GA in Minneapolis 2010 was my first, and in most ways it was what I expected. I went to programs, lectures, workshops, ceremonies, and services. I listened to business reports, inspiring stories, updates, and gave money. The music and choirs were exceptional.
Mini-Assemblies were something else. The structure of GA, how business is done, and the many different kinds of things proposed and to vote on was a learning experience. Let me say at the top that overall, GA was run exceptionally well--rules were explained and followed, and moderator Gini Courter kept us all both in good humor and in line with our larger goal to work for a better UUA.
The big controversy this year was, of course, whether to hold GA 2012 in Arizona or to boycott Arizona and presumably, hold GA elsewhere. This business resolution was on the final agenda, and the talk of GA before and during. "WHEREAS the state of Arizona has recently enacted a law—SB 1070—that runs counter to our first principle affirming the worth and dignity of every person..." There was never any disagreement about this.
Then the mini-assembly came along, and again, I admit I was learning how it all works as it was going along. Mini-assemblies follow rules of order, similar to Plenary, in that one had to be recognized at the microphone to speak, and no one was supposed to be heard unless they were recognized by the mini-assembly moderator.
There were several amendments to the original business proposal to boycott Arizona, and we delegates had opportunities to vote on them. The debate sometimes focused on the terrible situation for immigrants in Arizona and sometimes on what to do about GA in 2012. I happened to be sitting next to someone from Arizona who was against the boycott, as I was, in part because we hoped this odious law would be repealed long before 2012.
By the end of the mini-assembly, the drafters of the two main separate amendments agreed to work together for one solution. The original business resolution was unrecognizable--there was no mention of a boycott, the whole resolution having been changed to holding GA in Arizona in 2012, but suspending business as usual in order to work on opposition to SB 1070 and the immigration issue.
The next mini-assembly regarding Arizona was something else yet again. Apparently, the drafters (never quite sure who all and how many) spent hours into the night coming to some conclusion on the amendment. Copies of the new amendment were handed out, though there were not enough copies for everyone.
Some of the things that were voted on and passed were included in this draft of the amendment and some were not. One person asked why some language that had been agreed upon didn't end up in the final draft, and we were told by one of the drafters that she got too tired by 2 a.m., and so it didn't get in.
There was something to do with chocolate that appeared to be an inside joke between the moderator and drafters or among the drafters or something that precipitated a bag of raisins or craisins being tossed at someone. How does this work: "I recognize the delegate throwing the raisins"?
All that aside, emotions were high in the room. Things were said like, "I won't come to Arizona in 2012 if ...."
The debate seemed to shift almost entirely to opposition of SB 1070, so that if you were on the con side of the amendment, it appeared as if you were for SB 1070, which couldn't have been further from the truth.
One of the debates on this day was about the language in the amendment to do with boycotting unfriendly businesses. It was eventually changes to something softer, but on my way out, I heard one delegate from Arizona declare loudly, "There will be lists."
This was about the time I began to wonder if I was in the right place. UU's creating blacklists?
I could not have been the only one to wonder: Who would create the lists? Who would make sure the vetting was accurate? What would be the media headlines when someone on the list was blacklisted who was really a friendly: UUA BLACKLISTS ONE OF ITS OWN? Does this really affirm our principles?
Speaking to people after, some who had been at the mini-assumbly and some who had not, I tried to guage the direction this was going on. Just a day or so earlier, the body of delegates did not come to a 2/3 majority on immigration as a study issue and a runoff vote had to be scheduled. We weren't sure about studying immigration but we seemed to be very sure that GA 2012 should be focused on it.
I was put off kilter by how our decision about two years from now was being moved almost entirely by reaction to a current situation.
Yes, the idea of a new kind of GA and one focused on an issue of social justice is exciting, but was this the best way to create this? In effect, since we are suspending business as usual for the first time in GA history and focusing on one issue in 2012, the UUA is saying that the issue of immigration is the most important issue of our day.
If we were going to plan a special justice-oriented GA, shouldn't there at least have been some discussion on what issue is of greatest importance to UU's?
And if we voted to hold an immigration-focused GA in 2012, what does that do for the situation in Arizona now? Will we be lulled into complacency because we hotly debated and agreed on this UUA-historic event to take place in two years?
Recommended reading on the history of the UUA.
Next time: Plenary
No comments:
Post a Comment