Listening to our Sources

Fifth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting

The new draft of the UUA "ends" took into account a lot of feedback from various groups we are accountable to (think "Gathered Here" and  the World Cafe with Youth as two of them) - and we want more.

The District Presidents Association (DPA), our partners in linking with member  congregations, is currently in the process of contacting nearly 100 congregations across the US to get their feedback on these new outcomes.  We have surveys going out to Young Adults and unaffiliated UUs (those who identify as UU but are not currently a member of a congregation), focus groups with Youth and Liberal Religious Educators Association (LREDA) members; interviews with members of various affinity groups, historians, and theologians, as well as an opportunity for anyone who wants to, to weigh in (see below).  Much of the work on the "non-congregational Sources" has been with Unity Consulting, who are creating a set of methodologies for a smaller post-June board to be able to continue this kind of dialogue.

Will the UUA Board actually use this feedback?  Yes.  A group of 5 UUA trustees and 3 DPA presidents will spend several weeks in early April making "meaning" of the feedback, i.e.:  looking for common themes. This will be provided to the Board at the April meeting, and the same group will spend most of May identifying recommendations for potential changes to these draft ends. 

Let your voice be heard!  You can click here to provide your own feedback on why the UUA exists. 

Why the UUA exists

Fourth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board Meeting

 

-->A healthy network of covenanted Unitarian Universalist congregations and covenanted communities, in accountable relationships and alive with transforming power, moving our local communities and the world towards more love, justice, and peace at a justifiable cost that does not undermine long term sustainability. 
 

A significant shift in the Board's thinking about the Association's outcomes ("ends") was in focusing on the value added by the Association, not the differences made by its member congregations.  Rather than thinking about the above as the UUA mission or vision statement, think of it as the Board's instructions to the Administration.  Note the terms "networks", "covenanted communities" and "covenanted UU congregations".  We defined "covenanted communities" as:

Covenanted Communities: The basis of a Unitarian Universalist congregation is not creed, but covenant.  The term “covenanted communities” includes congregations, and also includes other Unitarian Universalist communities--external to, or overlapping with, congregations--who have a covenant, but are not currently defined as formal congregational status, under UUA bylaws.

The remaining statements provide more detail about this overall outcome:

1.1 Congregations have and use UUA resources necessary to enhance the spiritual and religious exploration by people in their communities and to enhance the ministry of their members.
1.2 Congregations are better able to achieve their missions and to spread awareness of UU ideals and principles through their participation in covenanted networks of UU congregations and covenanted communities
1.3 Congregations are intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities.
1.4 Net increase in the number of people served by our congregations and covenanted communities.
1.5 Net increase in the number of mutually covenanted congregations.
1.6 Net increase in inspired religious leaders equipped to effectively start and sustain new covenanted communities.
1.7 UU institutions are healthy, vital, collaborative partners invested in the future of UUism, its principles and theologies.

The next few months will be spent getting feedback on these outcomes -- I will explain how we are doing it in the next post.  Your feedback is always welcome, either as a comment to this one, or to llaskowski@uua.org.  

 

Third in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting

This was the fourth -- and last -- report from the President on the "ends" adopted by the UUA Board in 2009.  This report did what the Board has asked for:  establish a "reasonable" standard for compliance and then measure to that standard.  Mostly using a standard that at least 50% of the respondents to two nation-wide surveys (one of which included Youth, Young Adults, and People of Color) would rate their perception of whether or not that outcome was actually happening, the result was that half of the outcomes showed "non-compliance".

Surveys have their own set of issues, but it's a start.  Interestingly, most of the non-compliance by this definition was not about what was happening within congregations, but rather in the intersection between congregations and the outside world, UU or not. Non-compliant areas included whether or not our congregations were perceived as multicultural and "struggling with issues of oppression and privilege", active participants in ministerial preparation and development, growing in membership, and "living their mission in their communities", as well as all of the outcomes that are part of living "in covenant with other congregations in our Association".  Also included as non-compliant was the outcome of congregations involved in "national or international efforts", and working in interfaith partnerships or alliances.  So far is anyone surprised?

What was not included in the report was a plan to address the non-compliance, which the board has asked for in the next few months.  This as an excellent opportunity to have meaningful discussions about serious issues within the Association, and what the Administration has been doing to address those issues.

The Board has been resistant to doing that in the past because it was not linked to data-driven standards.  In the not so distant past, board meetings would be filled with presentations from staff around programs being developed and implemented.  The board has pushed back, refocusing on the differences we want to make as an Association.  How do we know that these are the right programs, and that we are spending our resources in a way that will move us closer to the kind of outcomes board and staff agree on?  It's a little like having a house with structural problems that you want remediated, and the contractor brings you a list of projects that could be done on the house without any connection to whether or not this will enhance the structural integrity of the house.

For example, the Administration has been doing excellent work with a number of organizations around a strategic review of ministry. What part of moving to our shared vision does this address?  How can we determine if what we are putting in place is moving us toward "living in covenant with other congregations in the Association", or "working in interfaith partnerships or alliances"?  We understand these are long term goals, but being accountable to our member congregations and other Sources means achieving some indication that the programs are working -- or when we will know if they are.   

How we gather

Second in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting

In 2009 the Fifth Principle Task Force presented their report with the refrain "the status quo is not an option". Task Force chair Denny Davidoff even threatened to propose revoking the UU fifth principle if something was not done to how we governed ourselves at General Assemblies.

General Assembly governance is still mostly "status quo", Justice GA notwithstanding.  Faced with a two year change process for the by-laws that govern GA plenaries, the board delayed action until after last summer's assembly.

It appears most of the recommendations will not be taken up any time soon.  We will still have delegates that are mostly self-funded, excluding those without the time or resources to get there, and often chosen because they were going, with little or no guidance from, or attempt to represent, their congregations.

Though an excellent piece of work, the recommendations were, as the Board requested, about governance.  What has become clear is that separating how we govern from how we gather is not only a leap for most of our GA attendees, but the two are synergistic.  Exciting workshops and opportunities for affinity groups to meet create a "buzz" that adds to the experience even for those addicted to by-laws.  Large annual gatherings of some sort create opportunities for critical mass for some of our smallest minority groups -- creating connections to each other that strengthen our faith. 

This theme was emphasized multiple times by the various groups invited to speak to the board on Friday:  Young Adults, members of DRUUMM, the District Presidents Association, and the UU Ministers Association. 

There is still agreement that there needs to be change in terms of how we choose delegates and hold them accountable.  I expect significant discussion at General Assembly in June  -- but don't expect any votes around Fifth Principle recommendations. 

The Last January

First in a series of blogs about the January 2013 UUA Board meeting

For me that is – this will be the sixth January UUA Board meeting before I leave the board in June as part of our downsizing to a more manageable (and effective) number of trustees. 

This board meeting includes finalizing a large number of proposals for by-laws changes.    There are bold ones (the combination of three “Mid-America” districts into one region, assuming passage by their member congregations) and others that we think reflect what delegates have already approved (electronic voting). We will not be submitting by-laws changes around General Assembly, but rather continuing what is a fairly complex conversation.

The meeting also kicks off the start of intensive dialogues on the impacts of the Association (the “Ends”) with the Board’s Sources of Authority and Accountability (what John Carver calls “moral owners”), with our DPA partners and through the work done with Unity Consulting around the voices of our other 4 “sources”.  You can expect to see a variety of ways to comment on these desired outcomes over the next few months, with the final "Ends" adopted at the June board meeting. 

It seems appropriate that my first January meeting in 2008 included "Policy Governance as Holy Work", which resulted in the first set of outcomes (Ends) for the Association.  Check back over the next few weeks -- the entire packet can be downloaded here. 

Coming Alive

Sixth in a series of posts about the October UUA Board meeting

A 14 year old girl lives her values by refusing to exclude someone who is considered “undesirable” in the culture of the country she is visiting.

A demonstrator refuses to ignore the humanity of the policeman who is there to keep the laws that will likely be broken during the demonstration.

A couple just “can’t not” help someone who is physically and emotionally exhausted.

These are just a few of the over 160 stories that were collected over the past year and a half in Gathered Here.  Many more came from 70 community events whose outputs were fed back via the UUA website – in total, nearly 1200 documented conversations, with many more that were not documented.  Led by nationally known Appreciative Inquiry consultant Amanda Trosten-Bloom, these stories went through a process of “meaning making” that identified attributes of our “positive core”:  when we are at our best as Unitarian Universalists. 

We are at our best when we:

• Grow into our best selves and honor the divine in each person
• Practice “spiritual justice”:  justice-making in faith and worship
• Embrace fellow travelers within and beyond our faith, building community together
• Proactively invite people to share themselves and their gifts
• Have such a strong sense of our religious purpose and identity that we must act on it
• Covenant together to create sustained relationship across all ages and cultures
• Transcend geographic, national, and language barriers
• Experience spiritual depth, individually and collectively

Each statement about the “positive core” is explained and illustrated more fully in the Gathered Here Summary Report. 

The October board conversation about the added value of the Association started with Gathered Here.  We are deeply appreciative of all those who participated in the Gathered Here conversations, and our partners and sponsors.

You want to talk to WHO?

Fourth in a series of posts about the October UUA Board meeting

Forgive the grammar.  We want to talk to our vision of Beloved Community.  And the heritage, tradition, and ideals of Unitarian Universalism.  And current and future generations of Unitarian Universalists, as well as the Spirit of life, love, and the holy.


When the UUA Board first identified four groups we were accountable to in addition to our member congregations, reactions from outside the Board varied from thinking only member congregations counted, to appreciating the poetry, to averring that we should be accountable only to our mission.  We called the five groups "sources of authority and accountability" (Sources), avoiding the Carver term "moral owners" because of its historical connotation with slavery.  I suspect almost no one expected us to actually be in some sort of dialogue with these Sources.

With significant guidance from Unity Consulting, a small team from the Board has been identifying methodologies to do just that.   The Board approved working definitions of these Sources (what are their voices?  how do they speak?) at this past meeting.  We anticipate using these working definitions to get valuable feedback from all of our Sources on the draft ends from next January's meeting.

For example, what might the heritage, traditions, and ideals of Unitarian Universalism think about the definition of a congregation?  The Source operating definition identifies a number of places we might look, including the writings of historical figures, UU historians, minutes and actions of the UUA Board, Administration, and General Assembly, our hymnals, and our by-laws (note this is not a comprehensive list).  While we acknowledge times have changed (would our forbears have envisioned a virtual congregation?), there are underlying values that are important, such as the role of covenant.

I might find less guidance from this Source if I am looking for values around an End on a global faith (I made this up -- the Ends are in the process of being written and this may or may not be on the list).  We already know from Gathered Here that Current and Future Generations have something to say about it.  Envisioning a future faith that did not have geographic boundaries was mentioned far more by Youth and Young Adults in Gathered Here conversations.

What might the Spirit of life, love, and the holy say about "a religious faith-based perspective to public discourse and a deepening theology for justice and community-building movements", another early draft of an End?

I think I will meditate on that. 

Next post:  what makes us come alive