Steve @ 3 — I’m not sure your arguments work, when I know of many small and mid-size congregations that simply cannot afford such an expense. Here in the Palo Alto church, there is no sense of apathy towards the UUA, but economic reality makes it very unlikely that we could pay the way of even one delegate.

Steve @ 3 and Charlie Talbert @ 4 — Denny Davidoff did not threaten to rescind the fifth principle, she threatened to make a motion that it be rescinded. From the standpoint of parliamentary procedure, I interpret this as her way of forcing General Assembly to have a discussion about whether the UUA is in fact abiding by its bylaws. When you’re trying to hold General Assembly accountable to the bylaws, you don’t have many options, and her idea of such a motion makes eminent sense to me. I believe Davidoff is trying to point out that if General Assembly is not adhering to the bylaws, either the bylaws should be changed to match current practice, or current practice should be changed to match the bylaws.

In my opinion, one of the important purposes of the seven principles is to serve as guideposts, helping Unitarian Universalists get back on track when we go astray. I doubt there would be as much energy and support to fix GA if we didn’t have the fifth principle.

Maybe she meant “resend” the principle, reminding Unitarian Universalists how important democracy is to our movement?

I’m curious — what language in the UUA bylaws prevents congregations from funding GA delegate travel in order that attending GA is limited to just those with money? Congregations are free today to fund GA delegate travel and allow those with limited funds to attend GA.

What language in the UUA bylaws prevents congregations from intentionally selecting GA delegates that are really representative of their congregations and accountable to their congregations?

The problem here is really one of congregational apathy when it comes to funding and selecting congregational GA delegates. I don’t think that a bylaws change is going to fix this.

In any case, amending Article II of the UUA bylaws is very hard to do (as we know from the results at last summer’s GA). Former UUA Moderator Denny Davidoff’s threat to rescind the 5th Principle probably would not get any traction.

This would also lead to a logical paradox — would it be OK to rescind a commitment to open and democratic process using a process that is allegedly “broken” and “undemocratic”? Seems like this vote would be suspect.

I’ve been to multiple GA’s, and it seems like largely a gathering of the monied in-crowd to hob nob for a week. Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy it immensely, but it reeks of exclusivity.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.