The Potential of District Based GA Resolutions

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