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

Creating New "Ends"

Third in a series of posts about the October 2012 UUA Board meeting

 I walked into this board meeting with a different set of expectations around crafting "Ends".  This was confirmed by the training with Susan Radwan, who stated flatly "ends are not about your theology, philosophy, or vision -- they are instructions to your President", echoing John Carver.

What is the net added value of the Association?  What impact does it have that a single individual congregation could not do alone?

I would maintain that a single congregation could do an excellent job of helping its members "develop a personal spiritual practice, participate in meaningful worship, learn and practice empowered leadership and generosity", and "find their ministry in the world" (Policy 1.0.1.1) without the UUA. I have no doubt they exist already.  What they likely could not do is develop a library of resources for their professional and lay leaders to weather the inevitable changes and storms that are part of congregational life.  So perhaps the End is about "congregations with the resources they need to live their missions" (one of the preliminary draft ends written at the meeting). 

Likewise, an individual congregation could also be "embracing and struggling with issues of oppression and privilege" (Policy 1.0.1.2c) with the UUA, but it would be more difficult for an entire system of congregations to do so, or to be  "congregations engaged and effective in focused, sustainable social justice work done collaboratively....with UU components, inter-faith and other partners" (another initial draft policy).  For example, would UU congregations be so widely supportive of the BGLTQ community without such programs as becoming a Welcoming Congregation? 

Teams of UUA board and staff are in the process of writing draft Ends in four teams based on the purpose statement of the Association:  1) serving the needs of its member congregations, 2) organizing new congregations, 3) extending and strengthening Unitarian institutions, and 4) implementing its principles.  A smaller team will craft these into a more cohesive framework for the Board to adopt in January.  The Ends will then be taken to our Sources of Authority and Accountability for feedback.  A final version is expected to be adopted in June.


Part of me still wants the poetry (and that may still be possible).  I hold the poetry partly responsible for the difficulty board and staff have had in evaluating our progress towards Ends that are not only difficult to measure, but probably not within the Association's direct "circle of influence". 

Next post:  You want to talk to WHO?  Operating definitions for non-congregational Sources

"This is why I joined the Board"

Second in a series of posts about the October 2012 UUA Board meeting

The above quote from one of our newer board members summed up the general sense of the UUA board.  For many of us, it felt like our focus was on the right things.

One of those "right things" for me was the full day spent on multicultural training, with Crossroads Antiracism Organizing and Training.  I have been in multiple trainings of this type, and found this the most useful of any I have experienced since I joined the board.  It gave me a framework (my strong N on the Meyers-Briggs) for navigating the complexities of really being a multicultural faith.  Crossroads compared the institutional values underlying cultural dominance with those of one with what they called "critical cultural competencies":

• From "either/or" to "both/and"
• From a scarcity mentality to an abundant worldview
• From competitive individualism to collaboration and cooperation that nurtures individual creativity
• From secrecy to transparent communication and decision-making, while safe-guarding person integrity
• From Institutions of cultural dominance that are focused on self preservation with a bias towards efficiency, to institutions with cultural competencies that are focused on their mission with a bias towards effectiveness. 

Though we all know that being multicultural is not as simple as doing a service that incorporates Dia de los Muertos, including readings by African Americans, or including Jewish High Holy Days, there is real utility to me in thinking of our congregations as having a dominant culture (which most of us can easily identify), and then thinking about who is inside of that "box", who is outside of it, and how we might blur the separation.  I am not suggesting we try to be all things to all people, but rather that we choose who we want to be and who feels included on the basis of our values, not our style of worship or music.

Next post:  creating new Ends