UUA Politics

How my congregation voted for Morales and Hallman

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:48:00 +0000

At our annual congregational meeting, members looked over the two single page sheets the UUA provided in the last meeting, one for each presidential candidate.

Last month's newsletter article from me, which went out in April, but didn't get posted here until recently, and it had the web site addresses for the candidates, etcetera.

I told people I would announce who I was backing at the annual meeting, but I stressed they should check out the web sites and try to get a feel for the best president themselves, in advance of the annual meeting.

At our annual congregational meeting we had a secret ballot, it occurred early in the meeting, so we could announce the results before the end of the meeting. We had previously agreed that we would award votes proportionally. That is if 50% of the congregation voted for one candidate, then each would get 6 votes (we get 12 delegates at GA, due to our size-- 576 adult members).

I discovered just before the annual meeting that I, the outgoing board president, the music director, and an incoming board member (the only people who told me their picks) had all chosen the same candidate-- Peter Morales.

The congregation voted this way:

10 votes -- Rev. Peter Morales
2 votes -- Rev. Laurel Hallman

We will be mailing in our absentee ballots next week, well in advance of the June 17 deadline.

I am proud of my congregation. They did the research, arrived at their choice, and are making their voice heard, despite the fact that only 4 of us are attending GA in Salt Lake City, due to costs, etcetera.

Ballots & Absentee Voting Update from the UUA

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:36:00 +0000

Under the UUA bylaws, candidates for UUA President and Moderator must submit petitions to run for these offices. For the office of President, Rev. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales submitted petitions and their petitions both met the bylaw requirements. And for the office of Moderator, Gini Courter submitted petitions that met the bylaw requirements. Therefore, the UUA election ballot will contain the names of Peter Morales and Laurel Hallman for President and Gini Courter for Moderator. For further information on the candidates, please visit these websites:

Peter Morales - http://www.moralesforuuapresident.org/
Laurel Hallman - http://www.hallmanforuuapresident.com/

Gini Courter -
http://www.uua.org/aboutus/governance/officers/moderator/courtergini/index.shtml

For all other offices (Financial Advisor, Trustee At Large, Youth Trustee At Large, General Assembly Planning Committee, Nominating Committee, Commission on Appraisal, Commission on Social Witness, and Board of Review), a slate of candidates is put forward by the Nominating Committee. Anyone wishing to run for one of these offices who was not nominated by the Nominating Committee can run by petition. However, no one submitted petitions to run for any of these offices. Therefore, the UUA election ballot will contain the names of the individuals put forward by the Nominating Committee: http://www.uua.org/documents/nc/09_slate.pdf

The UUA bylaws do not allow write-in voting, so voting will be limited to the candidates listed on the ballot.

Important Information about Absentee Voting

Under the UUA bylaws, congregations that have met the certification requirements for sending voting delegates to General Assembly can vote in the election in two ways:

By submitting completed absentee ballots. Absentee ballots with instructions and biographical information about the candidates will be mailed to congregations in early May and must be returned by June 17.

By sending delegates to vote on site at General Assembly on Saturday, June 27. All GA delegates who have voting credentials that were not used to vote absentee will be eligible to vote on site.

A congregation can use a mix of both of these methods if it wishes. For example, if a congregation will be sending some but not all of its delegates to General Assembly, the congregation can vote absentee for any of the delegate slots that won't be used to send delegates to General Assembly.

However, the system prevents double-voting, so if a congregation is eligible for three delegate slots and submits two completed absentee ballots, only one General Assembly delegate from that congregation will be allowed to vote on site.

When discerning how to vote in the election (absentee or on site), congregations have wide discretion in determining whether and how to instruct their delegates. For example, a congregation could hold a congregational meeting to discuss the election and then could direct its delegates to vote for particular candidates. Or the congregation could appoint delegates and allow those delegates to vote their consciences.

More detailed instructions for voting will be included with the ballot mailing in early May.

Please let me know if you have questions about the election. For more information on UUA Elections, see http://www.uua.org/aboutus/governance/elections/index.shtml

---Paul Rickter, UUA Secretary

Questions and Answers from the Presidential Candidates

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:53:00 +0000

Just in case you didn't already know...

Questions and Answers from the Presidential Candidates

The candidates for President of the Unitarian Universalist Association have agreed to respond to a series of questions which may be helpful to General Assembly delegates in assessing the candidates' qualifications.

Beginning in January 2009, the candidates will respond to one question per month, although both candidates agreed to respond to an initial question (November 2008) as a preview of this question-and-answer format.

Check back on a monthly basis for updates to this page.

January 2009: Five years from now, what goals will have been realized?

No question of the month in December 2008

November 2008: How will you keep the next generation of Unitarian Universalists engaged?

absentee ballot voting at GA 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:57:00 +0000

How might we think about absentee ballot voting at GA 2009.

I would say that delegates are representatives of a local congregation. As such, they should vote the will of the congregation, not their own will; otherwise they are representing themselves as individuals, not as a messenger from the congregation. The difference here is between representative democracy and direct democracy.

I would suggest that a representative democracy is where delegates are granted authority to vote their conscience with the idea that they are somehow representative of the rest of the congregation. Remember delegates are always delegates OF a congregation. The problem with this idea when it comes to GA is that there are high bars (a poll tax, if you will) to participation in the democratic process. Almost by definition, delegates who have the $2,000, the five days vacation leave, and the desire and wherewithal are not representative of their congregations. They are an elite within the congregation. They are people interested enough and with the necessary resources to attend. Furthermore, if they don't poll their congregation ahead of time on the issues and on the candidates, how can they possibly represent their congregation? Instead, they represent themselves. And then we don't necessarily have a traditional representative democracy. Instead we have a platonic republican idea of philosopher kings (which is how the UUA board works). We send our learned sages (and smart youth) to GA to discuss matters of great import, make decisions, and then-- if they get around to it-- let us know how it all turned out. The congregation as a whole is not represented, there is little congregational input, and less linkage between the stakeholders and the decision makers. Many people question whether this system is as democratic as it could be.

It is possible to provide a more direct democracy by telling delegates they are charged as proxy representatives of the collective congregational will. They may end up voting not for their particular candidate, but for the candidate the congregation-- in proportion-- votes for. We will limit delegates ability to vote for candidates by letting delegates know they are to be proxy representatives for the congregational will. Why? Because we believe we are part of an association of congregations, not a collection of individuals, some of whom get to go to GA and some of whom do not.

We will name delegates, fill out the delegate cards, take the will of the congregation, let the delegates know what the proportional vote is, and hence how many delegates will be instructed to vote for one presidential candidate, and the rest will be instructed to vote for the other. And we would do that for any contested election we can send in an absentee ballot in for. Then, we will mail in all ballots absentee together in the same envelope, after ensuring the proportion is correct, whether or not any delegate actually attends GA.

This system will ensure it is the will of the congregation-- not the opinion of particular individuals-- who decide the votes. It also ensures we vote all of the absentee ballots we are entitled to. This system ensures any congregational member can have input simply by showing up to a meeting after church. It gets them more informed as to what is going on at the national level, it gets far more people informed about the candidates, and it insures the congregation as a whole (and not just a few elite) gets a chance to participate in the election process of GA.

My congregation also does this for district elections.

What do you think?

Absentee Voting at GA 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:51:00 +0000

>>Recent discussions on this listserv have centered around the process for selecting delegates to attend GA. I have a slightly different question--how, when there is a contest, does your congregation apportion its share of votes for UUA president and moderator? Could you share your process?<<

The above was from a large church chat list. Here is my response...

In order to ensure as full participation as possible, particularly important will be getting the absentee ballot in, and especially from larger churches. For example, I will make sure we get those absentee ballots in, because although we get 11 delegates, I would be surprised if we got more than 1 or 2 people going to GA.

What I have worked out with our board, is that we will have a congregational meeting, and present material from both campaigns. I will make a brief speech on why I support a particular candidate, and why I think other people support the other one. Our folks will cast a paper ballot for Peter or Laurel for president (the other races appear to be uncontested at this point). Then the absentee ballots will all be filled out on a proportional basis.

We will mail them all in, in advance, for ALL our delegate votes.

This way, the vote will reflect the desire of the congregation as a body-- not as the votes of individual delegates. This has been a major flaw in the GA democratic process, in my view.

Single 8 year term for UUA President?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:23:00 +0000

From the October UUA Board meeting:

The “Our Association Working Group” is considering proposing to the UUA Board,

...a single 8 year terms for UUA President and Moderator, which will require a bylaws change. The Board will take more time to consider the implications of such a change before proceeding.”

I don't know about you, but I prefer the 4 year terms.

Increased Costs for GA Registration, Child care, Exhibitor’s Fees

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:04:00 +0000

At the UUA Board meeting last month,

Lyn Conley of the board finance committee reported that the committee will propose two motions. One will be to increase registration, child care and certain exhibitors’ fees as recommended by the GA Planning Committee. The other will be to include the GA budget as a separate segment within the UUA budget beginning in FY 2010. Any surplus in the GA budget existing at that time will be carried forward into the segment.

Apparently, the board approved the cost increases. This is a move in the wrong direction, as far as child care costs go, and as far as the Central Midwest District is concerned.

There is already an economic barrier to GA participation for families with children, which is one reason why we see so few of them at GA, and so many gray heads and youth, instead.

If anything, the child care costs ought to be lowered and subsidized.

I urge you to consider contacting your UUA trustee directly about this.

When You Can Vote for UUA President

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:00:00 +0000

This just in:

The election will be held
Saturday, June 27
12:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

(Absentee voting will be from June 1-17)

UU University & GA 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:05:00 +0000

In case you didn't know, UU University (programming for lay leaders), which last year started before the 'regular' GA, is now incorporated into GA itself. It will run from 1-6 on Thursday and from 8 to noon on Friday.

I understand only a few ministers dropped in a couple years ago, and a lot more (during ministry days) in Florida. It will be interesting to see if even more go now that it is part of the regular programming.

You can see the 2009 GA Grid here.

UUA Administration on What's Next for YRUU

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:51:00 +0000

The UUA Administration on What's Next for YRUU is here.

Update on YRUU Funding from Bill Sinkford

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:42:00 +0000

I'm not sure where this is posted-- I got it in an email a couple days ago, but here's an update on YRUU Funding from UUA President Bill Sinkford:

To: YRUU Steering Committee
From: Bill Sinkford

CC: UUA Board of Trustees

The two year Consultation on Ministry to and With Youth made it very clear that we need to imagine new and more effective ways to support youth ministry throughout the Association of Congregations.

The vision of multi-generational church life and support for congregational youth ministry which was created at the Summit on Youth Ministry last summer is powerful and positive. This year is intended as the time to create that new imagination. It is a time of transition and is, therefore, complicated.

The findings of the Consultation demonstrate that there is a broad consensus that the current structure for continental youth ministry is not serving our faith well. It is true that Continental YRUU, as we have known it, will be replaced at some point by a new structure that will serve us better. It is the task of Youth Ministry Working Group to recommend that new structure. The decision to hold the Working Group meetings at the same time as your meetings this year in February and April was intended to maximize the opportunity for Steering Committee input in the development of the new structure.

Unfortunately, as a result of failures in communication within the UUA staff, some incorrect information was shared with you at your recently completed meeting. You were told that the Continental YRUU structure would end in June of this year and that there was no funding in the UUA's budget for Youth Council next summer. The reality is that the UUA's budget for next year will not be presented to the UUA Board for approval until its April meeting. No firm decisions have been made about ending support for the Continental YRUU structure. And because of YRUU's status as a Sponsored Organization, the UUA Board will have to approve any decision to end support for the organization. I apologize for the distress that incorrect information has caused.

I've asked the Office of Youth Ministry staff to prepare a set of "Frequently Asked Questions" about this process so that there will be clarity for all of us.

I hope this letter helps clarify where we are in the process. I am very sorry that inaccurate information was reported to you as fact. It is my most sincere hope that we, together, can reclaim the positive energy of the past two years and move toward a youth ministry which will serve Unitarian Universalism well.

In faith,

Bill Sinkford

Sinkford's Response to YRUU Fracas

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:55:00 +0000

President Bill Sinkford's response to the YRUU fracas can be found here.

Clearly, he has been caught off guard about all this, which only underscores the PR problem the administration is having with youth. This is all the more ironic given that he has spear headed some of the stuff around youth recently -- Consultation on Youth Ministry, etcetera.

UUA Administration Breaks up YRUU Steering Committee

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:04:00 +0000

The UUA Administration, at the end of a long, involved process has decided not to fund YRUU or C-UUYAN:

on June 30, 2008, the UUA will cease to fund the YRUU youth leadership at the continental level. Therefore, there will no longer be having Youth Council, this summer or years following, and the work of youth ministry within the UUA will shift to a congregationally based focus.

The quote above is from FUUSE.

At first glance, there appear to be two contextual items: (1) youth autonomy; (2) budget cutting.

I was in LRY in the late 1970s, and in C-UUYAN in the 1980s. I served in a variety of leadership positions.

You can read in Wayne Arnason's histories of the U and U youth movement that our youth movements were the first to be autonomous-- the youth put up the structure and drove the programming.

This kind of thing wouldn't be allowed in more orthodox traditions. It was a great concept and still is. Have some adults provide appropriate boundary setting, and then let the youth run wild with creativity and experimentation in worship, social justice, etcetera.

In fact, this idea of a group of elders setting limits, but then allowing whatever creativity and activity that feeds into mission, vision, and values loose is precisely the idea behind policy governance that so many of our districts, congregations, and now even the UUA board, espouse. So, it is a little ironic to decimate decentralized national effort. It is also unclear what new efforts will be made for youth.

Things changed for the UU youth movement, because of the 1960s and 1970s, where many UU families went through upheaval: spouse swapping, divorce, drug use, you name it-- were in our congregations. And that was just the adults (one day I'll have to write a memoir...).

Some youth advisors basically abdicated their limit setting abilities, and some youth conferences degenerated to the point that even youth didn't want to attend anymore.

Then the collapse came, and eventually common ground and yruu, a more structured version of lry.

But it is easy for those in an administration-- whether the UUA administration or any other-- to centralize power and programming, rather than decentralize it-- there are more examples of this than I can name.

Once we heard that YRUU and UUYAN offices were going to merge, it became apparent what was going to happen. You don't merge when you expect growth. You merge as a pre-condition to decreasing program, etcetera.

Side note: Frankly, I'm surprised how much money UUYAN has gotten over the years. In our early years, UUYAN was entirely self-funded. Then we became trendy, and the UUA did a capital campaign, part of that money was to support YA programming.

Finally, I have to point out that it is somewhat ironic that the letter from the YRUU Steering Committee says that:

"youth programming on the district and congregational levels will continue relatively unaffected."

Why is that ironic? Because the UUA doesn't pay for any of that, and has no control over it. Districts and congregations-- ultimately adult UUs pay for it.

I think the best thought out reactions to the move can be found here.

Peace,

Daniel

GA as "Church"

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:11:00 +0000

The Backlash to GA Entry and Security-- why the uproar?

I am having difficulty understanding the reaction to the entry procedures at Fort Lauderdale and TSA.

For the life of me, I haven't been able to see what the big deal is, and why it is SO important to colleagues that they will use the entry procedures as a reason to "boycott" GA or call for the resignations or apologies of those involved. Or feel that "I also have this overwhelming sense that no matter what we do, this will cause huge repercussions in our association for years to come."

I honestly have been unable to see what the brouhaha is.

And yet, it also strikes me that those ministers who have lamented so vigorously on the minister's email chat must have their reasons.

And then, something occurred to me. I asked myself, what frame I would have to be in to have the same reaction? Because most colleagues are reasonable people, and the uproar over the entry issue has seemed way out of proportion.

So, it occurred to me that I would take the same umbrage if I thought of the GA facilities as "my church." If I thought the convention center were my church, I would be unhappy if there were armed guards I didn't ask for there to check my ID. Yes, I would be very unhappy and heading a little toward "righteousness." Okay a lot toward "righteousness," umbrage, picketing, and demonstrations.

I am reminded of a time in Connecticut, where I came to pick up my daughter at our then child care provider's house, who happened to be members of my church-- only to discover that she had cut my daughter's hair!!

Okay, it was a trim, but still! I was incensed! Morally outraged! But it was just a little hair. But it was MY daughter's hair. It felt like someone had come behind me and cut MY hair.

For me the GA convention center never has been and probably never will be "church." As a founding member of Eliot Chapel said after a fire devastated the old RE wing-- "Eliot Chapel is not brick and mortar; it is people and what they do." I could be with other UUs on a lake, or eating cake; in a cave or on a mountain-- the people make church for me, not the buildings & grounds.

But for those of you who consider the GA buildings and grounds like church, maybe now I understand a little better about where you're coming from.

Please advise, thanks.

Daniel

UUA Presidential Candidate Web Sites

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:02:00 +0000

Laurel Hallman's web site is up at www.laurelhallman.com and Peter Morales' is at http://moralesforuuapresident.org/

So far, Gini Courter is running unopposed for Moderator, and I haven't heard yet on Financial Advisor, although Dan Brody was elected in 2005, so I am assuming like Gini, he is up for another term, and would likely run unopposed.

Take a look, and start thinking!

UUMA on GA

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:08:00 +0000

Now there is an official UUMA Executive Committee response to the various opinions expressed about the unpleasantness of having to go through TSA security to get to the convention center for this year's General Assembly in Fort Lauderdale, FL.

For myself, I'm not sure I understand the hubbub. After all, most people going to GA are going to fly, and they have to go through security checkpoints there, right?

I would just as soon have someone checking for guns at GA entry myself. Anyway, here's Rob Eller-Isaacs in a thoughtful essay:

January 17, 2008

Dear Partners in Faith,

I write as President of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association and in the name of the UUMA Executive Committee to express our sadness and to share our plans regarding the General Assembly. We are deeply disappointed that those attending the General Assembly will have to pass through security checkpoints in order to attend. We believe such requirements violate the high value our religion places upon inclusion and full accessibility. We are torn between a deep commitment to those values, and a like commitment to face-to-face engagement and deliberation. Some respected colleagues tell us that as a matter of conscience they will not cross through security. For them it violates a core commitment to the civil liberties of our neighbors. Others, regretting the situation and insistent that steps be taken to ensure full and open access at all future meetings plan to attend. The UUMA is responding to the situation in the following ways:

We are moving Ministry Days, our pre-GA gathering, to a fully accessible location outside the security zone.
We are designing Ministry Days programming to include opportunities for thoughtful consideration of civil liberties, immigration, and profiling issues arising from the situation.
We are presenting a workshop at the General Assembly itself devoted to effective ministry in a time of fear.

Most members of the UUMA Executive Committee plan to attend the General Assembly. We have deep respect for those colleagues whose conscience calls them not to attend. They will be missed. We affirm that showing up is a promise we make to one another. We decry the cultivated culture of fear that divides and weakens us. By coming together in Fort Lauderdale to deepen our understanding and demonstrate our concern we will make a powerful statement about what matters most to Unitarian Universalists.

Yours in Faith,

Rob Eller-Isaacs

Rev. Rob Eller-Isaacs
UUMA President

Please feel free to distribute this letter as you see fit; we only ask that you distribute it in its entirety.

The Potential of District Based GA Resolutions

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:23:00 +0000

On the District Presidents list serve, one DP asked about social justice resolutions at district annual meetings:

I have recently been approached by a person who wishes to introduce an [social justice] resolution, similar to one passed at GA last summer, at our district annual meeting this spring. While I am sympathetic to the idea, I am concerned that it could open a floodgate of proposed resolutions at future meetings on all kinds of topics. The actual business portion of our annual meetings is usually quite short. I am also concerned about whether it is worthwhile to spend time on "feel good" resolutions without having a program of taking action on them.

Personally, from where I'm sitting, I would question whether or not district level social action resolutions are a wise use of time. Regional or metro area based action seems to actually produce results. I'm thinking of marriage fairness work at the state level, for example.

Nevertheless, I know others have different opinions about this. This is from our Central Midwest District bylaws:

Section 5. How to bring business before a meeting. Those wishing to have business considered by the annual meeting that involve financial implications for the District must propose such business to the Board at least sixty (60) days before the annual meeting. Resolutions without financial implications for the District should be proposed to the Secretary in advance of the annual meeting.

Hardly anybody does, and it is usually of the "The US should quit being an imperialist nation state," variety. And the proposer is often asked to form a study group, go off and report back in a year, which of course, they rarely do, since they are on to another issue of the day.

I think district sponsored Resolutions regarding the UUA of C are a entirely different matter and have untapped potential. As you may know, a district can submit a Business Resolution or Amendment, if it does so

"by official action at a district meeting at which a quorum is present (A district may submit no more than 3 Business Resolutions.)"

Unfortunately for district calendars, most of us have our annual meetings in April or May, and the deadline for receipt of such a resolution or Amendment is usually February 1. I'm assuming this was done to lengthen the GA resolution process. I would think a bylaw or rule change from February 1 to say, May 1 would not bring undue hardship to the GA process, but I'm sure others more knowledgable about the GA timeline have a more informed opinion on this matter.

Also, there's this:

"Proposed Business Resolutions and Amendments to Rules appear on the Tentative Agenda. In order for a Business Resolution to appear on the Final Agenda, it must receive a majority of votes in the Congregational Poll."

I don't follow that process particularly closely, so I'm not sure what the implications are. And I don't know that timeline either. Maybe that's the reason for the February deadline.

For example, let's say only 15% of congregations respond to the "Congregational Poll," which I understand is about the normal response rate. Does a proposal have to receive a majority from that sample? I'm assuming so.

In my experience, many of the GA Social Justice resolutions are observed by a tiny fraction of the larger Association because most UUs don't go to GA, and don't follow the Resolution process. The Commission on Social Witness has recognized the low participation rate, the complaints about the frequency of resolutions, and the fly-by-night sensibility sometimes attached to these resolutions and have been going through a multi-year process to make the whole exercise more significant to those involved and to invite deeper participation. Kudos to them.

Are there types of district sponsored resolutions that make sense to encourage? I think so.

Consider that maybe 4,000 people attend GA. Our district gets say 300 people at our annual meeting. 20 districts X 300 people = 6,000 UUs, and not the same ones that go to GA, since GA attendance is much more based on the GA location. There is untapped democracy potential there.

For example, people in our district, and at our district board meetings have commented on the "child unfriendliness" of GA, particularly regarding economics, and to some degree, children's programming. The costs are almost prohibitive for a middle class family, usually about double what it would cost if one were to do childcare or programming on one's own. And the quality of the programming for childcare has varied dramatically over the years.

When I was serving the Metro NY district board a number of years ago, one of our board members was steaming, because she wanted to go to GA with her husband and young family, but the childcare costs simply put it out of their league. And she wasn't the only one to remark that most people at GA look like youth or retirees, unless they are employed to be there.

In a way, a district based resolution about GA and family friendliness would be ideal. The UUA BoT is probably concerned with more weighty matters, and the GA Planning Committee would likely take a district resolution more seriously than some individual young mom's complaint.

Chances are someone on our district board will craft a resolution for our April annual meeting, which would then be submitted prior to February 2009 for the Tentative Agenda.

I cruised a bunch of different district web sites a few years ago, and came across at least a half dozen (if I recall correctly) that have some sort of programmatic meeting in the Fall. If those districts had a quorum, they could take some small chunk of time out of their program to go through a process of crafting a district based resolution by the February deadline.

Also, in the last 5 years or so, I only remember one district based proposal at GA, from Ballou Channing, I think about setting up a 'marriage registry,' a proposal which was vociferously opposed by the UUA board, so much so, that they asked the GA parliamentarian to comment on the possible fiscal effects of such a registry-- a parliamentary faux pas of epic proportions.

If I recall correctly, the majority of resolutions are proposed by the UUA BoT. If districts were to become more active in calling the larger Association to greater accountability and transparency, along with initiatives which arise creatively within districts, a whole new level of democratic involvement with the Association might be possible.

More people of varied socio-economic means and gifts attend district events than attend GA. District initiatives would mean more people at the district and congregational level would pay attention to what goes on at GA, and with their APF, which could only help the APF and the capital campaigns.

Another thing that would be interesting would be for districts to share their district sponsored resolutions with other district leaders in advance of their introduction at General Assembly, such that more than one district could sponsor a Resolution.

Imagine the effect if 5 districts co-sponsored a Business resolution. Think of how many people would have been involved with the issue even before it got to GA. That's democracy, baby!

Happy New Year,

Daniel

UU is Templeton Finalist!

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:49:00 +0000

This is from Sharon Welch, Provost at Meadville Lombard:

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Meadville Lombard Theological School has received exciting news and I could not wait to share it with you: Dr. Michael Hogue, our Assistant Professor of Theology has been notified that he is one of the twelve recipients of the 2008 John Templeton Award for Theological Promise. You may or may not have heard about this award, but this is like winning an Oscar in the realm of Theology!

The Templeton Award for Theological Promise recognizes the twelve best post-doctoral young scholars globally on the basis of their doctoral dissertations related to the topic of God and spirituality. An international and inter-religious panel of 25 judges evaluate the prize nominations. While primarily a theological prize, contributions from all academic disciplines and religious traditions are considered.

I am thrilled Mike has received this recognition. Those of you who have taken his classes, and those who have read his works, know full well that he is a brilliant scholar and a generous teacher and colleague. The quality of his intellect is matched only by the depth of his commitment to social and environmental justice. I am delighted to have him as a colleague, and am so grateful that we at Meadville Lombard are influenced daily by this incredibly gifted scholar and professor. I am also deeply gratified by the inspiration and intellectual leadership he brings to Unitarian Universalism, in particular, and to the field of Liberal Religion, more broadly. This award is world-wide recognition of what we at Meadville have known for some time, that Michael Hogue is a part of the promise we have made to ourselves—and to you—to be academically rigorous and unapologetically progressive.

I invite you to join me in offering your congratulations to Mike by sending him an email at mhogue@meadville.edu.

Gay Marriage Encourages Meth Fired Orgies! Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:38:00 +0000

Here is the UUA response which is an absolute gem!

Dear Dawn,

Thank you for taking the time to write and share the letter you sent to Mayor Naugle of Fort Lauderdale. President Bill Sinkford has asked me to respond on behalf of the UUA.

I was saddened to read of the violence that happened to you years ago and the longstanding consequences of that violence. I think that is what struck me more than anything else in reading your email and the letter. The level of trauma and anxiety such violence perpetrates is something not easily overcome. The sexism that still exists in our society must end.

As should homophobia.

I doubt you will see Unitarian Universalism shy away from its support for bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people. We passed our first resolution supporting the rights of bisexual, gay, and lesbian people in 1970. We have supported comprehensive responsible sexual education inclusive of people of all sexual orientations since 1971. We have over 50% of our congregations who have intentionally worked to be Welcoming Congregations. I would hazard a guess that most of our efforts in these areas have been spearheaded by parents concerned about their children, ministers who have counseled many in pain, and bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people who saw and still see in Unitarian Universalism a sanctuary from a world where homophobia is a part of their every day lives and a safer place than the wider world.

Our congregations and our faith is stronger for this work. We estimate that 5-6% of Unitarian Universalists identify as bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender. The contributions of bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people have been enormous. Our work to support full equality for BGLT people has brought many people, overwhelmingly heterosexual, into our faith.

Rev. Stringer, when I emailed him after learning that he had married the two young men in Iowa, said he felt he did what he thought most other UU ministers would have done, given the opportunity. Each of us grew up being told and one day believing that we would get married. Being a part of the justice work to make equal marriage possible for all people has been some of the most spiritually rewarding work we have done. For the last two years, over 1,000 UUs from our 146 Massachusetts congregation have formed the largest group of marchers in the Boston BGLT Pride Parade. These folks marched in support of equal marriage, proud that there state was the first in the United States to marry loving and committed same-sex partners.

Many UUs have expressed concern over the actions and statements of Mayor Naugle. Some UUs have expressed concern that our General Assembly will meet next June in Fort Lauderdale because of Naugle's statements. Yours is the first letter I have seen from a UU supporting his sentiments. According to my research of the 92 arrests made in Fort Lauderdale on the beach over the last couple of years, only 2 were for men engaging in sex with one another. Most of the arrests were made for women going topless on the beaches or for teenagers engaging in sexual activity. Both the local UU congregation and various leading city officials have been sounded their concern with his homophobic and inaccurate portrayal of the BGLT community.

And we are deliberate in having a pastoral, nonjudgmental response to the AIDS epidemic. No one deserves this disease. We wish death on no one. We work to educate people on HIV prevention, knowing that condemnation and abstinence-only are not effective strategies. We work to end oppression based on nationality, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and gender--all of which have contributed to the AIDS epidemic. We wish to keep all women, children, and men safe from this disease.

Thank you for taking the time to write. Unitarian Universalists will continue to stand on the sides of justice and love. We will continue to stand against sexism, violence, and homophobia. I would encourage you to take some time to talk with your local minister, Rev. Alan Taylor.

On behalf of the UUA and President Bill Sinkford,

Rev. Keith Kron

UUA/Director, Office of BGLT Concerns

Gay Marriage Encourages Meth Fired Orgies! Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:31:00 +0000

A UU (One Dawn Mueller) living in the Chicago area (Central Midwest District, where I'm president) wrote this last week. I got on the list from our UUA trustee, I think.

Part 1 is her letter, but Part 2, the next post is the UUA response which is wonderful. I reprint them here on this blog, because I think it is important to remember that not all UUs are of one mind when it comes to politics, social justice, their intersection, and what "the right thing to do" is.

Dear Reverend Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and

Reverend Mark Stringer, Minister of the Des Moines First Unitarian Church, and

Reverend Nancy Haley, Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City, and

Reverend Gail Tapsott, Unitarian Universalist Church of Fort Lauderdale, and

Reverend Sherod Mallow, All Saints Episcopal Church of Fort Lauderdale, and

Rabbi Harold Caminker, Congregation Etz Chaim, Wilton Manors, Florida

(with copies to several Midwestern and Florida UU district members)

I am a UU who currently resides in Oak Park, Illinois -- a very GLBT-friendly community. I am formerly a resident of Iowa City, Iowa -- another very GLBT friendly community. I am writing out of concern for the ongoing efforts of the UUA and independent UU congregations in pushing for same-sex marriage legislation and other GLBT advocacy.

I'll be blunt. I feel as if the UUA has been hijacked by GLBT activists. I feel that the organization is advocating for a totally sex-blind society without truly understanding the social impact on individual, families, communities and the national morality and public health as a whole.

We are proceeding by ideology, not rationality. In our rush to promote a theoretically-impossible mathematical equality of human bodies, we are inadvertently promoting group sex, anorectal sex, anonymous sex, promiscuity, crystal meth-fired orgies and other illicit drug use and dependence. These are all high-risk behaviors for disease transmission throughout the public.

The result is an ever-growing HIV/AIDS epidemic in this country, along with the increased prevalence and incidence of other sexually-transmitted diseases. Bisexual males are exhibiting bridge-population behavior that is injecting disease into women, children and newborn babies. These infections have been incubated in a pool of promiscuous "men who have sex with men" and transmitted to women by men "on the Down Low."

I break with the pack of lemming Unitarian Universalists who feel that they must support a liberal cause, merely because it is touted as a "liberal cause." In our headlong plunge to promote our principle of "a free and responsible search for meaning," we are forgetting the word RESPONSIBLE.

Is it responsible of us to force conservatives and other persons who see the dangers of a society without sexual boundaries to have us in their faces each election cycle promoting a complete restructuring of society? Must we shove our ideology down the throats of the conservative, rural Midwest? Must we hijack the Iowa caucuses for our own sexual desires? Is it responsible for us to inadvertently promote the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases across the country? We need to STOP and look at what impact this Unitarian Universalist crusade is having on the public health of America.

I give you the example of Broward and Miami-Dade counties in Florida. These counties are infested with HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The primary disease vector is the subpopulation of "men who have sex with men." Public health statistics and analyses by the Centers for Disease Control and the Florida state public health department are quite clear in indicating this group as the main disease pool. It is from this pool that infections are moving into women, children and babies via infected men who engage in high-risk sex with men, then go infect women, many of whom are oblivious to the man's homosexual exploits. This is having a horrifying effect, especially, on African-American and Hispanic women, and it is affecting women of all walks of life. Sexually-irresponsible visitors to the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale region get infected there and bring these bugs back to the Midwest. I am a Unitarian Universalist, but I am also a woman, and I must put my foot down against this danger to the health of women and children.

Therefore, I stand in support of efforts by individuals such as Mayor Jim Naugle of Fort Lauderdale, who is very bravely standing up against the results of our foolishness, having recognized that it is women and children in his jurisdiction who are being harmed. He has, with great courage, stood up to the local and national liberals and GLBT activists and tourist business magnates who have attacked him for simply pointing out the very obvious relationship between high-risk sexual behavior and the exploding HIV/AIDS/STD problem in Broward County and Miami-Dade County in Florida.

Why the heck are we inadvertently promoting gay bathhouses, sex clubs, "tearoom sex" and orgies? Is it our goal to make America a place for equal-opportunity infection by devastating sexually-transmitted diseases? Why are we trying to make the anus and rectum mathematically and legally equivalent to the introit and the vagina? Is it so that we can all, equally, enjoy the fun of having AIDS and syphilis?

Attached please find a copy of a letter I have submitted to the City of Fort Lauderdale in support of Mayor Jim Naugle, in which I state my position, as a Unitarian Universalist. I want their local elected officials to realize that it's not just "radical right-wing Christian fundamentalist Reconstructionists" who are concerned about our Unitarian efforts to restructure American society.

Now that I see what we Unitarians are doing in Iowa, with respect to forcing gay marriage down the throats of conservative Midwestern farmers, I have to stand up and shout that we have gone too far. We have truly lost our marbles and are violating the right of Americans to have some social boundaries and stability in their daily lives. If we keep this up, the disease-infested polyamory crowd will be at the altar next, with "tearoom marriages" after that, performed by anyone who throws a long, rainbow-colored scarf around his or her neck and claims that he or she is a Unitarian Universalist minister.

We cannot put our faith in that holy garment, the condom. There is no such thing as "safe sex." "Safer sex" is not safe. Condoms break. Condoms leak. Condoms don't always get worn. "Barebacking" homosexuals scorn the condom. And HPV has been shown to be transmitted, even when condoms are worn. As a woman who was raped in the past and contracted the HPV virus, and who now is coping with cervical cancer, I can attest that no woman is completely safe from sexually-transmitted disease, not even those who are not sexually active. I urge the UUA and its member congregations to put on the brakes before America becomes another South Africa.

Legal Gay Wedding in Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:53:00 +0000

Big Congratulations to our colleague, the Rev. Mark Stinger who performed the first public, legal gay wedding in Iowa, reportedly on his front lawn. You can read all about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

The UUA's Youngest Non-Youth Trustee

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:09:00 +0000

Election Returns Are In!

In the Central Midwest District, at our District Assembly in Oak Brook, IL, we had a 3 way race for UUA Trustee.

A minister who had been the sole nominee, backed out just a month or so before the Assembly.

Four people indicated interest, and three ran for the office: the then current youth trustee whose position was about to expire, a prominent parish minister from Wisconsin, and a notable layman from Central Illinois.

Along with two other board members, I helped count votes.

Our district had not had a contested election within recent memory (say 10+ years). Our system resembles the UUA system (or a proposed one) in that delegates ranked all 3 nominees in their order of preference: 1, 2, 3.

That way, if there was no majority winner, rather than going back to the delegates and asking them to vote again, we took the person with the least amount of #1 votes, and gave their #2 votes to the other two candidates.

At the election, none of the 3 had a clear majority, but, when whittled down to two candidates, one emerged the winner, and that person is

(drum roll, please)

Justine Urbikas.

At 19, about to turn 20, she is surely the youngest person elected from a district as a full fledged UUA trustee.

Having worked with Justine on the district board for the last couple of years (I have served as ministerial trustee, and was just elected President of the board), I can say that the UUA board is in for something special.

April 2007 - Why No Sugar?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:09:00 +0000

You're probably wondering-- if you've read this far-- why I haven't posted on this for months now.

The reality is that there was this "discreet" group of people who were considering running for UUA president. Now, they can't actually stand up and do this until fairly late in the game because of the UUA bylaws, but-- various "people" were exploring this opportunity. Others, responded to this. They weeded themselves out, like the good Darwinians they are.

I couldn't report on this on the record due to the Sorting Hat.

The long and the short of it is that there seems to be only one serious person seriously interested in the UUA President slot. Her resume is taller than she is. She is a senior minister in Texas. She has announced her resignation effective 2009, the same year as the election.

You can Google the rest.

Her congregation will decide whether or not to do the "insider candidate" business this fall, but from what I hear, "it's a lock." Go DK!

There is a lot more intrigue with the UUA Board & Moderator, but fortunately for the rest of us, it appears that both are actually MOVING toward transparency & accountability-- which is huge because this is a first for them.

And, some recent (okay semi-recent) turnover in key UUA staff, has meant an increase in the velocity of transparency, and accountability. You have got to check out the new changes in the APF attitude!

I'll have more about this later, but first I am hoping to be elected District President in 2 days. And despite running unopposed and with the endorsement of the district Nominating Committee-- you never really can know until it's over.

Meanwhile, we have a 3 way race for UUA Trustee. I'll post again when I know the result.

Take Care, you jaded politicos!

Daniel

Hints to District Level Candidates

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:36:00 +0000

Since I worked on a national UUA campaign, I was asked to give some hints about campaigning. So, here are my hints to the 3 UUA trustee candidates for the Central Midwest District. Use them or ignore them as you like:

Get endorsements-- particularly testimonials-- where you can, not just district wide, but if you have any national denominational ties, use those. Yes, endorsements can be seen as divisive, but if other candidates have endorsements and you don't, you'll look like you have no friends. Endorsements will not win an election, but they can help make you a "real" candidate. It's best to have a variety of endorsers: lay, minister, young, old, etcetera. Ideally, you'd like a short testimonial that specifically outlines an accomplishment or successful attitude.

Enlist a few of your district testimonial people to help you with your campaign. This small group (2 or 3 is plenty) becomes your team. They can phone people and make sure congregations know about your campaign. That's what you want-- brand awareness. Phone, not email. Ask folks go look at the district web site to view your page there. Maybe start your own web log, and have your callers steer people over there. The idea is to get creative, get some buzz going about your candidacy. You're more credible with a team than as a loner.

You don't have to do a big mailing brochure to every minister and church, but it won't hurt either. Make sure you've got something interesting to look at at District Assembly. Maybe a 3 x 4 poster. That's all you'll need.

Come up with a short slogan that instantly & effectively signals who you are and what you're about. Sometimes this is best done by comparing yourself to the competition in an indirect way. Most of the time it is best done by leading with your strengths. A graphic or logo is nice, but not necessary at this level of campaign.

MOST IMPORTANT. Come up with a bullet point list of what you specifically would do with the position. You can only afford not to do this if you are the clear front runner. If not ahead by a wide margin, you have to be specific about what you'd bring to the table, particularly if you have some change ideas in mind. Saying "I'm going to be a good team member" or saying "I'll help the Association grow" without any specific ideas won't really persuade anyone, because if the current UUA board isn't succeeding at something and you're not presenting concrete ideas, you won't be credible. This point seems the most difficult for candidates to do because they don't want to turn anyone off. But if you don't get specific, and if you try to ride only on your resume, you're not offering the delegates anything but a beauty contest.

At District Assembly (DA) Be positive and confident. Smile, meet new people. Tell them what you're about, ask what they think is important for the UUA trustee position.

During DA, there should be one pleasantly surprising thing you and your team do: pass out candy, a cute token-- something that says: I'm smart, capable, funny, and won't dissolve into tears or rage if things don't go my way (I've seen this happen!). Creativity is more important than money here.

Don't think about any hint of negative campaigning. It will put people who are initially on your side dead set against you and they will tell lots of people their opinion. If someone publicly or privately points out something negative about your opponent, "no comment" speaks volumes about your integrity.

Remember people want you to succeed. Even if you lose the race, you will make new friends, find new supporters, and learn something new about yourself and how other people see you. You will have tried something very few people ever have. The race itself is an accomplishment.

Be gracious to your competition. Each of you brings different gifts to the table. And even if you "lose" the election, it won't mean you weren't the best person for the job, just that this is how the delegates happened to go. That's the nature of risk.

Present your campaign to the large churches in the district. These have the most delegate votes. Making a successful case to 1 church with 15 delegates is just as important and takes less time than 7 churches with 2 delegates. Pitch to the ministers, the youth, and the people in the congregation who pay attention to UU stuff outside their own walls (denominational affair committees, music people, partner church).

In an election like this, there may be more absentee ballots than actual delegate ballots. You will want to stress churches getting their absentee ballots in by the deadline-- whenever that is. Again, larger churches are important here.

Remember to celebrate after the election. If you've won, this will be easy. If you've lost the race, it's still important to comfort your supporters, remind them that they and you have made a big difference to how we all think about this position, and the commitment and talent that has been brought to it, and that they have participated in something extraordinary. Even if you don't win, you've made people think about what you think is important, you've had influence, and people will respect you for that, so go celebrate it.

After the election is over, as soon as possible, it is appropriate to remove every trace of campaigning: buttons, ribbons, signs, etcetera. This removes reminders to those who didn't win the election, and (hopefully) brings us all back to a common vision.

As the nominated district president for this election, I will not be publicly endorsing anyone, but I wanted to share the tips above in case they were helpful to you. Clearly you all have good skill sets and interests, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I am sure there will be discussion about suggested bylaw changes down the road to make for a smoother election path next time.

Hope that helps.

Daniel

UUMA Nominees

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell) — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:28:00 +0000

Your UUMA Nominating Committee has been hard at work.

We've been recruiting for Vice President; Good Offices; Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression, Multi-Cultural (ARAOM) position; and for 2 people for the Berry Street Essay (BSE) Committee and for a new BSE Scribe, as Alice Blair Wesley is retiring.

So, here's whose being nominated this year. First, for Vice-President: Sarah Lammert, who serves a congregation in Ridgewood, NJ.

For Good Offices, Fred Muir, who serves a congregation in Annapolis, MD.

For ARAOM, Hope Johnson who serves a congregation in Garden City, NY.

To succeed Alice Blair Wesley as Scribe, Paul Sprecher, who, someone let me know, is the minister of Second Parish in Hingham, MA.

We still have to secure 2 nominees for the BSEC, but talks are underway at the moment. They shouldn't be hard to fill.

When we get more news, I'll post it here.

Take Care-- Daniel