Sunday morning worship and Closing Ceremony. By the end of the third rehearsal, we had not even opened the Closing Ceremony music. I had mounting anxiety that we wouldn't be prepared for that event. Fortunately, the Closing music was quite simple and we were able to learn it in a single hour. Ironically, I was unable to physically make it all the way through the day to Closing anyway.<br /><br />I prefer a strong, dictatorial music director. Tell us what you want, correct our errors, set a high bar, and bring out our very best music. This year's director did not conduct her rehearsals that way. The end results, however, were fine. Sunday morning's music sounded very nice, and our invocation to "Come, Come, Whoever You Are" moved me to tears. Perhaps it is because it is a strong reflection of my life on the road, living full-time in our motorhome. I am a Wanderer, a Worshipper, and very much a Lover of Leaving.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Plenaries I and II were introductory</span> in nature. We agreed on the rules we'll follow, discussed the business agenda, and met a few committees. As Sean has said, we didn't attend the 30 minute Plenary II at 8am Thursday to give ourselves a little more sleep and gird our loins for the rest of GA.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Plenary III started the meat and potatoes</span> of the work to be done. My notes and impressions:<br /><ul><li>I was impressed by the breakthrough congregation from Summit, NJ. For their centennial celebration, they raised $100K and gave it all away to the community. Wow! I went to high school about 5 miles away from Summit, and I'm sorry I didn't know about UUism then. Sounds like a really neat church.</li><li>Jane Rzepka received the Distinguished Service Award. I cried, hard. I'm going to miss her so. My CLF, the only one I've known, is so colored by Jane's presence. It is hard to imagine CLF without her. Meg Riley has big shoes to fill, and I pledge to welcome her whole-heartedly. I know that ministerial transitions are hard enough without congregants holding on to the past. </li><li>The Committee on Social Witness spoke passionately to endorse the Statement of Conscience, Creating Peace. There was then a spirited debate on using the words "Theological Principles" vs. "Theological Groundings." Several newer, younger UUs said they had become UUs because they resonated with our 7 principles, and didn't want to dilute that connection by using the word in another context. Interesting.</li><li>I loved when Helene Atwan of Beacon Press commented on having one of our authors interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, "It doesn't get any better than that!"</li><li>Both the Financial Advisor and the Treasurer gave reports that were glum. Our investment income fell about 10% in 2009. Our endowment lost $14M in 2008 and $23M in 2009 and as a result we had to cut endowment spending by 16%. 13 staff members were laid off. Dan Brody commented on GA2012 that there could be significant financial impacts whether we moved away from Phoenix or stayed. Personally, I feel that it will cost much more to boycott Phoenix than to stay there, and was prepared to argue against a boycott with financial points from these reports. Fortunately, the boycott idea was dismissed fairly early in the discussion.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Plenary IV, Saturday morning, brought inspiration and insight</span>:<br /><ul><li>What jumped out at me from the Board of Trustees report was the statement that so many congregations feel alone. I remember that from my time at the UU Church of Palo Alto. We rarely interacted with other congregations, and few people were involved at the district level.</li><li>UUA governance is too big and byzantine; we are trying to move to a smaller organization through by-laws changes.</li><li>Only 2 out of 5 congregations can send delegates to GA.</li><li>GA decisions must be congregationally accountable. How do we accomplish this in the CLF?</li><li>Adam's report on the Standing on the Side of Love campaign was rousing, ending with the hall chanting, "Love! Love! Love!"</li><li>Breakthrough congregation from Harrisburg, PA purchased an inner-city church building and doubled their membership. Now that's a great way to reach out to a more racially diverse population!</li><li>Representative Keith Ellison clearly could have chosen to be a preacher instead of devoting his energy to government. He spoke passionately about Radical Abundance, and got us on our feet by saying, "Love is the only thing that makes SENSE!"</li><li>I asked myself, what would happen if I fully embraced that which I voted against? It's that whole "lean into discomfort" thing. We think of the democratic process as majority rule, but the flip side of that is the minority needs to be integrated back into the process. Vote your heart, but accept the will of the group if you lose. No, not just accept, but embrace that will. Hard stuff.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Plenary V was emotional:</span><br /><ul><li>The slideshow of UUs who died in the last year is always very moving to me. Jerry Davidoff and my dear friend Ed Barlow were among them. I miss them both.</li><li>The Sherborn, MA breakthrough congregation was started in 1685. How amazing is that?</li><li>Peter Morales choked up during his President's Report. It is good to be moved by your work.</li><li>Katie Tyson, an influential UU youth, died in a car crash on her way home from GA last year. To honor her memory, an offering was taken to fund sending other youth to GA. Katie said, "GA messes with your mind." And that's a good thing.<br /></li><li>We began our debate and vote of the Business Resolution: GA 2012 in Arizona with an hour of discussion about right relations and prayer. It was a LOT of prayer, and I felt it was an excess of being reminded to treat each other kindly. After 30 minutes or so, I started to feel like we couldn't be trusted. The next day, we were given more background on why the BOT thought this was necessary, which helped a little bit. Three prayers in a row by three different ministers made this agnostic rather peevish.</li><li>The actual debate and vote were quite civil, so perhaps all the preamble was helpful, even necessary. I'm pleased that we will be going to Phoenix and not forfeiting a huge sum of money to cancel hotel and conference center reservations.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Plenary VI started with the disturbing news</span> of a murder/suicide involving children in a UU congregation in Transylvania. I have not been able to find out any more about this.<br /><ul><li>Dan Aleshire gave an excellent talk on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Future of Ministry</span>. While this wouldn't normally be my cup of tea, his stellar speaking skills made it totally engaging. </li><li>The video for the Mankato, MN breakthrough congregation was quite funny. Two new members talked about how appealing the church was in the new building. One man quipped that he "at least knew where the exits were." A woman said that meeting with a small group in someone's home was too intimate and a barrier to attending a church for the first time. When she saw how "professional" the church had become, she attended then joined.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Plenary VII was very productive</span>, and I'm sorry I had to leave early to make the choir call for Closing Ceremony. After that 30 minute call, I decided to bow out of the ceremony, so I should have just stayed in Plenary.<br /><ul><li>I learned that July 2010 marks the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.</li><li>The District Presidents' Association report was a recitation of comments from people who were clearly afraid of change. I'm not certain, though, who made these statements. District board members? Congregants?</li><li>Only 11 congregations submitted reports on the 2009 GA resolutions concerning inclusion and accessibility. Every year we vote up these Mom and Apple Pie resolutions, toss them over the wall to the congregations and into a giant sucking void. I often vote against resolutions because I don't think we have a workable process for seeing them through.</li><li>The Action of Immediate Witness about Israel and Gaza generated a lot of debate and strong feeling </li><li>Senator Al Franken spoke of his religious beliefs: "Be Just, Be Good." He counts his blessings as a form of prayer, and he told us, "You're my favorite kind of church." He was funny and genuine.</li><li>Gini's Moderator's Report fleshed out some of the history behind the Board's concerns regarding the Arizona debate. Specifically, she talked about the Black Empowerment controversy from the 1970s, which I was unfamiliar with.</li><li>Gini also recognized, by a show of hands, all the congregational presidents in the hall. With over 1000 congregations, there should be 1000 presidents, but alas, many fewer can attend. I really hope that the Fifth Principle task force can help change that.</li><li>A large number of Resolutions in Response to the Report of an Officer were put forth, debated and voted. I had to leave before they were completed, and so missed the final Proposal of Marriage by one delegate to another. I hear, though, that it passed unanimously.</li></ul>As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to be a CLF delegate. It is an honor and a privilege. I look forward to attending GA in Charlotte next year and hope to be a delegate there as well.Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-56239511875676280442010-06-28T13:36:00.000-07:002010-06-30T09:51:29.507-07:00Sunday report (Sean)Yesterday was another overfull day. In fact, we never made it to closing ceremonies; I raced home after the final Plenary, which ran a few minutes over, in order to walk the dog before what was sure to be a late night, with no chance for dinner until perhaps 9:30. Louise, meanwhile, actually had to leave Plenary fifteen minutes early in order to make the final choir practice. We had not yet finished voting on Responsive Resolutions.<br /><br />About fifteen minutes after I got home, she called me. "I'm coming home." What? I already knew that choir this year had been a frustrating experience for her, although I thought they sounded great at Sunday morning worship. But after a day that started for her at 7:45 for the last pre-worship practice (meaning she had to leave here at 7:15), had no opportunity for breakfast or lunch, and only a few minutes for a snack before Closing Ceremony, she realized she was just not going to make it through the whole day to 9pm. Of course, once you're seated on the dais, there's really no graceful way to bow out. So she decided to drop out of choir before it even started. Thus it was that we skipped closing for the first time in our GA "careers."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In addition to the choir,</span> worship was excellent as usual. I did think that Reverend Morales ran a bit long in the sermon, which was a reiteration of many of his campaign assertions regarding membership numbers and what brings people into (or drives them away from) our faith community. In any case, I did not feel energized by it, and would have preferred something a bit more inspirational for morning worship.<br /><br />A presentation by Dan Aleshire, Executive Director of the Association of Theological Schools was actually the highlight, for me, of Plenary VI. A business resolution entitled "The Green Revolution in Religion" passed handily, as did a raft of changes to the Bylaws that were essentially proposed and supported by the Board.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The afternoon's session</span> included a report on transforming governance by the District Presidents' Association, which echoed many of the findings of the Fifth Principle Task Force, and talked about moving forward on that path. The presenters read a list of statements made by either district presidents or their constituents, and we both found many statements disturbing. By which I mean, some of the statements wandered far enough from our core principles as a movement that we wondered to each other whether they were made by congregational leaders (we hope not) or random congregants (better, but still worrisome). I did not write them down; I hope they will appear on-line in due time.<br /><br />The secretary's report on the progress made by congregations to last year's responsive resolution on Power, Privilege, and Oppression was equally disturbing. While the report highlighted some very good results from exactly two groups (a congregation in Kent, OH, and a district in New York), congregations as a whole have overwhelmingly refrained from responding to this.<br /><br />While I do think that, in the case of this particular resolution, this is a shame, I think this result reinforces what I have been saying here for some time: It is all too easy for a room full of delegates, swept up in the emotions of the moment, to pass resolutions that charge congregations to heap more work onto what are often already over-full plates. I often wondered whether every delegate with a voting card in the air is going to return to her congregation brimming with enthusiasm to pass along the new charge and get to work right away. I need wonder no longer: Secretary Loughrey's <a href="http://blogs.uuworld.org/ga/2010/06/27/responsive-resolution-response-low/">report</a> has answered my question.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We moved on to debate</span> on the Actions of Immediate Witness for this GA, which I will discuss momentarily. Before we finished with them, however, the moderator had to suspend debate, complete with stopping the motion clock, to accommodate a distinguished guest, introduced by CLF's own Meg Riley (in her role as UUA Director of Advocacy and Witness). That guest was none other than Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who was met by rousing applause.<br /><br />Senator Franken spoke for an unusually long time (IMO, under the circumstances). He spoke about his own faith background and shared with us a story about his father that actually moved him to tears at one point. A side of Al Franken that I had never seen in either the comedian or the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota. I did not write any of it down, but more is <a href="http://blogs.uuworld.org/ga/2010/06/27/live-from-ga-al-franken/">here</a> on UU World. It was one of the high points of my day.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Afterward</span> we resumed debate on the AIWs. You can read about the AIWs and how the vote (and debate) went elsewhere, suffice it to say that protracted debate was held on only a couple. The AIW to End the Blockade of Gaza and Growth of Israeli Settlements [in Palestine] was defeated by a narrow margin. I believe it had a majority but not the required 2/3 majority. Arguments on both sides were strong, and this blogger voted against the resolution on several grounds:<br /><ul><li>As delegate Denny Davidoff said, we "have a lot of chutzpah" to think we can control the government of Israel. IMO, this AIW calls congregations and individuals to futile action.</li><li>While I may question their tactics at times, I do not question Israel's right to defend itself from the unending flow of weapons to Hamas. If U.S. soil was rocket-bombed daily, would we be content with leaving our defense to "an international inspection" of cargo heading into enemy territory?</li><li>Why does this resolution unilaterally target Israel, without making mention of the culpability of those who would see her destroyed? For that matter, as many speakers brought up, why is Israel singled out, among all nations who have transgressed even against Palestine, for action by our movement?</li><li>Most importantly, it is clear to me that, for the most part, the delegates can not possibly have enough information or insight into the actual state of affairs in that part of the world to make an informed decision about taking these actions. I know I, personally, do not, and I would venture a guess that my own education and experience on the subject is reflective of no fewer than 50% and more like 80-90% of the delegates. This is just presumptuous.</li></ul>All of that said, I think there would have been little disagreement, myself included, on the portion related to Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. But the elements were not separated nor really separable as the AIW came to us.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The discussion</span> on ending the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan also saw a great deal of discussion and was similarly defeated. Here I think things were a bit more clear-cut, with the room dividing along traditional "all war is wrong" and "just war" lines, with the twist that even some die-hard pacifists realize that you can't start a war someplace and then just walk away without picking up the pieces.<br /><br />Once again, this delegate voted against, principally because the resolution left no wiggle-room for necessary (IMO) peacekeeping forces and an orderly transition. The "immediate" nature of the proposal was, well, too immediate. I suspect many delegates felt the same way and this is why the AIW failed.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The remaining AIWs passed,</span> and, as usual, I (or we, in some cases) were in the small minority opposed to some. In particular, I thought the notion that we could somehow immediately stop using off-shore oil expressed in the Gulf Coast Environmental and Economic Justice AIW was quaint and unachievable. As one delegate said, passing knee-jerk unachievable resolutions makes us look like cranks rather than the well-reasoned people we proclaim to be. The ultimate goal of the resolution is laudable, but the language and timetable was unreflective of scientific reality.<br /><br />The remaining bylaw changes, postponed from an earlier Plenary, passed with little drama, and the final credentials report reflected 1,957 delegates representing 581 congregations and a grand total of 3,880 attendees. Sadly, not that many delegates remained in the room when the Responsive Resolutions were brought forward. Again, I will let you read about these elsewhere, with two exceptions. First is that the responsive resolution on ENDA passed by a landslide without the text of the resolution, or even what report it was a response to, ever being presented to the delegates. I have to confess that we were among the guilty here, even though I had a niggling sense that we had not heard all we needed to. Only after the vote did a delegate ask this as a point of personal privilege, prompting the moderator to have to ask the floor if anyone needed to then change his vote.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The last resolution</span> turned out to be a marriage proposal, which while perhaps a slight abuse of the rules of procedure, was well-received by the assembly. The flabbergasted recipient of said proposal asked the assembly what we suggested, at which point the moderated called for a show of voting cards; I do not think there was a single nay or abstention.<br /><br />I think that will about wrap up my coverage of Sunday, and my next post will attempt to go back and fill in the blanks I left in my Friday and Saturday coverage.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-73314849778368818592010-06-27T06:08:00.000-07:002010-06-27T06:23:57.808-07:00A wild ride (Sean)Yesterday was basically a full day of Plenary and I have much to report. Unfortunately, I must leave for today's service in just a few minutes, and so I must make this brief; I hope to catch up later. I was trying to figure out why it's been harder to blog here at this GA than in years past, and a casual comment from someone yesterday made it hit me: This year, all the workshop sessions were moved to the front of the schedule, and all the Plenaries to the back.<br /><br />Effectively, this gave us a "free day" on Thursday (when there was not yet anything, really, to blog about) and a block of time Friday afternoon, but we won't come up for air now until GA is over. This appears to be yet another stab at re-inventing GA; you may recall my earlier reports on the disaster that was "Open Space" a couple years ago and the marathon sessions of last year's UU University.<br /><br />You may also recall my lengthy report on the findings last year of the Fifth Principle Task Force, and I am happy to report here that progress is being made. The board officially announced yesterday that they recognize many of the shortcomings found by that group, and will be working to change GA into the more deliberate experience that I talked about last year. The commitment is to make some kind of change, but what, exactly, that will look like is undecided. They have committed to a transparent process, however, and will be posting the work and progress on the web site.<br /><br />I will have to update the meat of yesterday's business later. Suffice it to say that the most contentious item on the agenda was saved for the very end of the day, and that was a decision on what to do about GA in Phoenix in 2012. What ended up being passed is a compromise that takes us to Phoenix then, charges us to focus on immigration issues, and prohibits us from doing any business at all there other than the "minimum business" mandated by the bylaws. We shall see if that holds; I'll have more to say on this later.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-37907651295848826172010-06-25T19:47:00.000-07:002010-06-28T13:13:22.474-07:00Day 3 snapshot (Sean)It's been a long day, and we're beat. I hope to catch up here maybe tomorrow with more detail on today's activities, but tonight I just don't have the energy. To make matters worse, I have Red Cross curriculum development that is due Sunday, and Tropical Depression 1 has formed in the Caribbean (we are, actually, on call already for hurricane season).<br /><br />In the meantime, a quick snapshot: This morning was Plenary-III, wherein we debated and voted on the Statement of Conscience (SOC) on "Creating Peace," which had been referred back to committee <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2009/06/much-better-day-louise.html">last year</a>, and also voted on choosing one of five Congregational Study Action Issues (CSAIs). A very moving part of the morning's ceremonies for us, of course, was the presentation of the Distinguished Service Award to our very own Reverend Jane Rzepka. We also heard reports from the treasurer and financial advisor, and Louise will be posting some details of those in due time.<br /><br />As a quick summary, we passed the SOC on Creating Peace by a landslide after some contentious adopting of amendments. I may have cast the only "nay" vote in the room, and when I have time I will explain my reasons. The amendment process and several motions to extend debate put Plenary a full hour over, and we ended just in time for Louise to go to choir (more precisely, stay at choir, which was scheduled for the main hall and booted Plenary out). That meant I had to forego a 1pm session so I could go home and walk the dog, and I made it back to the MCC just in time for the Legacy donor reception. As for the CSAIs, the votes had not yet been tallied by the time we adjourned, so we will find out tomorrow morning if one had a majority, or if, more likely, we will have a runoff vote.<br /><br />After the donor reception we did our second hour of booth duty at the CLF booth, having already done an hour yesterday. That took us right up to the CLF worship, and we helped cart the various accoutrements over to the ballroom for the service. Worship was good, as always, with sermons by Reverends Abhi Janamanchi and Gail Geisenheimer (and please excuse me if I got the spelling of either name incorrectly, I don't have them handy, but will correct them here later as needed). We ended up wit usher duty as well, and since we were already there helped get everything back to the booth.<br /><br />By this time it was pouring rain with a tornado watch, and we decided to wait out the storm downtown rather than riding the scooters back home, so we took advantage of Minneapolis' enclosed "Sky Walk" system to make our way to the Hilton for dinner.<br /><br />Tomorrow we have another early start and long plenaries; we'll see if I find time to update here. I do hope to share with you some more about the SOC and CSAI votes and process today.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-9498626824820059712010-06-24T09:47:00.000-07:002010-06-24T10:42:14.154-07:00In-gathering (Sean)Welcome once again to our almost-live blogging of the 2010 General Assembly (GA) of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (UUA), to become our official report to the board of the Church of the Larger Fellowship (CLF).<br /><br />We are in Minneapolis, with our bus well-parked in the lot of the First Universalist Church of Minneapolis, who have very generously offered us this parking space for the duration of GA. We arrived here Tuesday evening, checked in with the office, and got settled into position. Apparently, there will be no service here Sunday on account of GA.<br /><br />Yesterday was the first official day of the Assembly, and we attended the CLF in-gathering <span style="font-style: italic;">cum</span> reception for outgoing minister Reverend Jane Rzepka, followed by opening ceremonies and Plenary-I. In-gathering was very informal this year, and we had a "normal" turnout of perhaps 40 or so; frankly, I was a bit disappointed, as I expected the reception for Jane would have brought in more of a crowd.<br /><br />Plenary hall is good this year, with decent acoustics and lighting. We enjoyed, as always, the banner parade and the convocation, and Plenary-I consisted of the usual pleasantries and reminders principally aimed at first-timers. By 9:30 Plenary was adjourned to 8am this morning.<br /><br />Plenary-II was scheduled for only half an hour, and the agenda showed only committee reports and no actual business to be conducted. We've done this before, and learned the hard way that we can get burned out early in the program if we try to do absolutely everything. So while we usually consider Plenary to be mandatory, with everything else optional, we gave ourselves permission to skip this morning's session, since we can read the reports on-line, and the detailing of the mini-assembly process is, again, targeted at first-timers.<br /><br />In a few minutes, we will be heading off to our 1pm workshops; there is no more Association business today, and we'll get into the meat of things tomorrow at Plenary-III.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-14338109102701110702009-07-06T11:38:00.000-07:002009-07-09T12:13:40.492-07:00Wrapping up (Sean)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/535337722_92b1464807_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 180px;" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/535337722_92b1464807_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/racecarphotos/" title=""><b>cole24</b></a></span><br /><br />My apologies for taking a full week to get this posted -- once we left GA we had some catching up to do on the rest of our lives.<br /><br />We've already blogged most of the salient details of our experience at this year's GA, but I promised I would say more about the AIW's and voting thereupon. I'm sorry that I don't have the energy (or, alternatively, scanning software) to enter the text of the proposed AIW's here (I have not found them posted on-line yet, either, but maybe I just don't know where to look), but there were six of them, and the assembly passed all six overwhelmingly. <span style="font-style: italic;">Update: Links to the six AIW's can be found </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.uuworld.org/news/ga/2009_07_01_archive.php#5989672199908902199">here.</a><br /><br />I, however, voted in favor of only a single one, either abstaining or casting my vote in a tiny minority of "opposed" on the rest -- and I will explain my "no" votes in just a moment.<br /><br />My reasons for abstaining are easier to explain, and I think were unwittingly highlighted by a question asked from the Procedural mic, I think sometime after we had passed the fourth AIW. One of the delegates got up and asked if, by passing these, we were committing to do anything about them. The visceral sense that I had at that moment is that a fair number of delegates in the room were wondering the same thing.<br /><br />Frankly, many of these AIW's are like mom and apple pie -- it's hard to be against them, conceptually. And it probably makes us feel good to stick our voting cards high in the air to express our support for the sentiments. However, I feel strongly that merely saying we believe something should be done, without actually doing anything, both dilutes our message, and distracts our attention.<br /><br />The responses to that delegate's question, while accurate, sound almost schizophrenic: Yes, we as an assembly are committing to do exactly what each AIW says we will do -- in most cases, that's to bring the statement/issue back to our congregations for immediate action, including letter-writing campaigns, calls to congresspersons, etc.. In the very next breath, however, is the stipulation that our rules of congregational polity mean that the Assembly can not <span style="font-style: italic;">make</span> any congregation do these things, nor will we get involved in congregational priority-setting. So, really, take it or leave it -- we all voted for it, but whether your congregation does anything about it is really up to them. I, therefore, personally think that voting like this at General Assembly does little more than make the assembled delegates feel good about themselves, without actually either advancing the issues or bringing the faith together. (I recognize that there are exceptions, however.)<br /><br />Ironically (or perhaps not), the one AIW which I voted in favor of, a call for a Commission of Inquiry on US-sponsored torture, contained only eight "whereas" phrases, followed by a "resolution" calling for such a commission. Nowhere does it state that anyone either in congregations or the UUA will do anything further to advance this cause. I suppose one might hope that the Washington office might do something with this, or perhaps Rev. Morales can take it with him to his next meeting with congress or maybe Secretary of State Clinton, but we did not actually charge anyone to do anything.<br /><br />I suppose that one of the reasons I abstained from some of the other issues is precisely because they <span style="font-style: italic;">did</span> charge our congregations with doing something (but see above), and yet it seems to me that we, as a movement, have already spread ourselves fairly thinly across a broad range of initiatives, possibly to the point of failing to first adequately care for our own survival as a relevant faith. The last thing I want to do, frankly, is to mandate that every congregation begin a letter-writing campaign to the Bolivian Ambassador calling for a Truth Commission on human rights violations, when I know for certain that some of those congregations are struggling for their very survival in harsh economic times, and we aren't even certain that our <span style="font-style: italic;">own</span> government isn't guilty of human rights violations. Nevertheless, according to the resolution so adopted, I am apparently mandated to write just such a letter myself.<br /><br />There was, in fact, another resolution which I was initially in favor of -- opposing sexual orientation- and gender-identity-based violence in Iraq. A lofty and admirable goal, to be sure. The resolution commits us to pressure the US government to, in turn, pressure the Iraqi government to deal with this. Ultimately, I was swayed by several impassioned arguments from the Con microphone. Chief among those was that it was rather hypocritical of the US to be bullying anyone else on the planet on these issues, where clearly we have not yet even committed to wiping out these crimes (or even, in some cases, making them crimes) on our own soil.<br /><br />Another persuasive argument that was made on this issue was that we have committed to being respectful of other cultures and religions, yet here we are committing to tell another culture and/or religion what behavior it must tolerate of its citizens or practitioners. While there is almost never a justification for violence, implicit in our plea here is that persons of non-heterosexual or non-birth-gender identity have an inherent right to a place in that culture. Our values and principles here regarding the rights of the individual are in direct conflict with our values and principles regarding respect for (or non-interference in? Like the "Prime Directive" from <span style="font-style: italic;">Star Trek</span>?) the values and principles of other cultures and religions. The language of the AIW makes no attempt to resolve or even acknowledge this clash.<br /><br />There were two AIWs to which I was unequivocally opposed. Both involved supporting pending legislation which, to my observation, the vast majority of delegates had not even read. (Perhaps they are little different from actual legislators in this regard.) While I admire the work of the handful of people who worked passionately on these resolutions, my motto is "trust, but verify," and so I undertook to research the legislation myself. Unsurprisingly, given the diversity of both people and opinions within our movement, the views expressed so passionately by these AIW's crafters represent but one side of very complex issues.<br /><br />One of these was the AIW calling for unequivocal support of HR2894 (aka the "Holt Bill"), HR1826, and S751-752, all of which relate to ensuring fairness and accountability in elections. Again, a lofty and admirable goal. As I mentioned in my last post, I attended a workshop on this particular issue put together by its champions.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2285638330_107f6decb4_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 160px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2285638330_107f6decb4_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sokwanele/" title=""><b>Sokwanele - Zimbabwe</b></a></span><br /><br />Now, even a quick survey of arguments for and against these bills will turn up a great deal of controversy even among fair-election proponents regarding either their efficacy or their necessity, with a host of election watchdogs expressing a great deal of concern in injecting the federal government into elections that are not, currently, within their purview. But the real gist of the arguments being made by the supporters of this AIW are that honest and fair elections can not happen if computers are involved in any way, and/or if there are no paper ballots.<br /><br />Now, I am a computer scientist by training (and so, perhaps, I am not unbiased), but this, to me, is hogwash of the highest order. The presumption that mechanical counting machines and/or paper ballots are not subject to tampering or error of any sort is simply unsupportable, and while I admit that tampering with computers may be easier for some people than tampering with lever-machines or paper ballots, the fact is that you can get just as close to tamper-proof or perfectly accurate with an electronic system as you are willing to spend to do so.<br /><br />One of the arguments raised by this group is that election results can not be left to a single black-box vendor, as they have been in some past situations (due either to budget issues or a lack of technical savvy on the part of governments), and here I could not agree more. I would advocate, in fact, for open-source software to manage electronic voting. Another argument has been that votes can not be verifiably traced to an individual voter absent a paper ballot with a signature, and, here again, this is not true: any number of biometric measurements could be included at the polls, not to identify the voter ahead of time, but to verify her ballot in the case of it being contested, and to ensure that each voter casts a unique vote. One-way cryptographic signature techniques can be used to ensure that the vote can not be tampered with once cast.<br /><br />A final argument made by this group is that computers have been losing tons of money at banks and financial institutions, who merely write off this loss without allowing the public to see that the computers are fallible. True -- right up until the cost to improve the computer system is lower than the amount being written off. As I said earlier, you can make it as fool proof and reliable as you want by spending more money; for banks, it is strictly an economic decision.<br /><br />Paper ballots are subject to all the same issues. They get lost. They get mis-marked. They get miscounted. Does no one remember the "hanging chads"? For secretaries of state, it becomes an issue of spending money and resources on reliable and verifiable electronic voting, or money and resources printing, securing, collecting, and tabulating paper ballots. I, for one, do not want to see us roll back the clock on this one, any more than I want to hand back my plastic and check book and have to go back to carrying gold bullion around to purchase goods and services.<br /><br />The other matter to which I was opposed was the resolution in support of the Red Rock Wilderness Act (S799/HR1925), legislation which has been pending (and failing to pass) for over a decade. My objection here is the all-or-nothing approach of a Wilderness declaration, which essentially bans all use, in this case of 9 million acres of BLM managed land in Utah.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2785237168_a111011cc0_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 158px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2785237168_a111011cc0_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/yathin/" title=""><b>yathin</b></a></span><br /><br />Again, the goal is lofty and admirable. What this fails to consider is that, while a Wilderness declaration means you <span style="font-style: italic;">can't</span> do most things on this land, the absence of such a declaration does not mean that you <span style="font-style: italic;">must</span> do them. In other words, the BLM today is free to place specific use restrictions on any or all of this land, and has already done so in many cases. Supporters of this legislation, however, would have us believe that all manner of environmentally irresponsible usage is rampant. In point of fact, other than cross-country recreation, all of the subject acreage is currently free from such usage -- a precondition for it to even be considered for wilderness designation.<br /><br />My chief objection to the legislation in its current form is that it makes all nine million acres of what is today public land nearly completely inaccessible to the very public that it supposedly benefits. Oh, sure, you'll be able to hike there, but most of it is unreachable by even the strongest and most well-prepared hikers in anything short of several days, and then only with expeditionary-level preparation. This is, IMO, elitist: it makes all this public land inaccessible to all but the exceptionally physically fit and able-bodied with plenty of time on their hands.<br /><br />There is no question that the BLM has bungled some land-use decisions, and certainly they can continue to do so in this region. So let's fix the BLM, and/or the corporate lobbying process that grants public land use for resource extraction without proper safeguards and appropriate remediation. But a sweeping Wilderness declaration for nine million acres strikes me as overreaction on a grand scale.<br /><br />I suppose, before I conclude, that it is my duty to tell you, the leadership of CLF, that the Assembly has spoken and we are to do all these things. (And, again, I am hoping the actual text of what we agreed will be available shortly.) So go forth and pass the word to the congregants!<br /><br />That pretty much wraps up my report on the business aspects of GA 2009. All told, it was a good Assembly, much less harried and crammed full than the last one we attended in Portland. As always, we both personally got a lot out of it, spiritually and in regard to helping with the business of the Association. We thank the CLF for allowing us to represent them at the Assembly, and look forward to being of service again in the future.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-80795055691179125682009-06-29T15:54:00.000-07:002009-07-06T12:39:46.993-07:00My penultimate post for the year (Sean)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/3002325132_3624300807_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 161px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/3002325132_3624300807_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mischiru/" title=""><b>mischiru</b></a><br /><br />I have more to say about Saturday -- I promised a post on the "Touch Screen Voting" workshop, which actually goes hand-in-hand with some other comments I'd like to make about this year's AIW's and the process by which they were adopted. Frankly, I am running out of steam -- I've been typing here most of the day, and I will save those topics for my final post, at some later time.<br /><br />Also on Saturday was, of course, the election. No need to blog the results, as it has been well discussed around the UU blogosphere. Instead I will simply state an opinion here about the polls: They were not open long enough, and certainly they were not open for enough hours outside of Plenary. In fact, given that the very delegates who are able to vote in the polls ought to be in Plenary for the duration, I would go so far as to say that polling hours should be entirely outside of Plenary hours. I also heard of at least one delegate who came to GA expecting to vote on-site, but could not because their flight required them to be at the airport before the polls opened, yet absentee ballots could not be accepted on site. Long lines at the polls might have been avoided by assigning delegates specific blocks of time in which to vote, or allowing sign-ups for blocks of time in advance.<br /><br />Louise did a great job of covering Saturday and Sunday in her last post. I can confirm that things sounded just as wonderful from the audience as they did on stage, and both morning worship and closing ceremonies on Sunday were very moving.<br /><br />In addition to more reports, the final Plenary-VI session included some business. We voted on, and passed, all six Actions of Immediate Witness. As I already mentioned, I'll have more to say about this in another post.<br /><br />We also discussed several "Responsive Resolutions" -- motions on resolutions in response to a report of an officer or committee delivered earlier in GA. I was unable to copy all these down, and the text is not yet available on-line, however, unsurprisingly, a number of them had to do with the bylaw problem and the Article II amendments. In summary, we<br /><ul><li>Agreed to look more carefully at use of "Inclusion" rather than "Non-discrimination" as language in the proposed Principles revision.</li><li>Agreed that the BOT should look into and take appropriate action upon revising the "broken" language in bylaw article C15.1 that I discussed <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2009/06/ammendments-to-article-ii-sean.html">here</a> earlier.<br /></li><li>Agreed that the BOT should find a way to revisit a proposal to revise Article II in the immediate future.</li><li>Refused to recommend to the BOT that they accept a list of some 50 names of interested parties gathered at GA as an "ad hoc" task force (later revised to "resource") to work on the Article II process. (This whole resolution was, frankly, not clearly worded -- many of us thought the 50 wanted to work on content, whereas they later clarified that they wanted to work on process -- and the body agreed that it was really the board's job to appoint a commission, not accept a self-selected group, and, in any case, nothing stops them from calling on any of the list of 50 for help).</li><li>Agreed to raise the issue with the U.S. government about the denial of visas to female religious leaders from Africa to attend a religious conference here, apparently on economic grounds. Not sure how this qualified as a responsive resolution -- it sure looked like an end-run around the limits on AIW's to me, which is not to say that it is not a worthy cause.</li></ul>Also on Sunday I briefly attended a workshop that was listed in the program as "Implementing our Newly Adopted UUA Statement of Conscience." As Louise wrote <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2009/06/much-better-day-louise.html">here</a> on Friday, we did not actually pass the SOC, but, rather, referred it back to the CSW as "not fully baked." I was interested to see what this session would become, and what, if any, path forward was set forth.<br /><br />I won't get into details on the contention that arose around this SOC, as that has been blogged elsewhere. I will say that I did think, myself, that it was not decisive enough to be useful to the office of legislative affairs, nor respectful enough of those who choose to serve in the armed forces, to pass as it was written, and these two concerns represented the bulk of the objections. My observation in this workshop was that the CSW had felt "finished" with this work, and it is not clear to me that they have the energy to resolve this -- if it can even be resolved, something about which I have my doubts.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-38125165200581210892009-06-29T13:47:00.000-07:002009-06-29T15:59:33.718-07:00Saturday and Sunday (Louise)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2894123630_b499103e39_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 186px; height: 240px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2894123630_b499103e39_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/persuasiveinformation/" title=""><b>mike_benefiel</b></a><br /><br />I have just finished re-reading both of our earlier reports, and I must say we are a verbose couple! When the CLF by-laws were written to require a written report by CLF GA delegates, they probably didn't expect quite so much verbiage. And if you are one of the CLF Board members tasked with reading this report, I apologize in advance if this seems like too much information. We would both welcome your comments; if you want us to write less, please let us know.<br /><br />That being said, we blog regularly and are used to processing a day's events in this format. That and the reverse chronological order lends itself best to daily reading, rather than trying to digest it all at once, backwards. So, your indulgence is appreciated.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(As a side note, I just suggested to Sean that he might want to pause in his writing to wash the dishes, as they have been piling up. He replied, "You have to blog when the Spirit says blog, and you have to wash dishes when the Spirit says wash dishes. And right now, I'm blogging. Oh, and by the way, you are the Wife, not the Spirit." Oh, snap!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Saturday</span> was another full day, of course. Sean has written a lot about Plenary IV, so I'll just add a few things here. I was tickled to hear that our Public Witness event from Friday made the front page of the Salt Lake City Tribune. SLC really is a small city, and having over 3,000 UUs in town packs a wallop, I think. I am sure that we made a huge impact on the local LGBT community and hope they heard our message of love and acceptance.<br /><br />At least twice during this plenary, speakers who had been clearly given a time limit blatantly ignored it. One woman said right up front that she had 4 minutes, then spoke for 10. One receiving an award seized the bully pulpit and gave a homily 15 minutes long. While I understand that a person being honored should also be heard, surely each knew their time limit in advance. These awards aren't big surprises. The sad consequence of this time disrespect is that another, equally important, item was completely short changed. It broke my heart to slip out of the worship service at the end of plenary to attend the next choir rehearsal. If I was going to have to choose between that lovely worship and someone's rambling committee report, I certainly would not have chosen the latter! Harumph.<br /><br />On the positive side, the reports from the UU Service Committee and the UU United Nations Office were so uplifting. As donors to the UUSC, we love hearing how our gifts are being used to improve the world. Now I'm thinking seriously of making a donation to the UU-UNO as well. Good stuff!<br /><br />After choir rehearsal #4 and a quick lunch, it was on to Plenary V. We had heard on Friday night that the fierce thunderstorm that roared through Salt Lake right before the Service of the Living Tradition had caught our huge "Standing on the Side of Love" banner hanging outside the convention center and whipped it around. Apparently the hardware holding it up smashed through the atrium windows, breaking glass and damaging the banner. The story of this exciting event, and the subsequent gorgeous double rainbow that followed the storm, was retold in words and funny dancing at the plenary opening by the SSL committee members. They also told us that pieces of the banner would be available as souvenirs. I was pleased that no one was hurt and that the committee was making lemonade out of it all.<br /><br />(Several people noted wryly that a more conventional religious gathering would probably seize on storm and rainbow as evidence that a deity was approving of our actions at GA, but most UUs chose to be simply awed at the natural spectacle and grateful for a benevolent outcome. I would much rather claim, through my own concrete actions, to be <span style="font-style: italic;">Standing on the Side of Love</span> than that <span style="font-style: italic;">God is on Our Side</span>. Too many have used that claim to justify a world of hurt.)<br /><br />After plenary, I attended the tech rehearsal for Sunday morning worship. The technology required to present a multimedia event of this size is just staggering. Dozens of microphones, scores of people, monitors showing the words to the hymns and close-ups of the speakers, chairs in their proper places, lighting, cues, sight-lines...what a production! The hard work of some very invisible volunteers makes the huge difference between a worship service where 5,000 people can hear and see, sing and be moved, and a big mushy muddle of tiny garbled figures on a stage far away in a huge echo-y conventional hall. There's a special place in heaven for audio-visual folks, a big sound board where they can fiddle and tweak to their heart's content, without temperamental "talent" making demands. Blessed are the A/V nerds!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/445833096_8a2f0419a0_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 180px;" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/445833096_8a2f0419a0_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ikhs/" title=""><b>ardie96750</b></a><br /><br />After rehearsal, we went to dinner with dear, long-time friends that we see only at GA. Two bottles of wine later, the Ware Lecture simply wasn't in the cards, and I gratefully went to bed early.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sunday</span> morning rolled around early, as choir members were required to be in place by 7:30am. More sound checks, vocal warm ups, and then we ran through our pieces one last time. As the final chord of our anthem "Choose to Bless the World" echoed through the still-empty hall, our GA choir director, Allison Wilski, paused. She quietly told us that she had a difficult year in her personal life, and that Spirit had been missing. She told us that we had restored her, had opened her heart again with our love and music, and tearfully thanked us.<br /><br />And that, dear readers, is why I go to GA. That moment, that opening of one heart to music that I made, that I studied and worked for. To be part of something larger through music. Our life on the road makes it very, very difficult to be part of a regular musical group. I can play my own guitar and sing to the cats, but to practise with others toward performance in a worship service is a blessing I only can find at GA.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2264628230_5191d80c52_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 200px;" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2264628230_5191d80c52_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfsoul/" title=""><b>WolfS♡ul</b></a><br /><br />Floating on Allison's praise and love, we rocked the worship. Everything came together and it was all lovely. Abhi's sermon was great, the hymns were among my favorites, the hall was packed with UUs. I loved it!<br /><br />Immediately after worship, we had ANOTHER tech rehearsal, this time for the giant Closing Ceremony production. We sang in a rather complicated combination with Gini Courter speaking a prayer, and that needed to be ironed out logistically. Fortunately, there was time after that for a substantial lunch, because the rest of the day was completely filled with no time for dinner until after 8:30pm.<br /><br />The final plenary took the rest of the afternoon. I was moved by the chalice lighting, which honored the UUs shot in Tennessee last July. It was powerful to hear about their lives, and how the community came together to mourn and heal.<br /><br />Other highlights: Gini's Moderator Report. She said that the bad economy can "out" bad governance, as budget cuts force unhealthy practices into the light. She encouraged us to see this as an opportunity for spiritual growth. She also warned us against letting the power of elected boards and committees be usurped by self-selecting, non-official groups. That democracy demands that we honor our elections and responsibilities in this way.<br /><br />We learned that the morning's offering had raised almost $30,000 for the Utah Pride Center. Yee haw!<br /><br />And finally, Closing Ceremony. The choir, of course, had to arrive early to get settled on stage and warm up. When GA was at Portland in 2007, I chose not to sing in the choir. That year, they did not participate in Closing Ceremony, the choir's traditional venue. Instead, they had a small, separate concert, sparsely attended. That, for me, was not enough to justify the many hours of work in rehearsals. I don't know what happened in Ft. Lauderdale in 2008, but here in Salt Lake City in 2009, the choir performed at two of the key events, and I am so thrilled! Every minute of preparation was worth it.<br /><br />We began with rousing hymns. Then a slide show of Bill Sinkford's presidency. At the end, he received the longest standing ovation I've ever been part of. He was an excellent president, and he will be missed. But like the President of the US, it is clear how difficult a job it is. The photos, to me, highlighted how much he has aged in the eight years. Sitting behind him, he looked a bit fragile to me, and tired. I suspect he is relieved that it is over, and looking forward to a well-deserved rest. Thank you, Bill.<br /><br />Rev. Sinkford then charged Peter Morales with the new responsibilities of presidency. He drew on the words and wisdom of other past UUA presidents, and included Bill Shultz's recommendation to surround himself with true friends. They would "praise and support you in public, but behind closed doors, and preferably with martini in hand, would tell you when you are being a horse's ass."<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2383775051_06c84203f5_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 180px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2383775051_06c84203f5_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sis/" title=""><b>Sister72</b></a><br /><br />In what other denomination will you hear that exact advice? I love being a Unitarian Universalist.<br /><br />Rev. Morales was inducted into his role with the traditional laying-on of hands. Gini prayed, we sang. And then, it was over.<br /><br />Until next year.<br /><br />Thank you for the opportunity to serve as a General Assembly delegate of the Church of the Larger Fellowhip. It has been, once again, an honor and a privilege.Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-56409099165716646782009-06-29T13:45:00.000-07:002009-06-29T16:06:36.176-07:00Status Quo is not an Option (Sean)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3478085722_e36b36c877_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 180px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3478085722_e36b36c877_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/needlessspaces/" title=""><b>needlessspaces</b></a><br /><br />Saturday afternoon I attended a session on the work of the Fifth Principle Task Force (FPTF), after hearing the Task Force's report in Plenary earlier in the day. I'm not sure where I was when they populated this TF, but I would have volunteered in an instant, as the subject is near and dear to my heart.<br /><br />I will not rehash their interim findings -- you can see their "report" in slide form here:<br /><a href="http://www.uua.org/documents/boardtrustees/5thprinciple/090417_presentation.pdf">http://www.uua.org/documents/boardtrustees/5thprinciple/090417_presentation.pdf</a><br /><br />In brief summary, the charge and subsequent findings of the TF suggest that the supposedly democratic process by which we govern the affairs of the association is fundamentally broken. In short, the process by which delegates are chosen and then charged to attend GA does not reflect true democratic principles. In many (most?) cases, delegates are self-selected, often on the basis of having sufficient personal funds to attend. (Many will argue with this point -- to be clear, I am not saying this is universally true, but it is true in enough cases to be of concern.)<br /><br />I will cite my own experience as a case in point. I have been to five General Assemblies, starting with Boston in 2003, then Fort Worth, Saint Louis, and Portland in quick succession from 2005-2007, and finally here in Salt Lake in 2009.<br /><br />My first time at GA I was not even registered. We did not yet live on the road in our bus, and we attended a brick-and-mortar congregation in Palo Alto, California. Louise had been a long-time lay leader in that congregation, culminating in chairing the BOT, and was sent to that GA by the congregation as a delegate. This made sense to me; I went along for the ride as the sidekick/husband. At that time, I had not fully committed to the faith, and certainly did not see myself as ever being involved in governance.<br /><br />I confess I did not know what happened inside the hallowed halls of Plenary, nor did I care. The look and feel of GA was quite familiar to me, however -- in a former life, I was very heavily involved in an even larger society that was governed by volunteers through deliberative process and which put on two large symposium/trade show events annually, with an average attendance of 6,000-7,000. At various times I sat on or chaired the committees of that organization that organized the seminars, symposia, and trade shows, and concluded my decade and a half with that organization with a stint on the board, and as treasurer. While GA may seem like a large undertaking to many who attend, to my eyes it was actually a rather smallish affair.<br /><br />I flitted around the Boston event as much as I could without an attendee badge, taking advantage of those events open to the public (including a few hours in the exhibit hall), and socializing with people in the public spaces and at meals. It is, perhaps, a dirty little secret that one can come to one of these conferences and do a great deal of interacting without ever paying a registration fee -- facility rules and sometimes statutes preclude an organization from excluding anyone from any space considered "public," which includes hotel hallways and often convention center areas outside of the meeting rooms themselves, particularly if those spaces are not being billed to the organization as booked square footage.<br /><br />I naturally assumed that Louise was off doing "representative government" and that, of course, everyone else there was, too, having been duly elected by their congregations through a democratic process.<br /><br />Two years later, in our first year of nomadic life, Louise suggested to me that we should attend GA in Fort Worth. Now, by this time I had fully converted to the faith (if one can even use that phrase in UUism), and we were dues-paying members of this very congregation, the Church of the Larger Fellowship. I was eager to attend, from the perspective that this would be an opportunity to meet other CLF members, our ministers, and the folks in the office who support us. Plus, secretly, I love conferences -- why else would I spend a dozen or so years volunteering to work them.<br /><br />Then Louise told me she would be a delegate for the CLF. Whoa -- how does that work? Apparently, you just ask. Well, OK -- I'm still not well-enough versed in things to think I can be part of governance, and I'm certain, of course, that this is really just a CLF thing -- it makes sense that we'd have trouble democratically electing and then charging our delegates, given the nature of our congregation. At this point, I am still convinced that what goes on in the Plenary hall, where I still have not ventured, is representative governance at its best. For myself, I elect (pun intended) to be a plain attendee, and I have the simplest of badges, undecorated by the "fruit salad" of ribbons I sport today.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb78xN0ja98o5l-l0w574Jlpkqop3ZRS6pytqLb1eltDMFoWs_h8HDBclNpffn9SsKhpAyEzod4eqrb-pdSmbDMxCAMtF5f4wDMBpPl3BqW6f0BOKqh5M6-_3pUqOXFN_RdrNIlA/s1600-h/img_0515.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb78xN0ja98o5l-l0w574Jlpkqop3ZRS6pytqLb1eltDMFoWs_h8HDBclNpffn9SsKhpAyEzod4eqrb-pdSmbDMxCAMtF5f4wDMBpPl3BqW6f0BOKqh5M6-_3pUqOXFN_RdrNIlA/s320/img_0515.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5352889147409322866" border="0" /></a><br /><br />By Saint Louis in 2006, I am comfortable enough with GA and with my grounding as a UU to agree to be a delegate. I am still a little shocked by the fact that all I need do is ask the CLF office to become one, supplying no credentials and making no promises or covenant to vote in any particular way. Note that I had met these folks exactly once, in Fort Worth. My obligation appears limited to making a report to the CLF board, which is the purpose of this very blog. Still, I remain convinced that this is a CLF aberration, and carry that illusion with me all the way to my first Plenary.<br /><br />I even wrote about my discomfort with my part in this supposedly democratic process in my first post from Saint Louis, <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2006/06/catching-upsean.html">here</a>. My naivete is also apparent in that post, wherein I speculated that "the delegates are intended to bring with them the sense of the smaller body which those delegates are to be representing. I'm sure that many congregational delegates come here already briefed on their congregations' wishes with respect to the many issues that come before the assembly."<br /><br />What I have since learned, starting with St. Louis and progressing all the way to today, is that the CLF is decidedly not an aberration, at least in most respects. (It can be said, however, that generally most of our congregation does not personally know nor have personally communicated with their delegates, which is probably different from most other congregations.) Through discussion with many delegates, and direct observation of what happens in Plenary and in mini-assemblies, I can state without equivocating that many (most?) delegates are selected on the basis of (1) their ability to pay their own way to GA, (2) their ability to dedicate the time away from the rest of their lives to attend GA and (3) their own desire to attend.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2801463557_d783fd289f_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 180px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2801463557_d783fd289f_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/diamond_rain/" title=""><b>A Girl And Her Camera</b></a><br /><br />There are exceptions, of course. Many congregations democratically elect their delegates (although possibly only from a pool of people who can meet points 1-3 above), and many charge them with specific voting instructions. But my observation suggests this is the exception, rather than the rule.<br /><br />FPTF chair Denny Davidoff (who, ironically, was the chair of the CLF BOT for most of my tenure and thus among the audience for my several reports here) drove this point home during her report in Plenary, wherein she asked for a show of hands: how many congregational delegates were fully reimbursed by their congregations to attend GA -- travel, meals, hotel and registration? How many partially reimbursed? The numbers, in a room full mostly of congregational delegates, were appallingly low. Thankfully, we did not delve into how many of those assembled knew the will of their congregations on the issues at hand.<br /><br />No need, really, because the unending campaigning in the halls of the Salt Palace made that issue entirely clear. The two presidential candidates have been slated for a long time, and there have been some 22 candidates' forums around the country at the district level. To some degree, every congregation has had a chance to meet the candidates, or at least become familiar enough with their platforms, qualifications, and credentials to have discussed the matter as a congregation and provided their delegates with some direction on the matter. Yet the shear number of "uncommitted" delegates, as evidenced directly by the amount of campaigning and campaign resources, speaks otherwise -- have a look at the material Louise linked <a href="http://infopubs.blogspot.com/2009/06/not-taking-ourselves-quite-so-seriously.html">here</a> to get a real flavor.<br /><br />It is with all this as a background that I wholeheartedly endorse and support the recommendations of the FPTF, which can be found in their presentation. Specifically, moving GA to a biennial schedule, scheduling it mostly on a weekend when most working folks could attend, reducing the number of delegates to a manageable yet meaningful size, then fully funding those delegates so that congregations can elect them completely democratically, charging them with a congregational mandate -- even if that is to just "vote their conscience" as duly elected representatives.<br /><br />What this means, of course, is that I am supporting putting myself out of a "job." While the final tally of elected delegates for the CLF may change somewhat from the current proposal (wherein we are allocated 4, the same as any congregation above 1,000 members, IIRC -- it's not in the presentation but was in a list of FAAQs -- Frequently Asked Anxious Questions), it is certain to be far smaller than the 22 delegates we are currently allocated. Additionally, we must, as a congregation, find some way to discuss the issues in advance of GA, and elect representative delegates to do that real work for us. It will be a "challenge" in every sense of that word.<br /><br />I think it is a needed change, and, should the CLF choose to continue to send me to GA as a delegate, I pledge to work towards this goal, while ensuring fair and reasonable representation and a voice for our unique congregational makeup. Because surely we do not want to see the somewhat haphazard sort of governance which I have described (and will describe) elsewhere in this blog continue.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-73730715969556520862009-06-29T13:05:00.000-07:002009-06-29T22:54:01.015-07:00Ammendments to Article II (Sean)Part 2 of my Saturday coverage.<br /><br />I'm not really sure where to start on this subject, and many other bloggers have covered most of the issues in a great deal of depth. Suffice it to say that, having just suggested in my last post that many delegates arrive unprepared, we were, <span style="font-style: italic;">ahem</span>, unprepared. At first I thought we were just out of the loop due to having missed last year's GA, but as things progressed, I learned that pretty much the entire assembly felt blindsided by this.<br /><br />Without rehashing the entire (ongoing) discussion here, let me just say that all of the angst, all of the confusion, and even all of the trouble the assembly had moving the matter forward comes from what I believe to be a simple but catastrophic oversight in section C15.1(c)4 of the bylaws. Let me explain:<br /><br />One would hope that, in the normal course of the affairs of the Association, the assembled congregations would periodically undertake to review and perhaps modify Article II of the bylaws, which state the "Principles and Purposes" of the Association. One would also hope that "periodically" would mean that we would not let as much as a decade and a half to pass between such reviews.<br /><br />Should we do that, the process of review and amendment is quite reasonable, and is described in bylaw section C15.1(c)1 -- any proposal to review or amend must come before GA to determine whether further review is warranted, at which point the GA may, by majority vote, refer the proposal to a commission appointed by the BOT to conduct such a review, which is to involve member congregations. Within three years, such commission shall bring the proposal and any amendments thereto in front of GA, which may adopt them by a two-thirds majority.<br /><br />This process is open and inclusive -- congregations, through their delegates, will know of the proposal before study and review begins because it will have already come before GA, and the commission is specifically charged to include congregations in the review process. No one at the subsequent GA wherein the proposal is potentially adopted could reasonably claim to have been blind-sided.<br /><br />The bylaws also include a "safety valve." Lest the "Principles and Purposes" stagnate and become credal without intentional thought by the Association, C15.1(c)4 <span style="font-style: italic;">requires</span> the BOT to establish such a commission to review and study Article II -- note that this no longer requires or involves the General Assembly prior to the review and study process -- and may then, in its discretion, place any proposal resulting therefrom on the agenda of the next GA. That GA may then vote by simple majority to admit the proposal <span style="font-style: italic;">to the next GA,</span> wherein it may be adopted by a two-thirds majority.<br /><br />The problem is two-fold. One is that the first time the proposal appears before GA may well be the first time any delegate is even aware the issue was being worked -- that's the blindsided part. The second is that there is no provision whatever for any further work or amendment to be done to the proposal between the time it is admitted by majority vote and the time it is adopted by two-thirds vote.<br /><br />The simple fix to this is to change C15.1(c)4 to, instead, charge the BOT, if no proposal has been brought forth in 15 years, to charge a commission to bring forward such a proposal, to then be submitted in front of the General Assembly in accordance with the already reasonable process described by C15.1(c)1, which ensures not only that the proposal appears before the assembly twice, but also allows for a reasonable discussion, debate, and amendment process in the interim.<br /><br />Note that I've already prattled on for eight paragraphs about broken process and a frustrated assembly, yet I have not said even one word about the content of the proposed changes to Article II. It could (but will not) go without saying that there was some lively debate and discussion about several points in the proposal. There were enough contentious issues, in fact, that many in the assembly felt they could not get behind and support the proposal entirely as it stood, without amendment (for which, as I said, there is no allowable process within the bylaws).<br /><br />I personally did not spend a lot of time dwelling on the content, as it became clear to me that there would be ample opportunity to get involved in that one way or another at a later time (remember, even a vote to "adopt" here would merely have placed the proposal on the agenda for the next GA, where a 2/3 vote would be required). What was immensely clear to me, though, was that enough people felt disenfranchised by the new language that there was no way I could, in good conscience, vote to have the matter languish for another year with no ability for discourse and amendment.<br /><br />In the end, enough people were either against the content itself or, as me, the process by which things would move forward, that the proposal was defeated by the thinnest of margins. In a vote that required a hand count by the tellers, the motion failed by a mere 13 votes, out of 1,159 cast -- a margin of just 1%.<br /><br />The mandate to the Association is clear and two-fold: we need to fix the bylaws so this does not happen this way ever again, and someone needs to come forward with another proposal for amendment of article II that will now follow the reasonable process of C15.1(c)1.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVPQ9gItgtqLwvWgThBUwg8NWi-apjK_bwc4AzPv1fxcJZsZr1VCzwhlhaS4G01pvpA2903Taft3C8be2p2TUe4ReoD9dmryY1ceWsx2hPrnPz5hMsWmu6SGoGYYcoQcXDMe-UFA/s1600-h/IMG_3945.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVPQ9gItgtqLwvWgThBUwg8NWi-apjK_bwc4AzPv1fxcJZsZr1VCzwhlhaS4G01pvpA2903Taft3C8be2p2TUe4ReoD9dmryY1ceWsx2hPrnPz5hMsWmu6SGoGYYcoQcXDMe-UFA/s320/IMG_3945.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5352882702913309058" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Several have suggested that such a proposal could not be considered by the Assembly until two years have passed, as that is the way it is so stipulated at the end of C15.1(c)1. However, my reading of the Bylaws suggests otherwise -- there is no such stipulation in C15.1(c)4, under which this proposal was brought, and the stipulation under (c)1 appears to me to be applicable only to proposals originally brought forth under that section. I see no prohibition on bringing any proposal brought under (c)4, but then defeated, immediately in front of the assembly under (c)1.<br /><br />Of course, this is my reading in the calm light of day and after GA is over. My regret is that I did not see this sooner -- I could have brought a motion under C15.1(c)1 to refer the existing proposal right back to the BOT under that section for referral to a new commission for study, thus starting the clock immediately at this GA, while allowing the commission to consider amendments, which might then have been immediately forthcoming right here in Salt Lake. Oh well.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-35184812439030131682009-06-29T13:01:00.000-07:002009-06-29T16:14:31.633-07:00Saturday, part one (Sean)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/3217754316_6b3d77aa80_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 240px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/3217754316_6b3d77aa80_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/" title=""><b>Leo Reynolds</b></a><br /><br />We arrived bright and early for the start of Plenary-IV at 8:45. Once again, many reports ran over, and we held the business until the end of the session. That business was to admit AIWs to the agenda. To touch again on the subject of GA-reform, it is clear to me from the many procedural questions, and even some of the discussion from the Pro and Con microphones, that many delegates arrive to GA without a clear understanding of why they are here, or of how business is conducted in a deliberative body, or, for that matter, of the processes for Social Witness and governance within the movement. I also had a sense that delegates were generally unaware of the burden their actions place on the Association and/or their congregations, a sense which would be confirmed later.<br /><br />For the record, I voted in favor of admitting only two of the proposed AIWs. Nevertheless, all six were admitted by wide margins. I would guess that, had the committee been allowed to forward more than six (I believe there were nine submitted), we would have admitted all of them.<br /><br />Running over on time meant that many delegates, ourselves included, left in the middle of worship.<br /><br />Plenary-V, in the afternoon, thankfully ran mostly on time. There were no early reports, other than the Breakthrough Congregation in Peace Dale, RI. These breakthrough reports all feature a video presentation, and I think the pressure is enormous to keep those to their alloted times; since they are prepared ahead of time, the temptation to keep speaking extemporaneously does not exist.<br /><br />Not on the agenda, but brought to the floor by a delegation of Iranian-American ministers, was a prayer in Farsi and a call for a moment of silence in support of the people of Iran during the current turmoil in that country.<br /><br />Doing well on time, the report of the Fifth Principle Task Force, chaired by Denny Davidoff, was moved up from Plenary-VI. I was moved by Denny's report to attend the workshop on this topic, "Status Quo is not an Option," later this afternoon, and I will say more on this in another post.<br /><br />That took us to the debate and vote on amendments to Article-II of the bylaws, which is a big enough discussion to warrant its very own post, immediately forthcoming.<br /><br />After Plenary, I attended the Fifth Principle Task Force's workshop, which is also a discussion worthy of its own post, followed by an unrelated session entitled "Does Touch Screen Voting Violate the Fifth Principle?" -- and I plan yet another post on that subject as well. I have lots more writing ahead of me, clearly.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-52947491037584786912009-06-29T11:18:00.000-07:002009-06-29T16:24:10.738-07:00Monumental catch-up (Sean)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3115/2559983505_dfd549da32_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 178px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3115/2559983505_dfd549da32_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/steffe/" title=""><b>Steffe</b></a><br /><br />I'm sorry to have to post what will amount to two and a half days of updates here all at once. In order for it not to become one monumental post, I will try to break it up into several chunks. Not only because it is otherwise likely cumbersome for you to read, but also it seems a sisyphean task. Unfortunately, a hectic schedule since my last post here on Friday left me little time for the computer -- barely enough to keep up with email. Spending time repelling boarders here on the blog did not help.<br /><br />Last GA I attended, in Portland, I brought the laptop with me (I had a physically smaller one back then), and so I was able to type updates throughout the day as time permitted, and even take notes in session real-time, making it easier to transform into a post later. Having several free wireless networks in close range of the convention center helped, and carting the laptop in with me was not really an issue on the light rail. This time around, I have a larger machine, which does not fit in the trunk of the scooter which I rode back and forth to the convention center. Of course, the line for the Internet cafe at GA, open only during exhibit hall hours, made that an impossibility as well.<br /><br />Next time around, I really need to set things up so that I can post small snippets here from my BlackBerry (something I did not have last time). I did not think about this enough ahead of time, or else I'm certain I could have set it up for this go-round.<br /><br />In any case, onward to where I left off, on:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friday</span><br /><br />Louise did a great job of describing Plenary-III in her last post. I will only add that people giving reports need to learn to stick to their time allotments. To do otherwise is, frankly, disrespectful of the delegates' time. I'm quite certain that some delegates had already left the hall by the time we got around to actually conducting business, the very important debate and vote on the Peacemaking SOC, and those delegates later felt disenfranchised. As delegates, we take our responsibility to be in Plenary from start to finish, and so, at some level, we are held hostage to anyone placed on the podium during a Plenary session and their time-management skills. This is clearly an area for improvement as we re-imagine GA (more on that re-imagining later).<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/232736_df5a78459a_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 180px;" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/232736_df5a78459a_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/barb/" title=""><b>doctor paradox</b></a><br /><br />In any case, the Plenary ran over by half an hour, and, of course, we ran the clocks out more than once during the Peacemaking debate. It is perhaps the case that the body, which might otherwise have moved to extend time for debate even further, felt the pressure of the upcoming scheduled public witness bearing down upon them. I can't say having a more comfortable time margin, or more delegates in the room, would have changed the outcome. And, ultimately, I personally believe the decision to refer this one back to committee was the correct one -- I could not support it as it stood, and I don't really think the whole assembly could have amended it enough on the spot to make it right.<br /><br />Friday evening while Louise was in choir rehearsal, I attended the Kate Clinton comedy performance, which, as a recovering Roman Catholic like herself, I found uproariously funny. There were, perhaps, a couple of moments where she (we?) was, shall we say, somewhat less respectful of "other traditions" as we UU's should strive to be -- other <a href="http://blogs.uua.org/ga2009/2009/06/26/god-speaks-to-the-uus/">bloggers</a> have already made hay of this.<br /><br />We elected to skip the public witness, in order to eat dinner, and the Service of the Living Tradition because, again, it just ran too late. As Louise has already shared, it is just not reasonable to try to do something in every time slot at GA. This is a lesson we have both learned the hard way.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-28712716077470472892009-06-26T20:14:00.000-07:002009-06-29T16:33:37.955-07:00A much better day (Louise)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3283150360_1190fe1c0b_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 159px; height: 240px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3283150360_1190fe1c0b_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/9422878@N08/" title=""><b>Bill Gracey</b></a><br /><br />Ah, finally some meaty business at Plenary! Today we heard reports from a number of important committees and task forces, but not nearly as many as at some previous GAs. It felt like a good mix, and each report was fairly brief. In the past, a few groups have given their reports in the form of skits or songs, usually quite badly. Thankfully, all were pretty standard today. I don't mind a little humor or variety, but those often go hand-in-hand with taking too much time to say too little.<br /><br />The preliminary number of delegates attending this year is 1,928, and total folks registered is 3,349. I thought that was fewer than previous years, but can't find any notes here in the blog. Events and rooms definitely seem less crowded this year. Either the Salt Palace is plenty spacious, or the numbers are down, except for choir. Only 150 people are admitted into the choir this year, and there is a waiting list.<br /><br />Highlights for me today:<br /><br />The GA Service Project is the <a href="http://www.glccu.com/">Utah Pride Center</a>, a LGBT support group that grows each year. This year they held a Pride Prom, with over 700 youth attending. Queer youth are still at a higher risk of suicide, abuse and neglect, so having such a great place for them to hang out and receive love and support is worth our attention and money.<br /><br />Two great quotes from the Investment Committee: "We invest with the aim of tilting the world toward justice." "Greed and fear are not an investment strategy."<br /><br />In this tough economic year, the Shelter Rock UU congregation <span style="font-weight: bold;">increased</span> its gifts by over 3%. Shelter Rock, well, rocks!<br /><br />The musicians who played during the offering were super: <a href="http://www.emmasrevolution.com/">Emma's Revolution.</a> Indie Folkies singing inspiring protest songs. Then we sang "Standing on the Side of Love," one of my favorites, just for the joy of it.<br /><br />The voting part of the meeting was the debate on the Statement of Conscience (SOC), "Peacemaking." Ultimately, we voted to refer it to the committee on Social Witness, but not before much lively debate, a few moments of process confusion, and some deft moderating by Gini Courter. Very interesting and invigorating! I just love this stuff.<br /><br />I was especially proud when a Youth Caucus (YC) representative from my old congregation, The UU Church of Palo Alto, stood at the CON microphone to speak against an amendment. He stated that the YC so strongly opposed the amendment that if it passed, the YC would have to withdraw their support of the entire SOC. I was impressed that the YC could so clearly state their consensus and was prepared to do so. Interestingly, what they opposed was making the SOC too pacifist. That our youth have such a strongly realistic streak is amazing to me.<br /><br />After plenary, we ducked out to dinner at a local Mexican restaurant, the Blue Iguana. Then it was on to the third choir rehearsal. Note to self, for future reference: no Mexican food within an hour before singing. I kept hearing the meditation chant in my head, "When I breathe in, I breathe in peace. When I breathe out, I breathe out chips and salsa." Urp! Despite my being bloated, not devoted, we sound pretty good. I'm psyched that we'll be wearing stoles for the worship service, just like a real church choir.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/294168738_c78e1cea96_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 163px;" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/294168738_c78e1cea96_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mahalie/" title=""><b>mahalie</b></a><br /><br />The decision to skip the second half of UU University this morning was clearly the right thing to do. Having a little more sleep and then some downtime this morning for blogging, reading email and eating a leisurely breakfast really made a difference in my energy levels today. We also chose not to attend the Service of the Living Tradition, although it I had warm and fuzzy feelings just watching all the ministers line up in their formal academic and ministerial robes.<br /><br />I just need to remember this for next GA...I can't do everything. Plenaries, choir, booth duty, and a handful of worship services and special events are all I can handle. Leaving enough time for quality sleep and unrushed, healthy meals is vital.Louisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06306854459459257368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-17762712212536191582009-06-26T17:19:00.000-07:002009-06-26T17:30:00.822-07:00Comments are now moderatedRegrettably, we have had to turn comment moderation on due to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism">vandalism</a> on this blog.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">To Mr. Robin Edgar:</span><br /><br />Your permission to access this web site is hereby revoked. Any and all continued use by you of this site, including but not limited to the comment feature, reproduction of any site content elsewhere, or "hotlinking" of material on this site will be construed to be in violation of one or more of the following statutes:<br /><ul><li>Title 18 U.S.C., §§ 1001 and 1030</li><li>Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510(12)</li><li>Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710</li></ul><br />I do not care to engage in a debate with you. This is the final policy of the administrators of this web site. Any violations will be reported to your Internet access provider as abuse, as well as to any relevant jurisdictional authorities for criminal action.<br /><br />To everyone else: I apologize for this distracting diversion from our main focus here, and the resulting requirement for comment moderation.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-10348085272425848712009-06-26T09:55:00.000-07:002009-06-29T16:40:29.689-07:00Getting past the guilt (Sean)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2420/2388032929_75086d9425_m.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 160px;" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2420/2388032929_75086d9425_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Photo by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_gin/" title=""><b>Chris Gin</b></a><br /><br />Here it is 11am on Friday and I am still sitting in the bus typing on my computer. I am "supposed" to be, according to the schedule, in the second half of my chosen "UU University" track, "Theology for a secular age." And, actually, I would like to be there -- I really enjoyed the first half, held from 1-6 yesterday afternoon.<br /><br />I was already feeling some guilt from having missed opening ceremonies and in-gathering Wednesday evening, although then I had a better excuse, which involved an obligation of hospitality. When I got home much later than anticipated last night (more on this in a moment), I gave myself permission to sleep in just a little, telling myself that no real harm would come of missing, perhaps, the first hour of the track. That, I think, was the beginning of the end.<br /><br />Louise, who is also in the Theology track, was feeling so exhausted and crummy last night, that she bailed out of the convention center right after the candidates' forum, even though we had tickets for the farewell cocktail party for outgoing president Bill Sinkford. So she, too, slept in this morning, and, uncharacteristically, I was up first. We might well have made it to the Salt Palace by 9:30, thus missing 90 minutes of our four-hour session, had we not both launched into UU-blogger overdrive as a result of three blistering comments left here early this morning.<br /><br />It is, perhaps, poor judgment on my part to take action on such matters before my first cup of coffee has kicked in (and how do Mormons function in the morning, anyway -- Postum just doesn't cut it, IMO). But the comments were inappropriate and distracting, and so I deleted them, which took all of perhaps 30 seconds. The problem with that, of course, is that in typical over-apologetic UU fashion I then felt the need to explain my actions to all our readers, and that took something closer to an hour. By then, we looked at the clock and realized that we would catch, at most, an hour of our track before it ended, then come right back here for lunch (we need to walk the dog a couple times each day, so taking all our meals on-site is not in the cards). As much as I enjoyed the first half, we conceded defeat and decided to just remain home through the lunch hour.<br /><br />Further compounding the guilt associated with all this (yes, I'm a UU, but I grew up Catholic -- guilt is second nature), I had allowed to the CLF staff when I went by the booth yesterday that we were having difficulty finding any free hours in the schedule to do our booth duty, another part of our delegate commitment along with this blog. So in addition to feeling bad about missing our session, I can also beat my breast and say I <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> be sitting in the booth right now. Oh well.<br /><br />I do have to remind myself periodically that, even though we have certain commitments to meet as delegates, we did get here on our own nickle, are coughing up $200 for this camp site in order to attend, and paid the $700 registration out of our own pockets. So, at some level, what we do with our time outside of Plenary sessions (which we consider mandatory) is really our own choice. So I suppose that missing the second half of our track is really just a waste of part of our conference fee.<br /><br />As long as we made the choice to stay home for the morning, though, I am taking the opportunity to catch up on my reporting. Seriously, we are completely overbooked when we are here at GA (making me wonder why we thought sitting through UU University in the first place was a good idea), and even finding the time to update this blog is a challenge. If I don't do it regularly, though, I find that I lose track of everything I wanted to report.<br /><br />As I wrote here yesterday, our day started with Plenary-II, wherein no business was conducted but we did have a pleasant worship service followed by an introduction to UU University. Apparently, while previous UU University sessions have been well received, two concerns led to the decision to include the UU University program into the GA general program this year, unfettered by competing scheduled activities. The first was a desire to bring UU University to a much broader audience, and the second was a complaint that many could not find a way to schedule both.<br /><br />While I admire the motivation, and this was, perhaps, a good first effort, I do have some concerns about the format. We spent five hours in UU University yesterday, from 1-6. Even with two half-hour breaks (so, OK, it was really four hours), that's a long time to be couped up in a single venue with uncomfortable chairs. This morning's piece was another four hours, and spending that much more time in the same chair in the same room is definitely not something I missed by skipping this morning's session. I believe that breaking things up into shorter blocks spread across more of the schedule would have been preferable.<br /><br />I will also say that, out of six tracks, five were focused on congregational issues that, while not irrelevant to CLF, are difficult to translate to the ethereal realm in which CLF operates. This is why we both ended up together in the sixth track (normally, our sensibilities suggest a divide-and-conquer strategy, wherein we deliberately choose separate activities to increase the breadth of our experience as well as our reporting here).<br /><br />After Plenary we had, as always, a wonderful CLF worship service led by Rev. Jane Rzepka. When you have one worship service a year, you always make it a good one. This year's service featured a homily from Rev. Bill Schulz and music from a very talented group of soon-to-be credentialed (the very first ones!) musicians led by Sarah Dan Jones.<br /><br />We had one more session before lunch. Louise had choir practice, and I chose to attend a session on The Path to Immigration Reform, introduced by Rev. Abhi Janamanchi. Apparently, featured speaker Kim Bobo was unable to attend due to a last minute conflict, and in her place Alexia Salvatierra, a Lutheran minister from Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, gave a very interesting presentation on how current immigration policy is tearing apart immigrant families, ripping children from their parents and presenting lawful US residents with a Hobson's choice of following deported members to Mexico or living apart.<br /><br />The other speakers were somewhat drier, and I found the session as a whole to be very monotonous. I also felt that the "path" implied by the title was not really laid out -- the problem was well explained, but what we, as individual UUs or as congregations, can do to help, apart from the usual advice to hound your legislators, was not made clear. Episcopal minister Rev. Canon Pablo Ramos did a great job exposing the problem in the Salt Lake area, but failed to explain how UU's from elsewhere in the country can help. Also, clergy from other denominations did not appear to be well-briefed on the possibly non-Christian or even non-theistic makeup of part of their audience.<br /><br />We squeezed in a round trip to the bus for lunch and a dog walk into the allotted hour, and were back in time to start our UU University track. I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to summarize that here, other than to say that I found the speaker, Rev. Galen Guengerich (pronounced, as far as I could make out, the same as former house speaker Newt), from All Souls New York, to be entertaining and engaging. The program is available on DVD if you are interested, and we are thinking about getting one so we can pick up what we missed this morning.<br /><br />We had just an hour for dinner between the 6pm end of the session and the 7pm candidates' forum. The University track ended with a worship service, and just like my "bad Catholic" days, we sneaked out early to beat the dinner rush. We walked in to Olive Garden across the street at quarter to six and were seated immediately -- when we walked back out at 6:30 there was a line of UU's out the door.<br /><br />The candidates' forum was, to date, the most informative (if not engaging) element of GA. This was the first time either of us had heard either candidate speak, and I have to agree completely with Louise's earlier post on this matter -- neither of these candidates will fill the shoes vacated by Bill Sinkford. I, too, am leaning towards one candidate -- not the one towards whom I was leaning when we arrived. I do not want to overshare on this matter just yet -- stay tuned. I also intend to consult with some of the CLF congregational leadership before making a final decision and casting my ballot.<br /><br />In addition to hearing from the two presidential candidates for about 25 minutes apiece, we heard from the candidates for the two uncontested positions, Moderator and Financial Consultant, for a few minutes each. Gini Courter and Dan Brody are perfect fits for their respective positions, and I can share that I'd vote for each of them even in a contested race.<br /><br />After the forum, Louise was absolutely wiped out and went home, leaving me to carry the torch to the final donors' reception on Bill Sinkford's watch, making it something of a farewell party for him. Several carefully chosen speakers had a couple minutes each to share their memories of Bill's presidency (and candidacy), including CLF's own Denny Davidoff. And then we were all treated to a surprise, the Sinkford's included, when <a href="http://www.thepersuasions.net/">The Persuasions</a> entered the room singing. Apparently, this is Bill's all-time favorite group, and, courtesy of a handful of "angel" donors, a group of leadership that knew this about him arranged for this surprise farewell gift.<br /><br />The Persuasions launched into an extensive set, and I left after perhaps the tenth number. The song list was apparently culled from Bill's favorites by some stealthy means that I did not entirely follow. By the time I left, the entire party was dancing in the aisles.<br /><br />That put me home sometime past 11, which brings this story full circle. In a few minutes, we are off to the next Plenary.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13739298.post-42963455277331192842009-06-26T08:54:00.001-07:002009-06-26T09:55:12.929-07:00Rules for this blog (Sean)Apparently, we need to clarify what, exactly, this blog is (and is not).<br /><br />This blog, as we have stated here several times, exists primarily as our report to the CLF board, one of the requirements we must fulfill as delegates from that congregation. We chose the blog format because it suits us well, since we also blog our everyday life elsewhere, and also because it allows other CLF members (along with anyone else), the vast majority of whom can not come to GA, to follow along more-or-less as it happens. That put us among the very first UU bloggers, back in 2005, and due to the way we get indexed by search engines, there now appear to be quite a number of UU's following along, including many other UU bloggers. Welcome, welcome all.<br /><br />Because this is <span style="font-style: italic;">our</span> blog, it is also <span style="font-style: italic;">our</span> forum for speaking on UU issues. We consider our opinions on all such matters to be an integral part of our required report to our congregation.<br /><br />We invite thoughtful comments on what we've posted. If we've made factual errors, or mis-reported something, that is certainly worthy of commentary. Likewise, if we have stated an opinion on which you'd like to comment, that is also appropriate. Lastly, encouragement or constructive suggestions for the reporting process, especially from CLF members, is also welcome.<br /><br />What this blog is <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span>, however, is a public forum for commentary on GA or on UU issues in general. This is not a bulletin board or a chat room, neither is it a bully pulpit for anyone else's opinions other than our own (you are certainly welcome to get your <span style="font-style: italic;">own</span> blog for that, and we along with our readers can then decide for ourselves whether to follow along).<br /><br />Accordingly, I have just deleted three comments here that were, to my eye, unrelated in any way to the content of the posts to which they were supposedly commentary. They appeared to me to be "spam" -- by which I mean an attempt to use our blog to reach our readers with someone else's message. In this case, these were comments by a UU (or former UU) who clearly has some grievances (although, I assume, not with us personally), and I have deleted them without prejudice -- I have no idea whether these grievances are legitimate or not, and deleting them is not in any way an expression of judgment of their veracity, nor is it intended to diminish the commenter's inherent worth or dignity.<br /><br />Like (we presume) most UU's, we are sensitive to the plight of our fellow (wo)man, to include the grievances of UU's with the UUA or their individual congregations. And we are willing to listen to those stories as we are able -- again, like most UU's, we dedicate a particular segment of our lives to helping others less fortunate than ourselves. But co-opting our report to the CLF is not an appropriate mechanism for getting our attention.<br /><br />Again, we do not want to stifle legitimate commentary on this blog, and, for the time being, we are leaving comments open and unmoderated. As always, we reserve the right to delete any comments for any reason we see fit, even as our actions in this regard remain informed by our guiding principles.Seanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17930398671280529448noreply@blogger.com0