Present: Gregory Boyd (post-high TARR), Lehna Huie (POCAC), Nora Lindsey (Jr.-high TARR), Jova Vargas (POCAC), Laurel Newton (BC Region YCR), Jazmin Sandoz-Rosado (POA), Siri Larsen (Heartland YCR), Rick Roehlk (Adult at Large), Jose Ballester (BOT Liaison), Jesse Jaeger (YPD), Betty Jeanne Rueters-Ward (YPS), Brian Kuzma (YPS), Taquenia Boston (Director of UUA Identity Based Ministries, here to facilitate AR/AO pieces).
Absent: Jennifer Bell (Southwest YCR); third POCAC member (slot not filled).
Check-In and Intros
Schedule and Announcements
Jova reviews the schedule – Saturday morning starts with “Wacky Wakie”
Julian Sharp (Youth Observer to Board of Trustees) wants to know if we can have a “Fireside Chat” with him (via phone) and Megan Dowdell (Youth Trustee) on Saturday to discuss Common Ground III and how YRUU SC can work with them. We will move our CGIII discussion to Saturday breakfast, and invite Megan to lunch on Saturday and talk with her and Julian then. YAY! OUR FIRST DECISION!
Paul Rickter (member of the BOT) would like SC to assign a point person to talk with him about how the YRUU SC and the BOT can work together. We will discuss this when everyone else arrives.
Covenant for 2004-2005 YRUU Steering Committee
Why do we have AR/AO training as part of the YRUU Steering Committee meeting? It is representative of YRUU’s commitments to AR, AO and social justice as well as representative of the UUA’s commitment to this work. The Board of Trustees, in fact, calls for UUA leadership to take part in AR/AO training. We bring multiple dimensions of our identities to our UU faith and leadership and strive for multiculturalism as well.
Also, last year the role of AR/AO in YRUU Steering Committee really came up, such as YPS hiring decisions and impacting future YRUU leadership in general. Hope to bring a strong, common AR/AO lens to all of the Steering Committee’s work and its responsibilities as leaders in YRUU and in Unitarian Universalism.
Want to look first at social group identities that we claim. Taquenia uses a model by a Native American man, Darald Wing Sue, who’s done a lot of research around Asian American and other identity development. He puts identity into a three-ringed context. The innermost circle describes individual personality traits (gregarious, introverted, bubbly, etc.) The middle circle describes social group identities, “cards we are dealt”, categories we don’t necessarily choose but that we belong to in our society. This is where power relationships really come into play. When we do justice work we try to understand how to equalize power, since we know that power isn’t equally shared in our society. The outermost circle describes the “universal human” elements, what we all share and what connects us as a larger group.
Taquenia passes out nine index cards to each person. These cards our for us to keep individually, not to share with others. We write down how we identify for each of the following “categories”:
A few years ago, at the same workshop where Taquenia heard Dr. Sue speak, Peggy MacIntosh, Hugh Vasquez, and Victor Lewis looked at three different types of privilege: white privilege, male privilege, and heterosexual privilege. The point of the workshop is to look at each identity not only focusing on oppression, but on unearned advantage/privilege based on membership in different social groups.
Definition of privilege: the dominant group has greater access or availability to resources because of membership in a particular group. Their way of thinking or living is seen as the norm against which all others are compared. Life is structured around those norms for the benefit of the dominant group (“standard size”, “standard level”).
Look at your cards: make a stack of the identities that give you privilege by membership in the social groups according to society’s standards. Also make a stack of cards that give you unearned disadvantage, marginalization, victimization, oppression, etc. Also make a middle pile of identities where you’re not sure whether they give you advantage or disadvantage (or where they give you both). Count how many cards you have in each stack.
Later tonight we’ll be able to take a longer look at stories surrounding these identities, and how they affect our experience (the lens through which we see the world). These experiences will influence what we bring to the Steering Committee “table”. We can also look at the privilege that we get from being in leadership roles within YRUU. Need to try to see what the world looks like to other people (we can never be them, but can be open to their experience and understanding) in order to make an inclusive, multicultural, anti-oppressive society.
Introductions: go around and say your name, and one good decision you made this year.
A bit of Minga’s history: does a lot of direct action training, strong history of Quaker tradition in her family, works a lot on group process and excited to be here today!
What kind of decision-making has North America (primarily the U.S.A.)inherited or adopted? Monarchy/oligarchy, parliamentary procedure, Robert’s Rules of Order, “democracy” / voting.
Exercise: divide up into groups of four or five, hold hands and remain silent, decide individually a “secret spot” in the room you like and the whole group has to wind up there.
What did you learn from it / How was it? Pretty easy, some people had a plan and others just went along with it, some members had a clear and strong “agenda”, some people’s agenda wound up being the same thing once they checked in with each other, people were willing to go along with whoever had an idea, not everyone was comfortable with silence.
Discussion: What makes consensus work?
What makes consensus difficult?
There are different versions of consensus, and not everything people call “consensus” is necessarily consensus.
Announcement/Side comment: Jazmin wants everyone to know that the falafel from Café Podima has pickles in it. Wow. Way to be off topic, but way to look out for the group J
In Quaker tradition of using consensus, a person stands aside not out of personal preference but out of a serious moral consideration that they feel God is calling them to. It’s a very heavy decision! Minga has worked this process in groups from 60 to 700, which can be really hard to manage when you’re trying to hear everyone’s thoughts but also pay attention to “the voice of God”.
Steps of consensus:
In order for consensus to work for a group, people have to know and trust each other, know and trust the process, commit themselves to the work and share common values or principles. Consensus is hard work, but worth it!! It’s a radical, alternative idea.
Exercise: Write on an index card a difficult, painful experience you had with consensus process. On the opposite side you can write questions you have about consensus. Pass them in and we’ll talk about them later.
Modified Consensus: What is it?
You can decide to move into modified consensus if some people still haven’t been heard or the process isn’t working or moving forward. Group can decide to change to a “fall-back position”, i.e. the decision has to have 4/5 of people in agreement. This is used particularly when you have time restrictions.
Other options to use when the process isn’t working: moving into small groups around different affinities or identities. “Threshing meeting” where people talk and listen on a deeper level but don’t have to make a decision right away. Research (if people don’t feel they have all the information they need to make a decision).
Exercise: “Broken Squares” (put together puzzles in groups, be silent.)
What did we learn? Can’t just be self-focused, have to see what kind of input other people have, how you can help each other, share your resources and ideas. Could only achieve the goal if everyone contributed. Have to share appropriately, be intentional about why you were sharing things with specific people. Needed to have all the information, put everything on the table and then it all comes together.
Index Cards: this is a good tool to help people share their thoughts anonymously, i.e. if they’re not comfortable saying something in front of the group. In this case, we wrote on index cards a painful or difficult experience we’d had with consensus. Lehna shares the results:
Past painful experiences with consensus can influence future decision making. White privilege is also a huge issue; do our principles address this? In general, do our principles (which were written some time ago) address anti-racism and anti-oppression? Maybe our group needs to come up with its own shared list of values or principles.
Roleplay! Greg facilitates a mock discussion around whether to have a future SC meeting in Colorado. We learned that we’re all pretty comfortable with the process, Greg was really into facilitation so he wasn’t focusing on his personal opinions and thoughts as much, group definitely spoke from personal experience and qualified comments with “this is my opinion”, etc.
Racial ID Groups Meet
Consensus & YRUU SC Discussion facilitated by the lovely Jazmin Sandoz-Rosado
So, now’s the time where we get to talk about specific situations that could come up as Steering Committee uses consensus decision making this year. For example, what happens if only one person blocks but all others feel strongly about stuff, how many stand asides equal a block, and so on. SC uses formal, structured consensus to make official decisions i.e. YPS selections, ConCon dean / GA HUUPER selections, Youth Council at-large selections, etc. But even though we use less formal process for other decisions, we want to make sure people can state their concerns.
SC decides that a proposal cannot pass if three or more people stand aside. Need to take a different approach in order to reach consensus. (This could mean that three or more people would constitute a block.)
What are SC’s values? What constitutes a principle objection? If SC can make a list of values, those values could be revisited if someone brings up a “principle objection” and see if it fits. But the problem with that is that it might feel like a principle objection to one person, but not to another person. If something is our value, it becomes the group’s value. But shouldn’t our values not be our own values, but YRUU’s values? It seems like anything could be blocked if we allow for anyone’s personal values. There is a difference between respecting each other’s personal values and adopting them as a group value that guides SC’s decisions. It seems like the principle concerns could by YRUU’s purposes and goals, as well as the UU principles.
SC decides that we can switch facilitators mid-decision if needed.
What does modified consensus mean? We should read up more on “Conflict and Consensus” to see if we can use it as it was described earlier today, i.e. if one person keeps blocking with the same concern the group can go into modified consensus and decide it needs a % quota instead. Let’s make sure we have this conversation and take more time to look at all our options for using consensus (censorship, expulsion, modified consensus, etc.) There’s all sorts of aspects of consensus that we don’t normally use, but could help us make decisions. But keep in mind that not all of those options are suitable for all groups to use. Let’s talk about all these options!!
SC commits to examining all the options within consensus process, particularly those we don’t ordinarily use but could help us make decisions.
Friday, October 8th, 2004
More AR/AO Training with Taquenia!
Just like we learned about modified consensus and different options we can use, we’ll look at different techniques to communicate, listen, dialogue. First we’re going to look at YRUU as an institution – in what ways do some of the oppressions we deal with in society make their way into YRUU and play out there?
Look at “Wheel of Oppression”.handout. We divide up into small groups and each take an “ism” and draw / write down how it manifests in YRUU. Then we’ll present them to the group.
Sexism
Classism
Ableism
Racism
Heterosexism/homophobia
Ageism
It seems people have a good understanding of what these “isms” look like, that we can easily recognize power imbalances and possible exclusion. Have to try to make what’s often invisible visible, so we can change it.
YPS Selection Discussion
Criteria from past YPS selections (non-specific – there’s also June and September – specific criteria, though the positions are more generalized since the lost YPS position) includes:
We need to have a common understanding of these criteria. These are based around the purposes and goals of YRUU and the needs of the Youth Office to do its work in supporting YRUU. They are reflected in the YPS application because there’s lots of questions to answer that relate to all of these criteria.
What is a fair process? Some people are better than others at giving us what we want to hear and filling out job applications. Also, some people might worry that selections might be influenced on personal relationships rather than qualifications. People should know what the selection process is going to be, what they’re applying for.
How do you measure some of these criteria? What are the specifics? For example, how do you measure an applicant’s AR analysis or people skills? How do people demonstrate that they fit these criteria? Which are the criteria you really need to define more clearly what you’re looking for?
SC breaks up into two groups and comes up with their own YPS selection criteria. Then we’ll come back and share it, and the Youth Office will add their perspective.
Group One:
Group Two:
Group Three: (Youth Office)
We now need to look back at our criteria and ask ourselves the following questions”
1) How do the YPS hiring criteria reflect YRUU’s AR/AO/MC values?
We really have AR written into the job description, it is very significant in the hiring process, we look for people who support diversity and diverse methods
2) How do the criteria reflect oppression or the “isms” on the wall?
3) Who has or might have advantage or disadvantage meeting the criteria?
How can we provide opportunities for people to get this skills and experiences that would enable them to get leadership positions? Are we helping to get trainings out there, are we connecting with people who have leadership potential? We have power to use in some constructive ways to make changes in who has access to this and other leadership opportunities. We can prioritize and deprioritize specific criteria, give some of them more weight so that some people would have more of an opportunity to take on the role. This is an exciting opportunity and challenge!
Lunchtime! Taquenia leaves. Thank you Taquenia!
What the F is the YO?
Betty Jeanne goes over some of the many folks “who the Youth Office serves”:
Some of these groups (UUA staff, Steering Committee, conference attendees, etc.) get more face-to-face time with YO or are easier to reach, so the YO is really trying to reach the more underserved groups (local folks, etc.)
Then, we go over “how the Youth Office serves all these folks” (a few of the many thangs anyway):
Jesse goes over the personnel processes for the Youth Office:
Community Building with Jo Bibby and Chris Cayer – yay!
Working Dinner – Youth Council and Specifically *the Drug Issue!!!*
Facilitator: Jazmin
Energy Monitor & Note Checker: Nora
Job Jot: Jova
Phone Chain: Siri
Bike Rack: Laurel
So, there was drug use at Youth Council. What are we going to do about it?
Laurel: There was a problem at a regional CUC conference, and the most effective way they dealt with it was directly addressing the person, they owned up to it and went home. Likewise, we should deal with things directly and talk about both preventing it in the future and talking about what happened at this Youth Council.
Jova: Need to think of this as part of a more global issue, this happens all the time at continental events and others, we need to think of ways we can help people and address this at the beginning of events so that this doesn’t happen.
Siri: should start a conversation over the Youth Council listserv about breaking covenant, that it’s really serious to Steering Committee, that it affects community and that we should talk about it.
Jesse: The YO found out that one of the YCR’s parents found out that they were using drugs at Youth Council. That district decided to remove the YCR from their position. So Nan, Casey, Laura and some others are writing grants (i.e. YFUUD, FUU, Sunday School Society) to fund a gathering of folks to talk about drug and alcohol use within leadership and at YRUU events. The goal is to create a system of workshops or a “curriculum” to address these issues and talk about what drug use does to community. They’ve asked the YO for advice and Nan asked Betty Jeanne to represent the YO at the meeting.
Jose: Is there something besides covenant-breaking (and the Code of Ethics) that relates to drug use at YRUU conferences? I.e. legal issues. Concerned (wearing the BOT hat) about litigation issues around Safe Congregations and responsible staffing. It puts the UUA at risk when this kind of thing happens. It also puts Steering Committee at risk.
Greg: It’s the moral conscience behind the issue (modeling behavior as leaders in YRUU, etc.) that makes this a big concern. What about restorative justice? The covenant was broken which really affects the community, a YCR has been removed from their position. We need to inform the other members of Youth Council about it and talk not only about covenant-breaking but how to bring healing to the community.
Laurel: People are going to figure out who the YCR was that was removed from their position, would be willing to contact them to get their voice (apology, explanation, etc.) directly to the rest of Youth Council. People will need closure from the YCR.
Jesse: Remember that this YCR wasn’t the only person involved, there were five others including a 2003-2004 Steering Committee member, but no names were given so we don’t know who it is.
Laurel: That’s even worse, people aren’t owning up to this and we should ask them to. It’s really crappy that people broke covenant not only by doing drugs but by keeping this from the group. It will be a hard process, but if people own up to it it will be a lot healthier and responsible for the community. Let’s give people the opportunity to own up to it, it’s not fair that one person is being removed from the group and would have to apologize to YC but not other folks.
Greg: We’re dealing with a whole bunch of different issues, like what a safe community is and whether our covenant is the only thing that creates one. There’s a reason drug and alcohol use are a part of youth and YRUU culture. We need to be aware of this. As UU youth and youth allies we’re not immune from everything out there in the general culture, or suddenly transformed into different people once they get to events. We never say that drug and alcohol use outside the community is wrong, we just comment on the appropriateness of this happening within the community. Was it appropriate that a youth in leadership did this at a leadership event? No, because we covenanted that it wasn’t appropriate. But we don’t need punitive justice, we need restorative justice. We can’t just kick people out, the community is in pain because the covenant was broken. What do members of this community get out of being able to own up to what they did? Are we offering them a “clean slate”? Are we encouraging people to tell their districts/regions if they were one of the people that did this? Are we offering SC to deal with them and offer sanctions about those folks coming to other events? Have to look at this as a holistic issue because this stuff happens for a reason, because we’re part of communities besides the YRUU community.
Siri: Some folks use drugs to get away from something. Chaplains agreed to be available for people no matter what, but sometimes we were too overwhelmed at Youth Council. Were people doing drugs because the chaplains weren’t available to help them deal with some kind of issue? Maybe that was the only way they knew to take care of themselves. Feel bad that chaplains weren’t available the whole time at Youth Council because it was so intense. Is legality more important than taking care of people? This shouldn’t be an excuse for it of course, but we should try to give the community other resources for self-care besides drugs if chaplains aren’t available.
Jose: There’s an issue about accountability. This is a sponsored organization of the UUA, so the UUA bears some responsibility here. Have a nightmarish vision of a 14-year-old attending a conference and something happening to them. The amount of litigation that would come down upon us as an organization and an Association is overwhelming. We need to deal with covenanting and healing, but also take the legal side very seriously.
Greg: Feel like at the heart of this religion is a respect for laws as much as they respect individual spirituality. We are a beacon of liberal religious organizing, and that means that we’re willing to do things the “wrong” way in order to point out the evils of doing it that way. If we’re going to come down hard on one thing but not on all the others we do, we’re being hypocritical and we’re not respecting the free and responsible search for truth in meaning, which can inherently be at odds with the community covenant and the law and authority figures. Not saying it’s right or wrong.
Jova: Is there a timeline or figure on money for the project Nan’s working on?
Jesse: This gathering would hopefully happen in late winter if they’re given enough money. Their goal is to roll out a program to test at General Assembly and other summer 2005 events. So this would be coming up soonish. A group of people have definitely realized this is a big problem, but still figuring out the details and what to do about it.
Laurel: We need to decide when we’re going to be able to talk about this more, because we clearly all have strong feelings about this and it can’t happen again and we need to do something about it and prevent it in the future. Don’t want SC to have to deal with this next year. Respect and care for the YCR who was caught but upset about what happened. We need to have a specific phone convo or something to address this. Let’s keep emailing, talking about it on conference calls and phone chains, maybe we won’t make the big decision by next meeting but need to be really working on it until then.
Jesse: There was a question about clemency earlier. Point of info is that if someone under 18 is found out to have done drugs, have to tell their parents because of liability issues.
Jose: Have to tell BOT for liability reasons as well. BOT is aware of some incidents and waiting to hear what this group is going to be doing. Have to give them an update next week.
Jazmin: Out of partnership, let’s write a letter to the BOT to let them know we’re going to be dealing with this and we’ll be in communication with them about how that plays out.
Greg: That’s really Jose’s role, we don’t need to write a letter because his role is to represent either group to each other. What’s a letter saying that we’re dealing with it? That won’t bring closure to anything. We haven’t decided anything yet.
Jose: Yes, but it would really help the BOT to see that this group is accountable and responsible. It would be a simple way to help YRUU’s cause. All you need to say is that you’re looking at this and taking it seriously.
Laurel: Who can write a tactful, intentional email to the YC list about this? Let’s pick someone soon.
Jova: Can we have an SC liaison to Nan’s group? We should stay in contact with her. Add this to the list of groups to liaison to.
Jazmin: We should really let people know what’s going on, that’s how we can be most accountable. People (i.e. BOT) are going to have questions about this and want to know that we’re on top of this.
Jose: Because YRUU is a sponsored org of the UUA, it has a responsibility to do something about it, if you choose not to it you turn over the responsibility to BOT instead.
Siri: It sounds like we definitely want to write a letter, but can’t it wait until we know what actions we want to take? Is there something wrong for putting it off for a little bit until we figure stuff out further?
Laurel: We should find out other people’s input first, then come back to it once we hear them.
Rick: Thought this group was going to definitely be dealing with it, it’s an important responsibility to take on. Want to put it on the phone chain, listerv, and agenda for next meeting as an in-depth conversation. So we’ve said we’re going to deal with it, right?
Jova: We’ve agreed to write the letter eventually, sense a lot of tension around when and how to do it. We know we’re going to do it soon, just not whether it’s today or in a week or two. Can we go around and each say how we feel?
Greg: Sure. Not feeling listened to right now, we bike racked this issue and frustrated that we’re still discussing it. Don’t have the ability to do anything more with it now, should take a break before we move on and we’re not doing that. Don’t care about the letter, just want to make a decision before we write it and we haven’t done that.
Siri: Confused about time, thought we’d be dealing with it in a month rather than now. Think it would be okay to move this slowly. How soon should it be written for us still to get respect and support from the BOT? Let’s not wait to talk about it with the listserv.
Nora: Also confused about time, listserv might not be the best way to deal with it, should do phone instead, and not put it off so long. Not entirely accountable to put this off more, Youth Council happened a few months ago and to wait a few months would be weird.
Jazmin: Joseph wants to move into caucusing and AR discussion now with the other SC’s.
Jova: About the letter – know we’re all confused about time, heard that it was needed by the BOT meeting (next week). Is that accurate? Or do we have more time to talk about what we’re doing? Don’t want to be sloppy and rushed with the letter, might do more harm than good.
Jazmin: Think it’s a really bad idea not to write the letter right away to say we’re doing something. Wouldn’t take that much time or effort or anything.
Jose: Will tell BOT that it’s been brought up and SC is dealing with it and that eventually there will be a letter or something along those lines.
Laurel: Need to come up with a definite time when to discuss this further, then write a letter.
Rick: Agree with Greg that this is not something we have to do to earn the BOT’s respect. But we need to be working in a responsible and accountable way with the BOT. Uncomfortable with saying that we can still decide not to deal with this.
Lehna: Can we write a letter of commitment, and then write a more detailed letter later?
Greg: Bike racking doesn’t mean until the January meeting, but maybe until tomorrow. So we could work it in for tomorrow.
Jazmin: The letter isn’t meant to gain the BOT’s respect or prove ourselves to them, but we need to do it to try to make a relationship with them.
Joint AR Discussion and Caucusing with DRUUMM YaYA and C*UUYAN SC’s
Saturday, October 9th, 2004
Common Ground III Discussion
Facilitator: Jova
Greg reads aloud the letter from Rev. Bill Sinkford (UUA President) and Gini Courter (UUA Moderator) as well as the letter from Megan Dowdell (Youth Trustee) and Julian Sharp (Youth Observer to the Board of Trustees.)
Jazmin: Feel weird about these letters, particularly the first one. One of the important decisions we need to make is whether this year’s Steering Committee is going to support Common Ground III or not.
Greg: With the first letter, feel like we’re being put in a power play situation. Really want December meeting to happen so we get face-to-face time to work with them, but don’t want to work with BOT on this because it’s our resolution. Can SC sponsor and support a resolution at YC? Seems like an obvious abuse of SC power. SC should be facilitating YC, not adding weight to a resolution, it’s disempowering to the rest of YC.
Jazmin: This resolution is not just SC’s, belongs to the BOT as well.
Jova: Sounds like people are having a problem with SC taking on ownership of this resolution and sharing ownership with the BOT. Are there any other issues with this?
Siri: Can anybody submit a YC resolution? (Yes.) So anyone, with any amount of power, can submit one. The presence of a YC resolution presented by SC and BOT might seem intimidating, but have to remember that it’s still okay and not a power abuse.
Jova: Also don’t know that it’s a power abuse. As SC we’re supposed to be representing people and should be doing what we think is best for the community.
Laurel: Is it still our resolution? No, because it wasn’t passed by Youth Council.
Jazmin: And it belongs to YC rather than SC, YC sent it to committee.
Greg: We’re an empowered body of YC, we’re YC during the rest of the year, we’re hear to make the decisions that YC would otherwise make if they met four times a year. We’re all directly accountable to YC, but we can’t support this resolution because YC didn’t. Can’t support or not support it, we’re working on it which is all we can do.
Rick: What is this committee empowered to do?
Greg: Resolve the concerns, then resubmit it to YC next year.
Jazmin: POA isn’t selected by YC, therefore not as directly representing Youth Council. Feel like YC doesn’t always make the right decision and in this situation they were really uneducated on the resolution. Would be really good for us to educate ourselves on it. All of us not only represent YC, but YRUU as a whole, which might differ from the decisions YC makes. It would be healthy for YRUU to support Common Ground.
Siri: Although YC didn’t pass the resolution, there were a lot of people (majority) who supported it. The majority of constituents SC represents support this and want it to move forward.
Greg: Real important that we don’t violate the sanctity of consensus by boiling things down to majority. We need to take ownership of the decision that was made whether we agree with it or not, we’re accountable to it. None of us on SC are directly accountable to anyone outside of YC, at least according to our bylaws and policies and procedures.
Jose: BOT Liaison is accountable to the BOT.
Jesse: Found info on the committee suggested to work on the Common Ground resolution. Rick(adult), Julian(youth at large), Al(youth at large), Hannah (old SC), Dylan or Weston (YC member who didn’t support resolution), Laurel(YCR, old SC), and POCC member.
Jazmin: Julian isn’t a member of YC and doesn’t have a voice on that plenary floor, so shouldn’t be on the committee.
Jova: So some people in the room feel it’s a good idea to support it, and some don’t. Disagreement about whether we have a right to recommend this. How can we move forward on this? Does anyone have any proposals?
Siri: Confused about who we’re accountable to. Aren’t we accountable to all of YRUU?
SC turns and buzzes, then brings it back to the group.
Lehna and Greg: Not sure what our position as SC is, couldn’t make a decision. Decided to wait and see what other folks said so we could make a decision.
Jose, Jazmin and Rick: Observed that this whole process sort of started Thursday when we discussed different consensus models, and now we’re stuck in models of consensus that aren’t working. Interesting!
Jova and Siri: CGIII is important resolution, want SC to support it. Feel a weird dynamic in the group, lots of intense feelings. Feel weird about the difference between personal and principle concerns. The concerns that keep it from progressing seem more personal than principle and catering to specific people’s wants rather than the needs of YRUU.
Nora and Laurel: Concerned that we’re not able to move forward in this discussion, trying to figure out where to go.
Jova: Can Youth Office give info about what SC’s role is?
Jesse: SC has supported and initiated resolutions in the past, i.e. that SC and YC started using consensus. Also folks who wrote and sponsored “It’s Time We Did Something About Racism” resolution. The SC created POCC but it was never a resolution. So there is definitely a history of SC folks supporting resolutions, making decisions for the larger community. Both YC and SC are governing bodies of YRUU and accountable to the whole organization. My personal hope is SC will be accountable to all UU youth, especially youth who have been disenfranchised by YRUU.
Jova: Can we support it as individuals rather than as a group?
Greg: Really don’t think, if there are so many concerns listed, that we can put our names on something as SC members, it doesn’t represent the outcome of YC.
Jova: Would be willing to put my name on it, the community I represent (POCC) are all for it. Have knowledge about resolution and support it.
Siri: The way consensus process is working out here that only the people who aren’t for it are being represented in this conversation. The people who supported the resolution aren’t being represented, and they need to be even though it didn’t pass. People were forced to make the decision without tons of information or time. There’s a lot of things about the decision making process that should be talked about more, but also want to really represent people who supported the resolution.
Laurel: What are we trying to figure out? YC didn’t pass it and decided to send it to committee, so shouldn’t we be setting up and supporting the committee rather than deciding our own stances on this issue? We’re accountable to YC and have to try to support their decision to make the committee happen.
Jova: So, we don’t know whether SC would support or not support Common Ground III as a group. As for Bill and Gini’s letter, it seems they want to be a part of such a committee. How does that fit into the question of whether CGIII resolution would be Youth Council’s resolution? Need to talk about the role of the BOT in all this.
Greg: We need to decide who’s on the committee (of Youth Council), then decide whether and how we work with the BOT on this.
Jova: Need to know what we can and can’t do in relation to the BOT.
Jose: Whatever committee SC decides they want to form is up to SC. If BOT/UUA decides it wants to form a committee, they can do that too. And either group can invite the other to join. The BOT wants a partnership with youth to move youth ministry along to serve all the youth as best we can.
Jesse: Speaking as role right now representing the UUA Administration – the Administration feels we worked hard last year building partnership between YRUU leadership and the Administration and BOT. They feel the most effective way for this to move forward is for the partnership to continue. Feel that the concerns that were brought up at YC were valued, and this partnership could work together to address them. Have offered to fund this committee, but as long as it is in partnership. Don’t feel that a group can work entirely independently without other levels of buy-in.
Jazmin: In support of the partnership, just don’t feel like this letter is the right way. Why do we need BOT members on the committee? Seems more appropriate that youth (and adults who were at YC) are on this committee rather than adults, because it’s YRUU. Feels like BOT is imposing somewhat. Would like to see instead that BOT members are more established observers to the committee, could be there to answer questions.
Jesse: What about the Administration (UUA President)?
Siri: Feel slightly disadvantaged not having as much institutional knowledge as other folks on SC. Jazmin, can you elaborate why working with the BOT wouldn’t reflect our policies and procedures? Sounds like they want to support us, work with us, make positive change with us, build a good relationship. We can still use consensus if we work with them, right?
Jazmin: The committee should be coming out of YC and BOT as a body isn’t a member of this (a little different for Jose, who’s a member of both YC and BOT).
Greg: The BOT didn’t ask us if we wanted their support or not. Said they want to help out, gave us compelling evidence that we should join in partnership with them without asking. Problem with their language about “addressing” rather than “resolving” concerns.
Jazmin: Letter sounded imposing.
Jova: The way the letter was worded may not have been the best way, but they want to continue the partnership that really began last year. Seems weird to shut them out now. There is good intent behind the letter.
Nora: Seems like the BOT has YRUU’s interests as a whole in mind, and we share the goal to make things better for YRUU. We’re two groups with the same goals and interests, so some sort of partnership and dialogue would be really helpful.
Jova: We should have a few people working out the details of the committee, contacting people to let them know they’re on it, make any last decisions about that.
Jazmin: We need to respond to both of the letters that came to us at some point.
Joint Meeting with other SC’s: Discussions of Transformation Team, Tri-Committeee for Accountability, and Codes of Ethics.
Business, Business, Business
Quick check-in
We are a little tired but more frustrated about the time constraints and group dynamics
Getting stuff on the table, don’t want people to feel bad all the time.
Jova: Lot of weird race and gender power dynamics. Women of color feel silenced. People feel they can’t speak up feel stupid or will be silenced.
Only did one level of community building approached with cb facilitators. Would like to do more opening up.
Jesse: I have seen this [women of color silenced] here and in Joint Meeting and other meetings.
Buddy up:
Jova and Nora
Siri and Lehna
Laurel and Greg
Jazmin and Jennifer
Rick and Jose
Check in with buddy periodically, lean on for support in approaching things
Review of handbook:
Don’t spend too much money, review expense guidelines when spending money
Read the JumpDown letter…
Winter agenda: Nora, Siri
Youth Council extension:
Jova: make 10 days instead of 7. Allow to assign specific days for specific types of activities. Room to heal in between AR discussions and business. Find a cheaper place to do it.
Greg: YC is small, why not use a church for ten days, one with a shower
Jova: accessability issues, sleep on floor not great for general sleep deprivation or back problems.
Jesse: we are almost locked in for this year, so we need to work farther out in time. Budget needed around $5000 for 3 day extension. Might be less. Bake sales, t-shirts…?? We just got an increase in YC line to improve facility for YC after 7hills.
Jazmin: we should move Laurel to Boston so her travel costs less
Jesse: cut SC meeting? Some hard cuts would be required.
Greg: If we can use the new $2000 for YC and $2000 for SC (originally intended to fund a more comfortable site) and use it to extend YC but use a cheaper site, we would only need to raise $1000, right?
Betty Jeanne: a few things about site selection – we already found one for this year, takes up a lot of staff time making calls, researching, settling contracts. Did a lot of research into Iowa sites already – i.e. Boone is totally booked or we could use that. Will have to think verrry creatively and consider the process that is site selection.
Jesse: 10 days is hard time to find to find site for. Will give more detail about where to find $$ when we discuss budget report.
Nora: heard support for the 10-day YC idea from other YC folks on phone chain.
Jova: use time more efficiently. Spend travel night in church.
Jesse: might be doable. Much depends on location of airport and useable church.
Jova: lets brainstorm and meditate on this and come back to this.
Fireside (well, lunchside) chat with Megan and Julian
Megan Dowdell (UUA Youth Trustee At-Large) joins us to talk about BOT / YRUU relationship, and Common Ground.
Henceforth, the 2004-2005 YRUU Steering Committee shall be known as “Grenosirelehnazminova Yojoickifer.” It’s almost as long as Betty Jeanne’s whole name!
Julian can’t join us due to technological constraints (darn conference calls). The reason he and Megan wanted to meet with SC is to get a chance to talk before the October BOT meeting, and want to build a relationship with YRUU SC in general. Megan and Julian are with the BOT a lot more than with YRUU. There have been complications about what the relationship is between BOT Youth Trustee and Youth Observer and Youth Council (Do they attend? Who pays for them?) Megan and Julian are members of YRUU as well as members of the BOT.
Index cards: write down any questions you have for Megan and Julian (about Common Ground, about Youth Council, about the BOT – be as open as you want to be!), they will answer them all.
SO! Common Ground is on everyone’s mind, Julian’s and Megan’s and Bill’s and Gini’s and the BOT’s and the past SC and the current SC and allllll kinds of other people. Want to open the floor to ask Megan about her personal opinion, and her understanding of the BOT’s position.
Question: Lyn Conley (Trustee who came to YC), Julian and Jose sent out their notes from YC to the BOT. Who’s already talking about YC, even before the meeting?
Answer: There are definitely folks on the Our Association Working Group talking about YC and Common Ground, and though Megan isn’t on the group they’re involving her in the conversation big-time because she’s a youth. The big reason that the BOT asked Youth Office for info about YRUU (policies and procedures, by-laws, minutes from YC, notes from Long-Range Planning Meeting) was to better understand the organization, there’s a lack of information about how YRUU works.
Question: How does BOT understand consensus, and the fact that YRUU uses it to make decisions?
Answer: BOT uses voting (once a vote is taken, the BOT speaks as one voice), so there’s definitely a difference there. There’s probably a lack of understanding about what consensus is, and Megan can’t really relay that information because she hasn’t used formal consensus process before. People are open to hearing about it though.
Question: What is your (Megan’s) feelings about Common Ground, as both a member of the Board of Trustees and a UU youth?
Answer: I (Megan) know some of you well, but wasn’t really involved with continental or district YRUU, but rather super active at a local/congregational level and at General Assembly. Bring that congregational connection to role on the BOT. Opinions on youth empowerment, youth leadership, and the YRUU/BOT relationship differ from the opinions of Tim Fitzgerald (former Youth Observer). Discussed this a lot last year. Experience on the BOT was a really transformative experience about how to view congregational youth and the fact that our Association is one of Congregations, and the need to support youth who aren’t active in YRUU. Megan’s work on the BOT is very different of the work of YRUU, support different UU youth and in different ways. For me (Megan) CGIII is something that needs to happen not necessarily because of how YRUU is functioning. Don’t have a right to pass judgment on how YRUU works, because wasn’t involved. But want to see CGIII happen because there are lots of youth who haven’t had the YRUU experience and don’t know how to get involved or don’t feel connected. Hold strong belief in local action and congregational services for youth. “Trickle down” doesn’t work, youth a local level need to be able to bring their ideas “up”. As for Bill and Gini’s letter, the BOT sees this as a super important issue for the denomination, not saying YRUU is bad but that there are serious issues we all need to look at. BOT is doing Revisioning at a denominational level just like CGIII would be doing revisioning focusing on youth.
Aaaaand we break up for Racial Identity Caucusing
Agenda for the rest of the meeting:
Facilitator: Lehna
Job Jot: Greg
Phone Chain: Nora
Note Checker: Siri
Time Keeper / Bike Rack: Jazmin
Energy Monitor: Jova
Youth Office Reports
Brian:
Betty Jeanne
Jesse
SC at Board Meetings
Basically, observers are welcome at all BOT meetings. Greg is going to go, if any of the rest of you are in Boston or at GA for the meeting, stop by!
Ex-Officio Roles
We break up into three groups (like with the YPS Selection discussion), YO is in one of them together. Talk about what we envision Ex-Officio role of YO on SC looking like.
Group One:
Group Two:
Youth Office:
Liaisonships
Facilitators: Nora and Lehna
Want to appoint specific people to be in communication with other organizations. Kind of like phone chain, can range from researching on the web, calling them, going to a conference, basically seeing what they’re up to, filling them in on what we’re doing. It can only be a successful liaison if you really try to find out what they’re up to that we can help promote, offer to support them and fill in SC. Some of these positions haven’t been traditionally held by SC members; you can invite other members of YRUU to do it.
Betty Jeanne will help get folks the contact info for these organizations (particularly if there are specific liaisons or contact people.)
Jazmin asks for a time check, Jesse tells her its three hours later than it is, Jazmin flips out, it’s really funny!
Phone Chain
SC will email each other the phone chains, it will save time and we can have them in front of us on paper instead of just reading them off.
Implementing the “It Ain’t Just About Marriage” Resolution
In reviewing the resolution, Youth Office wanted to implement support for queer and questioning youth by making it part of the June YPS’s job description. How does SC feel about this?
Rick: How does the YO feel this will impact their work, how does it relate?
Betty Jeanne: Conversation that’s been going on for a while, some YPS’s (like Betty Jeanne and Jason) identified themselves as queer and took on the work because of that. But there isn’t a set person who does it, which is difficult. Makes sense to have it be the June YPS because of the breakdown of work. It will be a lot of work no matter what. Future June YPS applicants could see it in the job description and talk about their experience with queer/questioning issues in their application. They could also get further training once they’re on the job.
Jesse: We’re already doing this work, it’s just not clear about accountability structures and who’s doing this work. For long-term sustainability of this work it makes sense to put this in a job description rather than to rely on the identity of the YPS’s that are presently in the office.
Greg: Really great to see that one of the Long-Range Planning Meeting recommendations was to have support for queer youth and youth of color put directly into YPS job descriptions. Is there a YO person that has supporting Canadian youth in their description?
Jesse: That’s primarily the YPD.
Siri: Who decides the specifics of the responsibilities?
Nora: It’s been outlined very well in the resolution.
Betty Jeanne: How does this impact current applicants for the upcoming June YPS job? Some of them have already been working on applications and this could be a surprise to them.
Jova: We can let them know that it’s been added (Jesse will tell them during the phone interview), and see what they say and what kind of response they have to it, and any experience they have in the area.
SC decides that supporting queer and questioning youth, SATUURDAY, and anti-heterosexism and anti-homophobia work will become part of the June YPS job description. The specific language will be directed by the 2004 Youth Council Resolution, “It Ain’t Just About Marriage”. Hoorah!
Youth Council Extension
Laurel: The full seven-days idea sounds good, showing up a day early so that the first day wouldn’t involve travel at all.
Jova: This would involve SC coming in two days earlier.
Greg: People could fly in in the evening, rather than traveling all day.
Jesse: We have the camp for five full days and two “travel days” where we would only meet part of the day. Adding three full days would add about $8000.
Jova: How about SC arrives the morning of the 31st, other people arrive the 31st at the church, all travel the 1st in the morning to the site and do community-building that day, then also have the 2nd through 6th to do everything else and leave the 7th.
Laurel: Could we all travel to a church on the 7th, spend the night there, and then fly out the 8th?
Brian: Lots of travel time between Youth Council and ConCon.
Rick: The airports aren’t so hot, either. Not a lot of options.
Greg: How much more difficult would it be to get an extra day at the church itself? (A full presite day at the church, the 30th of July.)
Jesse: That could add up costly to have two bus rides, from ConCon to the church and the church to Youth Council.
Brian: So we have the 23rd to the 30th at the Camp for ConCon, we end the morning of the 30th and travel to a church we haven’t reserved yet, we stay the night of the 30th, have all day the 31st, sleep at the church the 30th and then go to Youth Council the morning of the 1st.
Jesse: Also, Youth Council tends to have adults with accessibility issues, and asking all of Youth Council to spend the night of the 31st at a church would not work for some folks, and we’d have to work that out.
Rick: I am taking my 8-person Astro van to ConCon. Yay!
Nora: So Jova’s proposal is that on the 30th, the day ConCon is over, SC would start meeting and would stay until the 31st. On the evening of the 31st, all of Youth Council would arrive and stay at the church that evening (there are accessibility issues and youth adult ratio issues there). The morning of the 1st all of Youth Council
Jesse: Not sure that even buys any time for Youth Council. You still have a two-hour bus ride and all the related delays to deal with on the morning of the 1st. Is it worth the extra money it’ll cost for extra bus rides, food, etc. to have just a few extra hours of meeting time.
Greg: Don’t see how it wouldn’t buy us time…?
Laurel: Maybe the differently-abled folks could stay at a homestay the night of the 31st.
Jesse: So this plan will add about $2400 for busses, plus approximately $500 for meals. So about $3000 that you need to find.
SC decides that Youth Council, if additional funding can be found by SC, will be extended somewhat. Jova, Rick, Laurel will help the YO in working on this, particularly on fundraising and details.
Dinner
Common Ground Committee Discussion
YRUU Youth Council members on committee to work with CGIII resolution:
SC decides this will be the committee of YRUU representatives invited to address CGIII resolution concerns.
Jesse: Really need to share information at this point, have trusted SC’s process so far to get to a point themselves, respect role with SC. Also feel responsibility to SC to share vital information and really need to do this at this point.
BOT and Administration feels this is much larger than YRUU at this point, are only willing to wait so long for YRUU to be involved before the BOT and Administration will go ahead without them. This is that point where SC, on behalf of YRUU has to decide whether to engage with the rest of the Association on this because the rest of the Association will not let YRUU engage in it by themselves. It is critical. Julian Sharp has been in these conversations, which is why he’s been contacting us so much. He and I (Jesse) both want SC to be a part of it, but both know that the time to act is now. Lyn mentioned at Youth Council that this was something the BOT would move forward with. What you still have control over right now is whether YRUU’s going to be a part of Common Ground. The Administration and many involved members of the BOT feel that Common Ground needs to happen, the question right now is if YRUU is going to be involved.
SC: Frustrated that we spent all this time building a Common Ground committee and not sure now what this committee is even going to be for.
SC: Committee will have input into what’s happening with Common Ground. But will it come back to Youth Council?
Jesse: Hope that it will come back to Youth Council in some way, but don’t know for sure. Hopefully if YRUU engages with it now, it will come back to it. Realize that the folks involved with this have a lot of power. Want to name that dynamic right now. Didn’t want to say anything if SC could engage with it and come to its own conclusions, but this is crucial information for SC to have to make this decision.
SC: What actually needs to happen at this point? With the committee? What exactly does BOT and Administration want?
Jesse: BOT and Administration would like this committee to be formed now, to be authorized by SC and to meet with the BOT and Administration.
SC: It’d be really upsetting if we didn’t have any say in Common Ground, we really want a piece in it. Would be better if we can at least negotiate with the BOT and have some say in it, otherwise it would be such a waste to let all of the work and discussion at Youth Council go down the drain. Feels like we’re backed into a corner, if we don’t do it we lose everything and if we do it there would be some messed up power dynamics with the BOT.
SC: Want to hear more about the dynamics with the BOT, can someone explain it?
SC: This is a great conversation, but we need to know how much longer we’re going to spend on it.
SC: Need to sleep right now, don’t think we can effectively continue this conversation tonight.
SC: Feel like we need to talk about this tonight, it’s huge and important and if we don’t decide it tonight we won’t talk about it for a long time and we will lose a lot of control with this. Don’t just want to do this, but also need to do this.
SC: Hearing a need for self-care, which is on our covenant, and a need to do our business, which is why we’re here.
SC: Can we give it another half an hour? Originally we were going to go longer than that, so we could strike a compromise.
SC: Let’s see how much we can do in a half an hour, then take it from there. There is a lot of time pressure and don’t want to let this slip through our hands and let someone else decide.
SC decides to go on for another half an hour – with one stand aside – then see we’re they’re at.
SC: Feel like we have to support this or we’re really not being accountable to YRUU at all, we’d be going against everything that we’re elected to these positions to decide. Something’s going to happen, we can take control over what will happen to us or let it go and not have a say in what happens. Is it appropriate to take a straw poll or to turn and buzz to see where people stand? We should each be able to share our voice in where we stand on this.
Straw poll: Is this (authorizing YRUU committee to work with BOT/Administration on Common Ground) something we all feel we need to do? Seven people agree, one person disagrees.
SC: Can people share why they feel that this is not something we need to do?
SC: Would be better for us to do a go-around. Feel like there have been points when there were people more in the gray area rather than agreement or disagreement. Would like to know what’s changed, what everyone is thinking.
SC: Why does the BOT and Administration feel so strongly about this? How and why did they make it bigger than YRUU?
SC: A lot of people know things that need to change in YRUU, people have shared their opinions with us on this and that someone needs to take control over this and that YRUU should care about saving the organization or making changes that need to happen. Feel like there are obvious needs for change and we’re not doing anything about it.
SC: Confused about why the BOT and Administration feel they would need to take actions like this.
SC: Is there action we need to take other than creating this committee and making it move forward? Don’t see what has to be done.
Jesse: Administration’s point of view is that the only way that this (Common Ground / YRUU revisioning) is going to be effective is in a collaborative way – youth are engaged with adults on Administration and BOT, and it’s not just youth off by themselves, because this conversation is more widespread, about how our congregations and local groups support youth ministry. They feel if this conversation stays within just the youth/YRUU community, it could fail like the LRP failed. BOT and Administration want the committee that works on this to include both youth and the other institutional key players, like the BOT and the UUA Administration. To make sure that SC has some kind of control over this, SC needs to authorize not only that the committee does its work, but that it does the work in collaboration with the BOT and the Administration. If not, the Administration will find other communities of youth to engage with. I (Jesse) am committed to stay engaged with this and advocate for youth as they do that.
SC: So we need to form and authorize the committee (which we already did), and now get the committee going and get them to work with the BOT and Administration.
SC: So we would send this committee to work under Administration’s auspices to develop a Common Ground-type meeting. I think our responsibility to Youth Council calls us to take part in this.
SC: Confused about what we’re doing. So we’d be allowing this committee to be collaborating with the BOT. We haven’t come to consensus on the committee working with the BOT, right?
Jesse: Heard a suggestion for a go-around where everyone shares where they’re at.
SC: Yes, let’s do it.
SC goes around, each person speaks:
SC: I see what is said about it being unfair, but what was the original reason for blocking the resolution at Youth Council this year?
SC: Felt we didn’t need Common Ground because we had Long-Range Planning. LRP not being implemented was not because it didn’t work out well. Unaccountable and unjustifiable for SC to support a Youth Council resolution as an ex-officio body.
SC: Do you mean last year’s (2003-2004) SC? Thought that Youth Council 2003 empowered SC 2003-2004 to go on and work on it.
SC: We’ve had a go-around, already overtime. What do we want to do?
SC: Feel like we should keep going. Is there anything we can do to keep each other feeling okay at the table? Power nap, caffeine, anything?
SC: No, really nothing that can help right now, need to go asleep.
SC: Is it appropriate to move forward without you?
SC: No, don’t think it’s appropriate.
SC: Have had a request for self-care, and that we don’t move forward with that request without them.
SC: If we don’t have an answer for the BOT tomorrow, does that mean we’ve lost our chance to be a part of their process?
Jesse: I don’t know. This whole thing has taken many twists and turns, totally unpredictable at this point. All I know is the BOT is meeting at 12:30 on Friday next week about this and they’re going to ask me at that time (or any of you who happen to be there) what the SC decided.
SC: Feel like we are in some ways at an okay place to call for consensus on this. Somebody mentioned it doesn’t affirm free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Need to decide whether this is principle concern. Would love to see if we could call for consensus and allow this committee to be on the joint committee. Can we elaborate on whether/why it’s a principle concern? There’s no way we can’t decide tonight, don’t know when else it would happen.
SC: Will not facilitate this and be a part of a conversation that tells me my principle concerns are personal preference.
SC switches facilitators.
SC: Don’t think people are saying it’s a personal preference, but are saying they feel like it is. Not trying to tell you how to feel about it, but how we’re understanding it.
SC: Shouldn’t have to justify principle concern, but do you feel comfortable trying to give us a better understanding? Not sure how to approach this.
SC: What more can I explain in a few minutes that I’ve been trying to explain for two months? What can I do to make you all understand? You don’t. I’m not blocking consensus, have removed self from process, make your decision.
SC: Don’t want to leave you out of the process, really sorry that don’t completely understand your concern. Haven’t heard everything from you in the last two months and did my best to hear you at Youth Council but was in such a weird state. This is a huge priority for me, sorry I can’t comprehend this so quickly/well. You said this doesn’t affirm one of our principles, but I’m not sure why. Can you elaborate on that?
SC: Don’t think it matters, have raised more than one principled objection. If none of those make sense, don’t feel there’s anything more I can do. You’re not leaving me out of the process, I’ve removed myself from it. Can’t do this, think it’s morally wrong, but am not going to compromise an organization I have so much love for, yet that shits on me so much, by holding this decision back. Empower you all to make this decision now with me in the room but not part of the decision. Will come back after you make the decision as a full member of the committee.
SC: May have not been present every time you’ve raised principle concerns, have been listening as intently as possible. Want to propose to everyone that we send this committee we’ve decided on to join the BOT and Administration.
SC: Would someone be willing to go to the BOT meeting to address our concerns? Want to make sure you have an opportunity to address some of your concerns at the BOT meeting. Can try to go have numerous SC members there so there’s more youth support.
SC: Will definitely be at the meeting because am a member of a congregation of the UUA and know that my trustees don’t ever get in communication with me. That’s a time for me to be heard, but will never represent the decision that is about to be made. Won’t speak negatively nor positively on behalf of the decision, only present it at what this committee has decided.
SC: Is everyone comfortable calling for consensus? Who is willing to send this committee ahead?
SC: Feel like my concern about needing to sleep got dropped. What I needed was never addressed, just dropped. Don’t know what to do because just feel really tired. Don’t feel I can make any decision.
SC: Do you think in the morning (like at 8) we can make a decision?
SC: Concerned with what else is on the agenda and about anything else we need to get done. Willing to stay up some more, feel like we just got consensus without a block, but with people that didn’t make a decision either way.
SC: Concerned that if we don’t make a decision, we will have nothing and the BOT will meet without us and without our voice in the process.
SC: I can’t and won’t make a decision until I wake up tomorrow.
SC: Have a major concern about nothing happening with this.
SC: Self-care is a part of our covenant, and that those reasons would always be a reason for a principle concern.
Jesse: advice/process suggestion – don’t see SC getting any other business done except for this. Shouldn’t even pretend to take on any other business. Think you could agree tonight to go right to consensus tomorrow.
SC: Concern on that is that if we don’t reach consensus, then where are we?
SC: Might be good to sleep and meditate on this and come back to this in the morning. We’re as likely not to reach consensus tonight as we would be in the morning.
SC: Does anyone have information on changing flights? Totally willing to do anything possible to stay as long as possible to make this decision if that’s what needs to be done.
SC: Know self-care is an issue and on our covenant, but also feel if we don’t come to consensus about something, we’ll lose everything and don’t want that to happen. Flight changing also costs a lot of money.
SC: Heard concerns that a decision can’t be made tonight, don’t understand why we’re still debating it. A decision simply can’t be made right now.
SC: Should just go to sleep and do it tomorrow.
SC: We could be at points like this again, as historical reference I have been in this kind of position before in consensus and won’t make myself stand aside because I can’t reach a decision that I don’t think would be right. Also want to point out that two of the people that can’t make this decision right now are People of Color.
SC: We have some time tomorrow, can we commit to get up early and if we get through this can take more time to rest afterward.
SC: 8 to 11 tomorrow should be plenty of time, the other bike racked things can really be decided later (by conference call and email). The more we talk now the less we can sleep and make a better decision tomorrow.
SC: Feel like the Youth Council drug issue is really important, can be done over email but won’t be as productive as doing it in person. Just want to put that out there.
SC decides to go to bed, reconvene at 8 tomorrow morning.
Common Ground Discussion Continued
Call for consensus: Will we let the committee that was decided go ahead and work with the BOT?
Two stand-asides, one person has removed themselves from the process. Since three people aren’t supporting the decision, we move ahead to list and resolve concerns.
SC: Have concerns, but not principle concerns or at least not principle concerns we can do anything about.
SC: Last night was able to stop and think, it helped think about group’s concerns, one thing discussed was that we can send this committee to the BOT but still list our concerns and put them out on the table. If we come to consensus about this we wouldn’t have to hide our concerns about this from anyone.
SC: Would love to hear concerns even if they’re personal, would be helpful to hear them.
SC: Removing self because of how folks were explaining that the BOT is imposing all this stuff on us, being sneaky about it, the bad power dynamic there. Power dynamics are a principle concern, but can understand the need to still send the committee forward because it’s the only way we will be able to have input into a Common Ground. Just don’t want to be the one to have not stood aside, to say this is okay.
SC: Can’t support decision in this way, but don’t really want to talk about it
SC: It’s a wrong decision to have to make, compromises our principles. Have an additional concern right now that most of the People of Color on this committee are standing aside.
SC: Confused because we didn’t clarify about whether that many stand asides equal a principled block. Really glad that those concerns are up there, they need to be addressed to the BOT, they can be addressed to other folks. Being a part of this we have a lot of power to put things out there, name our concerns while sending the committee forward.
SC: Don’t think that these concerns can be resolved, the problem for me is making the BOT active members of the committee instead of just observers. Want them to be aware of this, not just tell them this is wrong, but really sit them down and break it down like they were children. The BOT – and I’ve experienced this with a lot of the Administration – just don’t get it, think they can do whatever they want to us.
SC: All of these are really valid concerns, but also have a huge concern with not passing it. My decision to pass it is because my concerns about not passing it surpass my concerns with passing it. Don’t want to let go of all our control.
SC: Really want to come up with a way of how to resolve folks’ concern. Would we then put the decision for the joint committee on hold and write them a letter to tell them how we feel? Would one of us tell them at their meeting? How can we make sure the BOT hears these concerns?
SC: What’s happening right now is typical of consensus embedded in Robert’s Rules of Order – making people wait until the last minute and then they have to make tough decisions. This is messed up.
SC: Are people okay with it going to committee, but just really concerned with the power dynamics?
SC: Yes, really concerned about the way it was presented by BOT and Administration, and concerned that the committee will also have bad power dynamics. I am standing aside, I understand what you’re saying but I have these concerns but it is still important for us to have control in Common Ground committee.
SC: So we can talk to both the committee and the BOT/Administration (write a letter?)
SC: Sure, but we don’t have to do it on behalf of my concerns, we should do it out of principle.
SC: Absolutely.
SC: Would be really awesome if we just sent them last night’s and this morning’s minutes. Was able to get a lot of intense stuff out last night, better than I might be able to this morning or the meeting.
SC: Maybe we could send them the minutes, tell them the committee (from our end) has been decided but we’re not going to let them work together until these are resolved. This would let the BOT know we’re working on it but that the process in which this was presented has really bad power dynamics.
SC: Question for Jesse – if we do that, will it still be too late for us?
SC: It would probably not be a good thing to risk.
Jesse: After this moment, I have no idea what happens. The BOT hasn’t decided anything yet on this. There are key individuals on the BOT and the Administration that have come to the conclusion that this (committee moving forward) needs to happen. But the BOT as a body hasn’t decided anything yet, they’re going to be making decisions at their meeting this week.
SC: Still want to send it forward, but not shut up about our concerns until they’re addressed. Would anyone feel comfortable bringing up our concerns? Also feel like we could call for consensus again, but since they’re not resolvable we could try to go ahead with the decision and make sure these concerns are persistently presented and addressed by the BOT and Administration?
SC: So, we could send the committee ahead, but make a very intentional explanation of principle concerns (i.e. written document) to the BOT.
SC: Think someone should talk to them about it in person as well.
SC: Remember we want to send the minutes as well as a letter.
YRUU Steering Committee’s Proposal: To form a joint Common Ground committee, consisting YRUU representatives from Youth Council as well as members of the UUA Board of Trustees and the UUA Administration. A letter will be written to the Board of Trustees and to the YRUU representatives on the committee listing the Steering Committees concerns with the Common Ground issue. The UUA Board of Trustees will receive the minutes from the Steering Committee’s discussion on Common Ground at their October 2004 meeting. A representative of the YRUU Steering Committee will be present at the Board of Trustees Our Association Working Group meeting to discuss YRUU and Common Ground. YRUU Steering Committee will educate the YRUU representatives on the Common Ground committee about what the Steering Committee’s concerns are so that they are clear on these. Steering Committee called for consensus on this proposal: one person removed themselves from the process, all others agree. Proposal passes.
Jesse: So proud of you for doing the problem solving you just did, taking consensus to heart and figuring out how to bring people to agreement as much as possible and hearing their concerns. Know this must have been an incredibly hard decision and didn’t feel comfortable.
Laurel: Can we assign a few job jots to get all of this done?
SC: So would these concerns become the whole committee’s concerns?
SC: Absolutely.
Jesse: Suggestion – could have a quick conference call on Wednesday to talk about the letter before it gets sent out.
Job Jots:
Greg and Jazmin = write the letter
Greg (maybe Laurel as well) = talk to BOT at their meeting
All = Thursday conference call, 7 pm to 8 pm Eastern Time
Nora and Laurel = contact the committee members
Jova and Lehna = decide POCC member/s of the committee
Youth Office = send the BOT the minutes from this conversation, remove names
All = be very persistent about our concerns
Laurel and Rick = constant liaisoning between CG committee and SC
Memorable quote: “Who are we? We’re teenagers with conflicting conference calls? Wow!” – Gregory Boyd, as we try to schedule a conference call to follow up on all this.
SC: In order to be persistent, we could have regular check-ins on what’s going on with Common Ground committee, keep this on our agenda.
SC: I envisioned someone on the committee being persistent in talking about it, probably the youth SC rep who would be Laurel. She could report back to SC about what’s going on so they can be constantly in the loop about what’s happening with the committee. Will be a constant contact with everyone.
SC: as far as educating ourselves is concerned, we need to make sure we clearly understand the concerns on the YC resolution itself, on the decision we made here at SC. Have to be able to explain this clearly to other people. And we should see this whole thing phone chained because it is beyond important.
SC: As far as what to give to the YRUU members of the committee, will send them the minutes from this SC conversation, copy of the letter to the BOT/Administration, and a letter from Nora and Laurel to them explaining our concerns.
SC: Have a nagging concern about the committee make-up, and if Weston doesn’t want to do it what do we do? Wanting to have someone with his views about Common Ground on the committee.
SC: Do we want to add another person to the committee?
SC: We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.
And the 2004-2005 Steering Committee is done with their October meeting! Betty Jeanne thinks they’re all amazing, way to stay at the table and be awesome.