Singing hymns

Second in a series about General Assembly 2011 and the UUA Board meeting

Forty-nine fully credentialed off-site delegates from 39 congregations were part of this year’s General Assembly. It was a total thrill to watch their virtual banners in the opening banner parade (Susan Lankford from the UU Church of Berkeley is to the right), see the chart with their votes, hear their voices in the plenary hall. On Sunday, delegates overwhelmingly voted to allow offsite voting and electronic signatures.

I have been part of a “virtual team” that met by phone every week this year, and every other week between September and December of 2010. Including members from the General Assembly Planning Committee, GA Staff, UUA IT department, the UUA Board and the user community, this team has been a joy to work with even though we did not meet face to face until GA. Five more technical support volunteers joined the effort for GA, and brought the same spirit of fun, cooperation, and dedication to the effort.

A similar dynamic was going on with the virtual delegates. The Virtual Plenary Hall included a chat site – old friends were becoming reacquainted during training sessions, and a vibrant community sprang up during the plenary sessions. Said one virtual delegate when GA closed: “I really choked up when it was all over and felt the loss of a neat community.”

Acknowledging the limitations of the electronic world, I often say that nothing can replace the experience of being in a hall with thousands of other Unitarian Universalists, singing “Spirit of Life”, so I was struck by one of the stories from the plenary sessions.

Off-site delegates were encouraged to call into an audio bridge and mute their phones during votes to insure that any time delays in the streaming video would not confound the vote. Hearing some background sounds from one delegate’s line, tech support Laura Randall moved to mute it – then realized what she was hearing.

It was one of our octogenarian delegates, singing the hymn along with the plenary body. She had applied to be an off-site delegate because at 87, she could no longer travel, but really missed being part of GA. This year, she still was.

Trust

First in a series of posts about General Assembly 2011

In providing the position of the UUA Board on its own reduction in size from 23 trustees elected mostly from districts to 11 elected at large, trustee Susan Ritchie said "you can do better than us". I concur. That does not mean I think we have been a bad board, or that we are not qualified to sit at the 25 Beacon table.

The greatest impact of this General Assembly on me personally is the passing of the resolution to downsize the UUA Board. Just re-elected at the June Pacific Central District Assembly, this means I serve a second term of two years, rather than four.

Standing in line at Starbucks in the convention center, a woman about my age asked how the board members felt about the change: “how did it feel to be identified as “less than”, that those of us of a certain age and color were somehow not good enough to serve on the board?”

I ached for her. She had just been passed over in her job for someone younger. This is not what happened in the position taken by the UUA Board.

I am proud of the contributions I have made to the UUA through my board service, and just as determined to have the next two years be even more meaningful. And I am also aware of the privilege that allows me, a 61 year old white woman who is financially independent, to serve this Association. “Be the change you want to see”: I want to willingly step aside to allow other voices as the table. Will they have the life experience, or the knowledge of institutionalism, or the skills I have assembled from leadership positions in corporate power structures? Some will, some won't, but I don’t think that is what matters most. What they will have is a different life experience, and will bring that to bear in all its richness in how we shape our future.

As I walked through the hall after the affirmative vote on downsizing the Board, I ran into several delegates from the district that elected me—each said to me “this is about trust” – trust in the board to follow through on commitments made.

This board does not take that trust lightly. I would like to know what that looks like to you -- a year (or two) from now, what will this board have done that makes you feel really good about the delegates' decision?

A smaller board vs. greater democracy?

Third is a series of posts about the April 2011 Board meeting

During the November District Presidents meeting, as the presidents were struggling with several difficult issues, I heard several express understanding of the UUA Board's need to be smaller -- they were struggling with having substantive and complicated discussions with 19 around the table -- how do you do 26?

When I first joined the Board, the Finance Committee played part of this role -- in a more relaxed environment, with fewer people, we often had the kind of discussion that would have benefited the entire board, but instead created a situation where some board members had more information than others. But setting efficiency aside, can a smaller board be more democratic?

My dictionary defines "democracy" as a "system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members, typically through elected representatives". A look around the Board table might suggest that we do not fully represent "all eligible Unitarian Universalists" -- we are mostly of a "certain age" and class, and nearly all Caucasian. Our current district selection process does insure geographic diversity, an important factor, but at the unintended cost of other kinds.

This is why the Board is submitting a by-laws revision that would change the current process of 19 trustees elected by districts plus 4 at large to 11 at large on a slate of 11 from the Nominating Committee. The suggested by-law includes language that says:

The Nominating Committee shall endeavor to nominate individuals so that the membership of the Board of Trustees and each elected committee reflects the full diversity of the Association, especially in regard to historically marginalized communities, but also balancing amongst size of congregation, lay and ordained, geography, age (including youth and young adults), and gender, among others. The Nominating Committee shall consult with groups and organizations including those traditionally underrepresented in Unitarian Universalist leadership, to help inform the nominating process.

So to coin a phrase (or quote a president), a smaller board vs. greater democracy is not only a false choice, but depends on the methodology to select the smaller board. The full set of recommendations also includes shorter terms for trustees, and a transition plan that starts in 2013. I will be running webinars for all Pacific Central District delegates in early June that will provide the entire text of the by-laws recommendations and a chance to discuss them.

Next post: a shared "shared vision"

A Shared "Shared Vision"

Third in a series of posts about the April 2011 UUA Board Meeting

Several thousand Unitarian Universalists contributed to the current UUA "shared vision", or ends, first through Open Space Technology at GA 2007 in Portland, and then through Appreciative Inquiry at GA 2008 in Fort Lauderdale. The initial draft was vetted in 25 smaller meetings across 12 districts, with 85% of those in the meetings saying the ends capture "almost all" or "most" of what our members wanted to happen. The Board made the most common recommended changes, and we have been working with this set of ends since April of 2009.

In light of our Unitarian Universalist value that says everything is open to question, this vision too is subject to change. The stakes are higher now -- 12 districts have either adopted these ends as their own, or are in the process of doing so. The "ends" have been shared between UUA Board and the UUA President, and now the district boards.

This is one of the reasons "Gathered Here" is such a powerful concept. Using Appreciative Inquiry as the underlying mechanism, there will be hundreds (thousands?) of conversations over the next 18 months that identify what is important to us, and what differences we want to make in the world. These will be both one-on-one, and in congregational settings, including voices that are not always "at the table", such as Young Adults who identify as UU but may not currently be congregation members. Common themes will be identified across congregations, clusters, and districts -- by fall of 2012 we expect to have enough information to consider revisions to our current shared vision.

Making Progress -- April 2011 UUA Board meeting

Second in a series of posts about the April 2011 UUA Board meeting

There was a lot I liked about this board meeting. It was still our version of the Boston marathon, but at least there were fewer 7:00 am meetings. More importantly, it felt like some of the changes we have been attempting to make in governance over the past few years were finally starting to happen:

• the Shared Vision, or Ends, of the Association moved from esoteric rhetoric to something alive and guiding our efforts
• we considered new ways of looking at old issues, such as the Ministerial Fellowship credentialing process
• financial processes put in place to protect us when things are not so great, such as the policies of the Endowment Committee, and the formula used for the payout, are working
• a Justice GA that was exciting and truly different was taking shape in front of our eyes
• we were able to come to agreement on the grubby part of by-laws changes that would downsize the board while strengthening democracy
• we began tackling something we had been admiring from afar since the Summit on Excellence in Ministry: is there mutual accountability between the Association and our two "identify schools", Meadville Lombard and Starr King?

I will be posting on these -- and more -- over the next few weeks.

Springtime in Boston

First in a series of posts about the April 2011 UUA Board Meeting

Next week's UUA board meeting includes finalizing several resolutions to put before delegates this summer, and some deep discussions about critical issues. In the latter category is a discussion on Thursday night about funding theological education, on Friday morning ministerial credentialing, on Friday afternoon the strategic view of ministries put together by the UUA staff, and on Saturday night the vision for GA 2012. Thursday afternoon also includes a 3 hour workshop on "right relations training" in preparation for GA 2012. There is also significant time devoted to reviewing the content of the President's "Ends" Monitoring Report, essentially the "state of the state" for how we are doing on meeting our long term goals as an Association.

By-laws proposals involve reducing the size of the board, eliminating Actions of Immediate Witness (at least temporarily), and the details of the selection process the board will use to nominate the moderator.

At various times we will be joined by the GA Planning Committee, members of the GA Accountability group, and leadership from our two theological schools.

These topics -- and more -- will be covered over the next few weeks. You can download the packet here.

Insult to Injury

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

Cesar Lopez is no ordinary community organizer. Though come to think of it, I have not met many ordinary community organizers. His combination of passion, knowledge, and humility enables him to provide a compelling case for what he believes in.

Cesar was one of our hosts at Tierra y libertad organization (TYLO), along with Imelda and Teresa. He clearly had more organizing experience, but was coaching and mentoring the two younger women, supporting them as part of the leadership of the organization. Radio Station KPFA (Berkeley) was in Tucson at the TYLO house at the same time we were to interview Cesar as part of their nationally syndicated program Flashpoints -- you can hear that interview here. Cesar starts 17 minutes into the one hour program, but it is all worth listening to, including the interview with two Tucson high school students about the elimination of ethnic studies.

Signed into law last May by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the law makes it a crime to "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." According to the interviewed teens, the popular ethnic studies courses at Tucson High had made a huge difference in the lives of those who took them, significantly increasing standardized test scores and almost doubling graduation rates. The interview also contains a conversation with a teacher of ethnic studies who has refused to stop teaching them, and has been arrested along with several other teachers.

Next post: what else the UUA Board discussed