There’s a new article up on uuworld.org titled “Big Changes Proposed for General Assembly.” General Assembly is the annual gathering of U.S. Unitarian Universalists, ostensibly held to transact the business of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). In October the UUA Board of Trustees commissioned a report to study whether General Assembly actually provides the setting for democratic decision-making it is supposed to provide. The short answer from the report: “GA is not really democratic,” and in fact provides “faux democracy and unaccountable representation.”
The UUA Board of Trustees will hear and discuss this report at its current meeting, which begins today and runs through Sunday. Will the Board of Trustees act on this report? If they don’t, I hope former UUA Moderator Denny Davidoff carries out a threat she made at the 2009 General Assembly, when she said, “We should get serious about governing ourselves democratically, or I will move in 2010 that we rescind the fifth principle [of the principles and purpose of the UUA Bylaws, calling for democratic process] until we can prove we are democratically represented.”
In the mean time, the 2010 General Assembly Committee has scheduled only business meetings on Saturday and Sunday of this year’s General Assembly. No doubt this will annoy some who see General Assembly as one big social event, but perhaps it will keep the focus of General Assembly where it should be, to wit, on doing the business of the UUA.
If GA is for business, it should reclaim budgetary power. But as for this plan, it stinks.
It’s certainly democratic for the churches that can afford to send delegates!
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.
Dan,
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 hope Davidoff’s threat to rescind the fifth principle isn’t serious.
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?
Scott @ 1 — I hope you write a post on your blog with more detail on why the plan stinks. I’d love to hear what you have to say.
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.