Wednesday, January 23, 2008
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
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.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
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 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?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
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!
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!
Thursday, November 1, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Independent Affiliate Revisited
Second in a series of posts about the October 2007 UUA Board Meeting
One of the more interesting things about Unitarian Universalism is that we are a covenantal faith, which to me means that I choose to be part of this organization because I support its purpose, and also promise to take the time to delve deeper into what that is and how I am part of it. In turn, our congregations covenant to “promis[e] to one another our trust and support”, though at times it feels we have forgotten that part of it as we each focus on our own congregations, their needs, and our immediate community. With the idea of “covenant” in mind, I wonder which organizations (other than our congregations) would be in the category of ones we would choose to covenant with as a UUA Board? Which ones are clearly in line with the purpose of the UUA to serve congregations, and would merit (and be willing to take) the time to delve deeper with us into what exactly serving congregations means?
I am intentionally including a list of the (former and current) independent affiliates (IAs) at the end of this posting, to the extent they have been posted to the UUA website. Rather than scan it for your favorites, I would ask you to look at how long it is. Can a Board of Trustees really have meaningful collaboration with nearly 50 independent organizations?
Why would the Board even walk into this buzz saw? The easiest thing for us would be to react to whatever came before it, continuing a system by which Affiliates were actually encouraged to remain separate (more workshop slots, more opportunities for exposure), even though they may have had few resources and would have benefited from collaborating. I suspect few UUs have even heard of half of the organizations on the list. [Heard at the Board meeting: “I am getting these calls that this person just found out that [Organization X ] exists, and now they are really mad because we are not making it an affiliate.”]
The problem appears to be that there is an accrued set of privileges that have come with the designation of “independent affiliate”: a slot at General Assembly (GA), a link to the UUA website, participation in health and retirement plans, and a perceived “stamp” of credibility. The Board has taken the position that this is not the intent of the IA designation, particularly since these “benefits” are provided by organizations other than the Board.
The problem with this view (in my “not speaking for the board” opinion) is that it ignores the reality that the perceived benefits of the designation, whether or not appropriate, were real. Fortunately, the Board has already addressed the health and retirement plan benefits issue by adding a provision by which a former affiliate can be considered for inclusion in health and retirement plans by petitioning the treasurer, who then recommends to the Board. This is a great start. The GA planning committee has added extra slots for former IAs – though they need to compete for workshop time, this was likely to happen anyway as workshop requests outstrip available facilities.
What is left is the credibility issue, and whatever benefit there might be in linking websites. How might the Board think “outside the box” to address this? To what degree do congregations want to be identified as part of a larger movement? What is the best way to do this? What exactly is the value that a linkage to the UUA brings to outside organizations? What value do these organizations bring to our congregations? I will be interested in your comments, disagreements and ideas.
Next post: White Privilege
List of UUA Affiliates Per UUA Website
(Note this does not include Associate or UU Professional Organizations)
• Council of UU Camps and Conferences
• Sunset Hall, Incorporated
• Unitarian Universalist Religious Naturalists
• Unitarian Service Pension Society
• Bethany Union For Young Women
• Channing-Murray Foundation
• Collegium
• Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists
• Council on Church Staff Finances
• Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans
• Diverse Revolutionary UU Multicultural Ministries
• Ferry Beach Association
• Hale Barnard Corporation
• HUUmanists Association NFP
• Interweave Continental
• Lambda Ministers Guild
• Latina/o Networking Association
• Murray Grove Association
• New York State Convention of Universalists
• New Massachusetts Universalist Convention
• Pennsylvania Universalist Convention
• Project Harvest Hope
• Promise the Children, Incorporated
• Southwest Unitarian Universalist Women
• The Mountain Retreat & Learning Center, Inc.
• The Magi Network
• The Society for Ministerial Relief
• UNIQUEST
• Unitarian Universalist Affordable Housing Corporation
• Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship
• Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
• Unitarian Universalist Historical Society
• Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, California
• Unitarian Universalist Men’s Network
• Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth*
• Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council*
• Unitarian Universalist Process Theology Network
• Unitarian Universalist Psi Symposium
• Unitarian Universalist Small Group Ministry Network*
• Unitarian Universalist Urban Ministry
• Unitarian Universalist Women & Religion
• Unitarian Universalist Women’s Heritage Society
• Unitarian Universalists for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
• Unitarian Universalist Council on Church Staff Finances
• Unitarian Universalists for Drug Policy Reform
• Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness
• Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East
• Universalist Convocations
Organizations in bold have been accepted under the revised definition of “Independent Affiliate”
*considered at UUA October Board meeting
One of the more interesting things about Unitarian Universalism is that we are a covenantal faith, which to me means that I choose to be part of this organization because I support its purpose, and also promise to take the time to delve deeper into what that is and how I am part of it. In turn, our congregations covenant to “promis[e] to one another our trust and support”, though at times it feels we have forgotten that part of it as we each focus on our own congregations, their needs, and our immediate community. With the idea of “covenant” in mind, I wonder which organizations (other than our congregations) would be in the category of ones we would choose to covenant with as a UUA Board? Which ones are clearly in line with the purpose of the UUA to serve congregations, and would merit (and be willing to take) the time to delve deeper with us into what exactly serving congregations means?
I am intentionally including a list of the (former and current) independent affiliates (IAs) at the end of this posting, to the extent they have been posted to the UUA website. Rather than scan it for your favorites, I would ask you to look at how long it is. Can a Board of Trustees really have meaningful collaboration with nearly 50 independent organizations?
Why would the Board even walk into this buzz saw? The easiest thing for us would be to react to whatever came before it, continuing a system by which Affiliates were actually encouraged to remain separate (more workshop slots, more opportunities for exposure), even though they may have had few resources and would have benefited from collaborating. I suspect few UUs have even heard of half of the organizations on the list. [Heard at the Board meeting: “I am getting these calls that this person just found out that [Organization X ] exists, and now they are really mad because we are not making it an affiliate.”]
The problem appears to be that there is an accrued set of privileges that have come with the designation of “independent affiliate”: a slot at General Assembly (GA), a link to the UUA website, participation in health and retirement plans, and a perceived “stamp” of credibility. The Board has taken the position that this is not the intent of the IA designation, particularly since these “benefits” are provided by organizations other than the Board.
The problem with this view (in my “not speaking for the board” opinion) is that it ignores the reality that the perceived benefits of the designation, whether or not appropriate, were real. Fortunately, the Board has already addressed the health and retirement plan benefits issue by adding a provision by which a former affiliate can be considered for inclusion in health and retirement plans by petitioning the treasurer, who then recommends to the Board. This is a great start. The GA planning committee has added extra slots for former IAs – though they need to compete for workshop time, this was likely to happen anyway as workshop requests outstrip available facilities.
What is left is the credibility issue, and whatever benefit there might be in linking websites. How might the Board think “outside the box” to address this? To what degree do congregations want to be identified as part of a larger movement? What is the best way to do this? What exactly is the value that a linkage to the UUA brings to outside organizations? What value do these organizations bring to our congregations? I will be interested in your comments, disagreements and ideas.
Next post: White Privilege
List of UUA Affiliates Per UUA Website
(Note this does not include Associate or UU Professional Organizations)
• Council of UU Camps and Conferences
• Sunset Hall, Incorporated
• Unitarian Universalist Religious Naturalists
• Unitarian Service Pension Society
• Bethany Union For Young Women
• Channing-Murray Foundation
• Collegium
• Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists
• Council on Church Staff Finances
• Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans
• Diverse Revolutionary UU Multicultural Ministries
• Ferry Beach Association
• Hale Barnard Corporation
• HUUmanists Association NFP
• Interweave Continental
• Lambda Ministers Guild
• Latina/o Networking Association
• Murray Grove Association
• New York State Convention of Universalists
• New Massachusetts Universalist Convention
• Pennsylvania Universalist Convention
• Project Harvest Hope
• Promise the Children, Incorporated
• Southwest Unitarian Universalist Women
• The Mountain Retreat & Learning Center, Inc.
• The Magi Network
• The Society for Ministerial Relief
• UNIQUEST
• Unitarian Universalist Affordable Housing Corporation
• Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship
• Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
• Unitarian Universalist Historical Society
• Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, California
• Unitarian Universalist Men’s Network
• Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth*
• Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council*
• Unitarian Universalist Process Theology Network
• Unitarian Universalist Psi Symposium
• Unitarian Universalist Small Group Ministry Network*
• Unitarian Universalist Urban Ministry
• Unitarian Universalist Women & Religion
• Unitarian Universalist Women’s Heritage Society
• Unitarian Universalists for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
• Unitarian Universalist Council on Church Staff Finances
• Unitarian Universalists for Drug Policy Reform
• Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness
• Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East
• Universalist Convocations
Organizations in bold have been accepted under the revised definition of “Independent Affiliate”
*considered at UUA October Board meeting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)