Friday, January 20, 2006

FIxing UUism:Actions of Immediate Witness should require a 66% vote.

by Chutney

The number of resolutions will drop precipitously, meaning that the ones that survive (a) represent the overwhelming majority of UUs and (b) represent our highest priorities. And people outside of Beacon Hill offices might actually read them for a change, UU or otherwise

4 comments:

Philocrites said...

I've found it very interesting that in the last two years Actions of Immediate Witness have either passed with overwhelming majorities -- more like 85 to 95 percent -- or failed fairly dramatically. (I've attended every GA since 2001 but not as a delegate, and attended four GAs prior to that.) The only close vote last year, regarding the case of the Florida professor jailed on terrorism charges, still reached what looked to me like a two-thirds vote. I can't recall a close vote on an AIW in several years. Whether any one of them was a good idea is, of course, a separate question.

Steve Caldwell said...

Hey ... you may want to check out the UUA Bylaws ("SECTION 4.16. Additions to the Agenda of Regular General Assemblies"):

"Adoption of a General Assembly (U.S. or Continental) Action of Immediate Witness, (year) shall be by a two- thirds vote."

It looks like your suggestion is already established policy for us.

chutney said...

Oopsie. Well, let's make it three quarters then. ;-)

Patrick McLaughlin said...

Oh, hell, let's make it unanimous, and be done with any statement that we don't all agree on, punctuation, grammar and word choice included.

Given the overwhelming support required already, there are only two analyses that make sense when one suggest that there are "too many" AIWs.

1. The society and world is so screwed up that we really DO have a lot to speak to.

2. The delegates are just a rubberstamp.

Opinions? I can't say that UUs seem like a very reliable rubberstamp group to me. And the world really does seem pretty hosed.

I'm minded of the Hebrew prophets--only some of whom ended up recorded and preserved in the biblical texts. Crying out in the wilderness or in the cities--their problem was that they just had too damned much that they said. If only they'd shut up and only made a pithy, well-thought-out statement every now and then, I'm sure that the people would have been more responsive and everyone far better off.

With that, I'm off to purchase more sabots.