UUA Board Response to OpenUUA posting from Carol Agate, Jan. 16, 2004

From: Rev. Ned Wight, First Vice-Moderator, UUA Board of Trustees

To: OpenUUA subscribers and the UUA Board

Date: 1-18-04

Openness has been on the UUA Board's radar screen for the past two years, and we have all witnessed progress in posting Board agendas, reports and minutes, as well as welcoming observers to Board meetings and Working Group sessions.  There is still much to do, but forward motion is evident.

The OpenUUA list has fostered significant dialogue about the direction, scope and pace of movement toward greater openness.  Members of the Board enjoyed a lively discussion about openness this past Saturday night in chilly Boston.  Our point of departure was the text of the petition that OpenUUA has so carefully crafted over the past 18 months.  We divided into six subgroups to review the preamble, four lettered provisions, and the implementation paragraph.  When we came back together our discussion was far-ranging, and demonstrated for us how significant the issue of openness is to the health and strength of our movement.

There were significant areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, and areas of elaboration and expansion.  There was consensus that whatever rule, resolution or policy statements are framed to govern openness for the UUA Board and Committees, they must reflect our actual form of governance, take account of our congregational polity, uphold the covenantal basis of our relationships, and embody our commitment to becoming an anti-racist, anti-oppressive, multicultural association.  And they must support the Board's overarching commitment to mission, vision and ministry.

As Carol Agate has rightly observed, openness is a complex issue.  Rules that govern it need to be "carefully crafted to accomplish the goals of openness while being workable."  Carol also proposed that a task force be formed to move this issue forward.   We support that idea.

At its Sunday meeting, the UUA Board passed the following motion:

Moved: That the UUA Board charge First Vice-Moderator Rev. Ned Wight to form an Openness Task Force, consistent with Carol Agate's offer of January 16, with three other Board members and four UU's "selected by current subscribers to OpenUUA and people who served as liaisons to congregation boards that signed the petition."   In addition to Rev. Wight, other Task Force members from the UUA Board will be John Blevins (Trustee, Prairie Star District), Tim Fitzgerald (Youth Observer) and Tamara Payne-Alex (Trustee at Large and Chair of the Board's Anti-racism Anti-oppression Assessment and Monitoring Team).  This Task Force will (in the words of Carol Agate's 1/16 e-mail) "study the issue [of openness] and make recommendations for the 2005 GA." 

Further goals will be to frame a context, as well as specific policy and rules, to guide the Board and its committees in achieving a level of openness that will enhance trust, right relationship, and accountability within the UUA.   The Task Force will also determine the best way to foster a fruitful discussion about openness among congregational delegates at GA 2004 in Long Beach.  The Board further commits to continuing along the course it has set to increase its own openness and to encourage committees "to work on ways to be more open." 

We hope for a positive response to this motion from OpenUUA, and look forward to working together effectively toward the kind of openness that will enliven and strengthen this movement that we all so dearly cherish.

Cordially,

Rev. Ned Wight

First Vice-Moderator

on behalf of the UUA Board of Trustees

Carol Agate's message of 1-16-04 follows:

This message is being sent to members of the board of trustees and subscribers to the OpenUUA email list. I apologize to the board members who are receiving duplicates. 

In case you don’t subscribe to UUA-L, I call your attention to the first ever posting of the board packet on the web site. It includes working group agendas, reports, proposals, items for discussion. http://www.uua.org/TRUS/jan04agenda.html

Since the formation of OpenUUA, the board has been remarkable in its steady progress toward being more open. The posting of the January board packet is the most significant of all and demonstrates tremendous good will.

That brings me to the question of the best way to proceed with the OpenUUA initiative. Art Ungar has suggested that the board could essentially pre-empt the openness issue by writing their own rules. I have several problems with that concept. The primary one is that I don’t believe the board has jurisdiction over the elected committees (except to remove members who are incapacitated or make temporary appointments). The planning committee, for example, has voiced considerable opposition to being more open, and the bylaws do not give the board the authority to change their procedures.

A secondary issue is whether the board will continue to make progress in the area of openness without a GA mandate. I don’t think there is any bad faith on their part, but in giving no priority to the concept of openness for the past three years they have, in effect, rejected it. Are we now seeing a genuine interest in being more open, or are we seeing the reaction to a possible vote at GA? I realize the board is made up of people with different viewpoints, so the question is strictly rhetorical. We have no way of knowing how the majority feel, and, therefore, whether there will be adequate followup.

However, on the other hand, GA is a terrible place to bring an issue this complex. A group of 2000+ people is not a deliberative body, and this issue needs deliberation. It could be far better to have a set of rules carefully crafted to accomplish the goals of openness while being workable, than to get whatever comes out of the awkward GA process.

A middle ground might be for the board to commit to forming a task force to study the issue and make recommendations for the 2005 GA. And in the meantime, the board would commit to continuing along the course it has now set, and encouraging committees to work on ways to be more open. At least half the members of the task force should be selected by current subscribers to OpenUUA and people who served as liaisons to congregation boards that signed the petition.

I don’t know whether any board trustees will be getting this email before the portion of the meeting set aside for discussion of openness. If they do, it would be good to hear from them, and from the rest of you as to your thoughts on the best way to accomplish our goals.

Carol