Where are the villains?

First in a series of posts on the January Board meeting. Portions of this post were previously sent in private correspondence to a UU member.

In January the Board voted to affirm the choice of Fort Lauderdale as the site of this summer's General Assembly (GA). As a UU member said to me today "the GA Planning Committee has done the best they can with a very difficult situation".

I agree. You can find an excellent set of frequently asked questions about the conditions, precautions, and considerations about this year's GA on the UUA site.

I was part of the decision making with two different major conferences in the late 1980s after then Governor Evan Mecham rescinded Martin Luther King Day in Arizona. Though the dollar amounts were not as great, they were significant, and a stand worth taking with a clearly defined goal - and a clearly defined villain.

Quoting one of my fellow board members, there are no villains here. Four years ago the GA Planning Committee recommended the site for all the right reasons: multicultural, gay-friendly, inexpensive; and the Board agreed. The City of Fort Lauderdale and their convention bureau are not any more interested in having their facility in a security zone than we are - and could not envision that it would take 7 years to address the issue (a road by-passing security is supposed to be finished in 2011). The Bush administration? Well, yes, but I doubt they care much about UU conventions in Forth Lauderdale or would be the least bit impacted by our decisions.

So I look for the clearly defined goal. We move the site for what purpose? To put pressure on the current administration so that they no longer secure our ports? Or do what with those who have no IDs? To force the Convention Center - to do what? It appears to be a fairly internal one - that each of us can follow our conscience, rejecting white privilege by standing by delegates that could be turned away for lack of an ID, and/or asserting our right to not have to show an ID to worship. Obviously the strength of feeling on this across our membership varies. I have full respect and admiration for both positions, but my personal preference is to put my energy into battles that achieve more than that. If moving GA is the remedy, I strongly suspect we will accomplish nothing for those without ID that truly improves the situation for them. From an external perspective, it may just look like we made a mistake by holding the assembly in a place that had even the possibility of a security check. I am hoping this controversy has sensitized and energized enough people that the "teaching moments" at GA will result in real change.

From a board perspective, I do share the fiduciary responsibility for the financial health of the UUA. The nearly $1 million penalty we would incur if we attempted to move GA is 1/7 of this year's annual program fund - one seventh of all the money contributed to the UUA by the 1043 congregations that make up the UUA membership. Who would make it up? How would the members feel who do not feel as strongly about this issue feel about having to pay significantly more for registration (the estimate is that it would double because of the late date and the fact that Ft. Lauderdale is so inexpensive) or could be called on to contribute more to keep the organization viable?

I understand the dilemma of wanting to stand by those who are denied the privilege of an ID. But I also think every time I fly I am invoking a privilege - every time I cash a pension check, or take a write-off on taxes for home ownership, or collect rent money on the property I own. I could renounce all material wealth and live on the street in solidarity with the homeless - or use my privilege for a "greater good". Part of what I love about this faith is that it continues to challenge me to address the greater good.

Next post: Policy Governance as Holy Work

January UUA Board Meeting

Four more packed days at 25 Beacon! Items on the agenda at this Board meeting included access to General Assembly at Ft. Lauderdale, the degree to which we are providing leadership in anti-racist/anti-oppression/multicultural changes within our faith, new investment policies, and a very intriguing session on Policy Governance as Holy Work. These (and more) will be posted over the next few weeks.

Update on GA Security

In case you have not seen it from other sources, there is an excellent (and updated) post in UUWorld Online about the security concerns at General Assembly in Forth Lauderdale.

Are we part of a larger movement? GA Access

This post started out as a way to generate discussion around some way of providing recognition to organizations with UU values that identified them as part of a larger UU movement - whether or not they were an Independent Affiliate (former or not). That discussion still needs to take place, but I am finding much of the "Sturm und Drang" of this discussion centers around General Assembly, its delegates, and the meaning of congregational polity.

Do (the former) "Independent Affiliates carry the vision and the work of UUism into the world, and to a larger pool of UUs at GA, in ways that congregations cannot" as the Rev. Kurt Kuhwald points out in his response to an earlier post? Or do they have "the undesirable of effect of creating pseudo-congregations, groups who had influence on the governance of the Association without having a degree of accountability equal to the member congregations" as Keith Goheen asserts in a November 23 post to the UU Historical Society chat list.

Does the IA presence provide a valuable education service to GA attendees, or does it divert them from what should be their primary role in focusing on governing an association of congregations?

What we are talking about here is access to several thousand attendees at GA. In other circles this would be referred to as lobbying. Having been one on Capitol Hill in a previous life, I never identified with Jack Abramhoff, but rather thought of myself as being a valuable resource on a complicated topic that was not well understood by the senators, representatives, and staffers who were making legislative decisions about that topic - and that my presence helped prevent what could be some serious mistakes based on lack of information. Others viewed it as a not so subtle attempt on the part of special interest groups to influence legislation. And while I can already hear the cries of "we are not special interests, we are the embodiment of UU values!" I would point out that many (legislative) lobbyists feel exactly the same way.

Does the [special interest lobbying] presence provide a valuable education service to [Congress], or does it divert them from what should be their primary role in focusing on [policy making for the United States]?

Now imagine that taxpayer money was used to subsidize the workshop and meeting space for these lobbyists while Congress was in session and you may have a sense of the indignation expressed by some UUs over what Goheen described as "the World's Fair of Unitarian Universalism...[rather than] a council model wherein thoughtful church
leaders assemble to reflect on and devise means by which the congregations
improve their individual and collective health."

I empathize with both views. Delegation selection is a haphazard and apathetic process in far too many congregations. Given a choice between a plenary session and a great workshop, even some delegates vote with their feet. If we really think we are going to be governed by congregational representation, we need serious change. Perhaps shifting the focus at GA from special interests to thoughtful discourse will do that - but I doubt it. I think it means that even fewer people would attend GA, with fewer of us talking to ourselves.

This "World's Fair of Unitarian Universalism" has inspired more first time (and multi time) UUs than "thoughtful reflection" could dream of. Particularly for us "comer-inners", GA provides a cacophony of sounds, sights, joy, diversity, conflict, and meaning that opens up the world. If we are to survive, we have to walk the line between inspiring a larger community of UUs and what may feel to long-timers as a sacrilege of our historical roots.

Who sets the vision?

First is a series of posts following discussion with the Pacific Central District Board

The UUA Board is in the process of moving to policy-based governance, currently establishing executive limitations (which we are calling “Global Leadership Covenant and Expectations”) and expecting to fully operate in this mode by 2009. One of the major changes in the standard Carver model from the current view is that the Board, not the President, is responsible for setting the vision, working with the congregations to do so. This vision is then codified into a set of statements generally referred to as "ends". This is a very different model than that of traditional business institutions, where a CEO is often hired because of his or her "vision" of what the company should be, and is expected to inspire employees, investors, and often customers to implement it successfully.

A fundamental difference with non-profits (including churches) is that "customers", "investors", and "employees" become very muddy terms that do not translate well to a non-profit model. It may be totally realistic for a CEO to take a light bulb company and turn it into a multinational conglomerate selling everything from entertainment to jet engines (as General Electric has evolved) but member congregations (an amalgamation of "customers", "investors", and "employees/volunteers") might not feel the UUA should be branching out beyond its core mission - however that is defined.

In many ways the UUA has already acted in a "carveresque" manner through the various proposals, resolutions and study groups that are passed or created at the General Assembly - input that comes directly from the congregational delegates that can create a shift in policy and/or direction. The Board is expected to provide resources for these resolutions, and the President and Staff to see that they are implemented, which is in line with pure "Carver", though the Board's role in the detail of the numbers may not be. The Board began a more deliberate visioning process at Portland GA with the “open space” technology sessions which began to create the ends under which we will operate.

Is this realistic? To what degree are our congregations served by a "strong president" who may bring his or her own visions of what the UUA should be? How much flexibility should be inherent in the "ends"? How should the Board engage with congregations to further this kind of work? Do we start with a blank sheet of paper (as the open space technology did) or utilize the "best and brightest" of our lay and ministerial leaders to create ends that could be debated and revised by our congregations?

Next post: do we need to be part of a larger movement?

The Eclectic Cleric: "Congregations Count"

The Eclectic Cleric: "Congregations Count"

In the "Shameless Promotion" department...

I just discovered the above link, which is a review of my General Assembly Workshop, "Congregations Count" about using process data to better direct membership efforts. This person does an excellent job of describing the workshop, and more importantly has some great additional insight into what this work is about. I have had good response on the workshop, which has been presented a number of times (including a couple of conference call workshops). I have a standard request at the end of each workshop: send me your data so I can refine the ranges for the benchmarks, which will make the concepts more useful for everyone. At GA I gave out 30 CDs, with the caveat that the takers would provide me their data - so far, zero.

Check out the Eclectic Cleric's post, and if you want to hear/see the presentation, go to Congregations Count where you can download both the presentation and the audio of me presenting it (which includes a lot of material not on the slides). And send me your data!

White Privilege

Third in a series of posts from the UUA October Board meeting

I am still pondering something that happened during the UUA board meeting a few weeks ago.

I am well acquainted with the concept of privilege as something relatively unrecognized by the one who has it. I remember being a 26 year old telephone installation supervisor, the only female supervisor in a garage of men, being shown how to check the oil on my truck by my well-meaning manager.

I had been changing the oil in trucks since I was 14.

My boss did not mean to be unkind – it was just assumed that I would not know because I was a woman. This happened repeatedly, sometimes fairly and sometimes not. It was not until I started going out for a few beers on Friday afternoons with my male counterparts, and got to know them well enough for them to be honest, that I found out they didn’t know a lot of stuff either. But because people assumed a big strapping guy with a firm handshake and hearty voice did know what he was doing, he was seldom called on the carpet to prove it.

But back to the Board meeting.

Somewhat to our dismay, the Board has learned that the security conditions surrounding the Fort Lauderdale General Assembly site still include the need for a government issued photo ID. Viewed primarily as an annoyance by most of us, it meant something different to most if not all of our board members of color.

I have personally not been singled out for special security measures because of my color or ethnicity, nor jerked from a car and pushed on the ground because I was in the wrong neighborhood, nor questioned suspiciously about my citizenship at a border crossing. If I had, I might not be so cavalier about how “normal” this was in this day and age (try flying lately?) or so quick to feel confident that the people in charge would insure nothing bad happened. And I might – just might – try not to “fix” the pain reflected in these experiences.

I also have not lost substantial numbers of family and friends to violence, whether it is in urban neighborhoods, the Holocaust, or current genocides. There is much pain here.

A phrase sticks with me from a workshop at the Portland General Assembly: “The soul does not need to be fixed. The soul needs to be heard.” As I told one of the participants, I learned something from the Board exchange that I will continue to think about – I am just sorry that I learned it at someone else’s expense.

I did hear you.