Opinion

by Rebecca A. Pace

Although covenants receive a major emphasis in the proposed Unitarian Universalist Association’s Article II, at General Assembly (GA) this past June the Moderators and the UUA Board and staff seemed unconcerned with breaking covenants. Before GA started, the Presidential Search Committee violated the association’s bylaws by presenting only one candidate rather than the required two. That set the stage for many more fractured covenants during GA.

Actions taken at GA will have profound impacts on the UUA for years to come. The delegates had two major proposals before them – amending Article II, and a divestment and reparations resolution.

The proposal to amend the Article II bylaws passed. This will only become effective if confirmed by a 2/3 majority at the next GA.

As serious as the Article II situation is, I want to turn my focus to the business proposal and debate. The failure of the Business Proposal for Divestment and Reparations, sponsored by the young adults, was predictable. The young adults see this as a betrayal, a covenant broken.

As background to this proposal, in 2014 the UUA delegates passed a young adult-sponsored resolution to divest 200 major fossil fuel companies (CU200) from the UU Common Endowment Fund (UUCEF). The 2014 resolution included an exception to allow the Fund to continue to hold shares in a company if the UUCEF was engaged in shareholder activism, such as introducing shareholder proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The young adults grew impatient with the progress of change and felt that shareholder activism was ineffective. The covenant they thought was there, in 2014, was fractured. A group formed, calling themselves Unitarian Universalist Young Adults for Divestment. Their petition for immediate divestment and reparations was supported by 405 signatures from 41 different congregations; well more than the 250 signatures required to place it on the General Assembly agenda.

The business resolution was 275 lines long. It’s clear that the young adults researched the current portfolio investments, but the resolution was seriously flawed. It was obvious to me, in the language of the resolution, that the young adults did not trust the UUA or the UUCEF managers enough to consult with them on a viable solution. I appreciate the young adults’ idealism; however, the actions called for were unworkable and damaging to the UUA and other fund beneficiaries.

The resolution required that the funds from divestment be transferred to an account for reparations to Indigenous peoples, Black and Brown communities, and refugees harmed by the fossil fuel industry. Days before General Assembly, the business resolution was amended to require transfers even from sources legally restricted to other purposes. Only congregational funds would be exempted. If implemented, it would open the fund to multiple lawsuits by aggrieved donors and their heirs.

The hasty sale of securities and distribution of an estimated $13 million dollars from the UUCEF to the reparations fund would have disrupted any investment strategy, and immediately reduced the income generated by the Fund. If the distribution to the reparations fund was spread out over 20 years, the UUA would be forced to cut their budget by $700,000 a year. The young adults seemed to acknowledge these cuts, when they later chanted, “with courage … we will survive this.”

The proposal failed, so why do I think the impact will be felt for years? The young adults who brought this proposal are our future leaders. They may have been naive and impetuous, but they should have been treated with more respect.

The lack of respect burst to the forefront at the beginning of General Session IV on Saturday, June 24 when the Business Proposal was to be discussed. (Note 1) The young adult members of the Care Team called the UUA leadership to account for a broken covenant. The previous evening, moments before the Synergy Bridging Worship Service, a UUA staff member with the Youth and Young Adults Program had been fired.

The staff member’s room keycard was cancelled, credentials revoked, and he/she was told to leave town immediately. There was no indication that this staff member was involved in any criminal or immoral act. The young adult members of the Care Team said that this action was particularly troubling to them. The Care Team members said that they felt “our UUA leadership team’s actions required us to respond.” Further, they said, “this action can be seen as retaliatory.” They closed by reminding the delegates of the pain caused in our community “when covenant is broken.”

At the close of Saturday’s General Session, Rev. Dr. Susan Frederick-Gray, flanked by her administrative team, justified the firing, saying normal processes had been followed. But the young adults claim a covenant was broken. All of this has been removed from the record of the Assembly.

The statement by the Care Team that the action appeared to be retaliatory rings true. The speculation is that the fired staff member let his/her supervisors know that he/she intended to speak on the pro side for the Divestment and Reparations proposal. This action was in direct opposition to the public statement on the issue released by the UUA Board of Trustees prior to General Assembly. Statements by the administrative team implied that the Board’s position had been discussed with the staff member before they left Boston, but the staff member persisted in speaking his/her truth.

Of course, we are left to wonder what did he/she intend to say? How could one young person alone have possibly spoken eloquently enough to clinch the vote for the proposal when trusted professionals were lined up to speak against it? What could a young person have said at the Assembly that would have been so damaging that the UUA didn’t want it to be voiced?

It is ironic that immediately preceding this announcement, an adult member of the Care Team asked that the delegates be gracious about occasional noise and activity coming from the young people among us. He said our youth and young adults are “sacred and holy.” He continued, “We are called to listen and be respectful.” Even that statement has been removed from the recording.

Late Saturday afternoon, at the close of the proposal’s pro and con statements, the young adults again called the UUA accountable for an implied broken covenant. They rose en masse, moved forward with signs calling for “Divest Now,” “Reparations are Accountability,” and “Fossil Free Future.” They chanted the following:

“… In a moment when we are deciding our legacy and our responsibility in the family of things, our impact depends on our willingness to transform. May we respond with courage, integrity and conviction knowing that we will survive this. We have studied our history—both the prophetic and the posturing—to discern clarity and accountability. May we make history anew on the wings of compassion, justice and hope. For the leaders of our faith, for the investors of our resources, for the representatives of our congregations, we pray for bravery in the face of misinformation, manipulation and fear….”

The young adults claim the implied covenant to fight climate change and to fight for justice with reparations was simply posturing. It’s only an ideal, often talked about but never acted on. Accountability is just an illusion.

These idealistic young adults are our future leaders. The youth will remember. The pain from the firing, and broken covenants, will fester even if the young adults come to realize the proposal was unworkable. Have we a lost generation? Will they just be bitter, not seeking revenge, but seeking reckoning?

These are troubled times for Unitarian Universalists. We need greater transparency and grace from our leaders in Boston.

—–

Note 1: “General Session IV,” Unitarian Universalist Association, https://www.uua.org/ga/off-site/2023/business/iv
[Return to Article]

SOURCES CONSULTED

In the writing of this article, a number of sources on the UUA website were consulted. Those sources have been saved and are provided below.

Final Text of the Business Resolution—Complete Divestment from the Fossil Fuel Industry

UU Youth and Young Adults statement regarding the Business Resolution for Divestment and Reparations, spoken at GA on June 24, 2023

UUA Board statement against the Business Resolution for Divestment and Reparations

UUA Board statement, Post-General Assembly 2023, Regarding Divestment and Reparations, dated July 10 2023

UUA Presidents joint letter regarding the young adult firing, dated June 30 2023

UUA Treasurer and CFO memorandum regarding the Operational Impact and Analysis of the Business Resolution for Divestment and Reparations, dated April 3 2023

UUCEF announcement of Completed Divestment from Carbon Underground 200 Companies, dated June 9 2023

7/23/2023.

 

Opinion

by Russ Araujo

At the 2023 General Assembly (GA), the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) took a step away from the “Universalist” part of itself.

As you probably know, the UUA is in the process of a two-year vote to replace Article II of its bylaws with a new Article II. The current Article II says “We strive to be an association of congregations that truly welcome all persons….” But the new Article II, after the words “all persons,” adds the words “who share our values.” Thus, under the new Article II, we will not be welcoming all persons, but only those who “share our values.”

In modern times, “universalism” has come to mean the inclusion of all. But that concept is on the way out for the UUA.

The new Article II passed a preliminary vote at GA 2023. It is up for a final vote at GA 2024.

People who argue in favor of the new “share our values” limitation often say that this change is needed to keep neo-Nazis from joining UU churches. Neo-Nazis? How big a problem has that been? Over the last forty years, I have heard of Neo-Nazis wanting to join UU churches… never.

(And even if a neo-Nazi were to join a UU church, contact with UU principles and values might change that person. The nonprofit organization Life After Hate, https://www.lifeafterhate.org/, has counseled many members of hate groups and helped them disengage.)

The proponents of the new Article II say that it “centers love,” and that the purpose of the UUA is “transformation of the world through liberating love.” But it also limits whom we welcome.

What kind of a love is it, how transformative of the world is it, if we welcome only those who share our values?

If the new Article II passes at next year’s GA, then our religion will not legitimately be able to call itself Universalist.

7/16/2023.

Opinion

by Antonio Ciolino

A New Chapter in Our Shared Journey
The proposed changes to Article II stand before us like a gateway to a new era in our shared journey as Unitarian Universalists. They are not random scribbles on a canvas, nor are they meant to erase our vibrant history. Instead, they serve as the brushstrokes of our shared future, painting a path in harmony with the evolving world and our cherished values. Our identity, unique as a patchwork quilt, is our strength, and it’s this identity that we seek to reinforce and accentuate as we stride forward.

Through the Prism of Systemic Racism
As Unitarian Universalists, we must recognize that racism is not a solitary boulder but a labyrinthine web that pervades the tapestry of our lives. Our commitment to dismantling this intricate system should be woven intricately throughout our principles, not merely reduced to a single stitch. The proposed changes to Article II recognize this reality, offering a fresh prism through which to view our commitment against racism.

Let’s not forget, Article II is not an ancient relic, but a living testament to our community’s evolution. Born in the 1960s during the union of Unitarian and Universalist churches, it has been a dynamic document, changing with the tides of our community’s needs and values. These principles and purposes were last revised in 1987. The proposed changes to Article II are an extension of this evolution, not a departure from our past, but a bridge to our future.

The Sacred Grove, Not the Marketplace
Our congregation is akin to a sacred grove rather than a business or a marketplace. While business models and market studies offer insights, they do not have the final say in our journey. We are not a corporation with customers, but a community with congregants. The goal of Article II is not to advertise our values, but to define them. It’s about illuminating who we are and who we aspire to be as a community.

Still, we cannot ignore the changing winds of our time. The rejuvenation at Heritage Church, the surge in new members, and the palpable energy in our congregation are signs of our continued evolution. To sustain this momentum, we must be proactive and open to change. We cannot merely tread water in the face of a rushing current. Like any living organism, we must adapt to our environment or risk stagnation and decline.

The Wind of Forward Momentum
Forward momentum is about more than numerical growth. It’s about the growth of our spirit, our compassion, and our collective resolve to make a difference. It’s about harnessing the energy of our congregations, the passion of our members, and the power of our principles to propel us towards a future that is more inclusive, more equitable, and more just. We must resist the inertia of complacency and embrace the wind of change that is beckoning us towards new horizons. The proposed changes to Article II are not about discarding our values but about ensuring they remain relevant and impactful in a changing world. They are about adapting our principles to the current time, so we can navigate change with grace and resilience.

The Journey Towards Personal Accountability and Racial Equity
The proposed changes to Article II are a reflection of our shared commitment to accountability and racial equity. They are the echoes of our collective voice, resonating with the call for justice that is central to our identity as Unitarian Universalists.

In the symphony of our shared journey, these changes serve as an important crescendo, amplifying our commitment to racial equity and accountability. They are not a departure from our Seven Principles, but an evolution of them. They are a recognition that our commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of every person must include a commitment to dismantling systemic racism.

These changes are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end – a more inclusive, equitable, and just community. They are a call to personal action, a challenge to each of us to live up to our highest values, and a promise of our shared commitment to making a difference.

Into the Uncharted Waters
Just as explorers of old ventured into the unknown with courage and determination, we too must embrace the potential of what lies ahead. We are not just passengers on this journey, but the navigators, charting our course through the uncharted waters of the future. We carry with us our shared values, our collective wisdom, and our unwavering commitment to justice and equity. The proposed changes to Article II are our compass, guiding us towards a more inclusive and equitable horizon.

As we steer our shared ship of principles and values into these uncharted waters, let us boldly embrace the winds of change, harness the power of unity, and set sail towards a future woven with the threads of inclusivity, equity, and justice. Our voyage has just begun, and the horizon promises a journey worth every brave step we take together.

5/25/2023.

Opinion

by Rebecca A. Pace, Certified Public Accountant

In the debate about the proposed changes to Article II, a question frequently comes up about why these changes are required. The answer is always some version of “it’s time.” We’re told the bylaws call for a periodic review, or society has changed since 1985 or some other pivotal date. Sometimes the answer is “church as traditionally defined is irrelevant; we should be a Social Justice Organization and get things done.”

The answer is never “a comprehensive review of our business model, by an independent, third-party organization, made these recommendations.” In fact, there has never been such a review. (Note 1) Perhaps that is reason enough to vote no on the proposal.

Most businesses would do a thorough market study before making a drastic change to their messaging. First, they would find out what makes them unique and what draws customers, or members, to them.

There is no evidence that this proposal is needed.

Some people think that changes to Article II are needed due to declining UU membership. It is true that membership is declining, but membership is declining in all religious organizations, except very large, evangelical Christian independent churches. Are we seeking to emulate those organizations? No. Is there still a place for individuals seeking Freedom of Belief? Yes! Where is the study that will help us build on our strengths?

As I look around and ask, “Why are you UU?” there are two common answers: (1) The Seven Principles resonate with me, and (2) I value the relationships I have with members of my local congregation.

So, if new members are drawn to our Seven Principles, why is the Article II Commission so intent on throwing them out?

Does the Values and Covenant proposal, with its demand for accountability and racial equity, resonate in the same way?

Of course, we would love to see more people of color in our congregations, but it seems to me that the idealistic call for covenant to dismantle racism is a poor beacon when compared to our First Principle, “The inherent worth and dignity of every person.”

If members stay because of the relationships they build in their local autonomous congregation, why change the purposes of the UUA away from serving the needs of the congregations?

This proposal has us sailing off into uncharted waters. Trying to do this without an objective study of our needs and what draws members to us will only lead to confusion, unnecessary costs, disillusion, and decline.

This is why I will vote no on the proposed changes to Article II.

—–

Note 1: The Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change was not a business study. It examined the alleged white supremacy culture of Unitarian Universalism.
[Return to Article]

June, 2023

Opinion

by Russ Araujo

In the mid-1980s, I was invited to another UU church, outside of Cincinnati, to give a guest sermon. My talk was on Krishnamurti, an Indian thinker of the 20th Century.

This church had the practice of doing a “talk back” during the worship service. This is the practice, followed in some churches, of people being able to give a response right after the sermon. Everyone who gave me a response hated my sermon.

One man stood up, looked at me, and said the words, “You. Are not. A true. Unitarian.”

Well now! I had been evaluated against some sort of standard I did not know existed. Later, I learned that someone at the church informed my own minister how much they disliked what I said. Maybe they wanted me to be held accountable.

This experience relates to the amendment I plan to submit for the proposed new Article II (Note 1) of the bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The experience deals with being held to a standard, and with accountability.

In this column I’ll be sharing my reasons why an amendment is needed, provide the text of the amendment itself, and raise and answer a few questions.

Whatever version of Article II comes out of the General Assemblies (it will take GA 2023 and GA 2024 to complete the process), it is likely to be what controls our UUA leadership for the next 15 to 30 years or more. Our current Article II is the result of a major revision that took effect back in 1985, with a few smaller changes after that. A new Article II that lasts 30+ years is not out of the question.

There is no telling who will be in leadership positions in the UUA 15 to 30 years from now. It is appropriate to have bylaws that direct—and control—the unknown leaders of the future.

The proposed Article II says that “We are accountable to one another,” and it includes seven covenants and one pledge.

A covenant is an agreement, and people are held accountable to agreements all the time. An example is in our own congregation, where a Disruptive Behavior Policy acts as a type of covenant or agreement. The policy names the specific behaviors that are unacceptable, and spells out in detail the appropriate series of steps to take depending upon the violation. The offender may have their involvement in the church limited or banned.

But not all covenants or agreements are such that people should be held accountable to them. To be held accountable to a covenant, it is best if the covenant has a set scope, is achievable, and has enough detail to determine whether or not the covenant is met. This is true not only in legal contracts, but in everyday life as well.

The covenants of the proposed Article II provide wonderful, aspirational statements of the direction we as UUs want to go. But they do not have a defined scope. Some of them are not achievable according to the plain meanings of their words. And they lack detail. Therefore, these covenants should not be things for which people are held accountable.

My amendment is intended to prevent people from being punished for not meeting these aspirational covenants.

The amendment would change the proposed Article II by adding this stand-alone paragraph: “No covenants or pledges expressed in Article II of these bylaws may, by themselves, be used as the basis for the Association or its member organizations to take punitive action against a congregation, organization, or person.”

People hearing this amendment may have a few questions.

One question is: Would this amendment mean that no one could ever be held accountable?

No, not at all. A given organization, congregation, or group of persons could always set up other, additional covenants that have a set scope, are achievable, and have detail. The organization and people involved could be held accountable to those other covenants.

Another question: Isn’t it silly to worry about punitive action from the UUA, when the UUA has never come in and meddled in the affairs of our own congregation?

Unfortunately, I do not think it is silly. There is a task group that has been appointed by the UUA Board of Trustees to rewrite the rest of the UUA bylaws, exclusive of Article II. The 2022 General Assembly passed a resolution that provides the charge to this task group. Among other things, the charge directs that the new bylaws should “Provide accountability to our long-standing anti-racist and anti-oppressive commitments.” (Note 2) In other words, the rewritten bylaws should not just mention accountability among ourselves, but should provide accountability—provide the mechanism by which accountability will be implemented.

How might that mechanism work? One clue is that the UUA Board of Trustees is in the process of setting up an Accountability Launch Group. The group will be made up of people with a variety of skills, perspectives, and identities, and it will focus on holding the UUA Board and Administration accountable (apparently to goals set out in the Widening the Circle of Concern report). (Note 3) (Note 4) The Board has developed a detailed charge to the Accountability Launch Group (Note 5), and the application for membership in the group has been posted (Note 6).

The new bylaws might require the establishment of other Accountability Groups. A question that several people have raised is, “To whom will the Accountability Groups themselves be accountable?”

When I consider all these things, I see reason for concern.

In the mid-1980s, when I was evaluated against an unspecified standard of what a Unitarian is, no punishment resulted for me. In future years, when people are evaluated against the Article II aspirational covenants, no punishment should result for them.

My amendment to the proposed Article II will help assure that.

—–

Note 1: Article II Study Report 2021-2023, prepared by the Article II Study Commission. https://www.uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 2: “Renewing UUA Bylaws for Theologically Grounded and Mission-Focused Governance,” Unitarian Universalist Association, Business Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, June 2022. https://www.uua.org/files/2022-08/reimag_bylaw_res_06262022.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 3: UUA Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes for May 9, 2022. https://www.uua.org/files/2022-07/bot_min_05092022.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 4: Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston, June 2020. Also found online at https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening
[Return to Article]

Note 5: UUA Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes for June 13, 2022. https://www.uua.org/files/2022-10/bot_min_06132022.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 6: UUA Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes for October 21-22, 2022. https://www.uua.org/files/2022-12/bot_min_10202022.pdf
[Return to Article]

4/24/2023.

Opinion

by Barbara L. Barnes

In today’s fractionalized world, society seems to force us to “identify” with a group. This idea opposes the “come together” ideals that I embraced in my coming-of-age 1970s. Today, such dreams appear politically incorrect. Why must we choose commitment to one side or the other? Few people fit perfectly into any single, simple, stereotypical profile. Are Unitarian Universalists (UUs) falling victim to similar, simplistic, divisive thought/cultural choices, rather than championing ideological diversity?

I identify as a MUTT – Multicultural Underlying Traditions and Taboos. Specifically, I call myself a Norwegian-American, German-American, and Anything-I-Please-American. (I’m not sure of my father’s heritage.) This mixed background provides many advantages. I can choose among my allegiances and desires, while assigning my faults based on stereotypes. I hate hot weather, perhaps from my Norwegian heritage. I’m stubborn, perhaps from my German heritage. I have other flaws that I assign to Dad’s heritage. Why must I identify with only one group? I’m more multi-dimensional than that. My beliefs don’t necessarily fall within one specific mind-set, one stereotype. I see the continuing debates regarding the proposed Article II [Note 1] changes as devolving into simplistic “us vs. them” arguments.

This last summer, I attended a UU workshop on the proposed Eighth Principle [Note 2], a precursor to the proposed Article II changes. I felt compelled to contest a part of a presenter’s oral report on the recent General Assembly (GA). The reporter depicted as racists two candidates for the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) Board of Trustees since they questioned adding a new principle. I knew that wasn’t exactly true.

I responded, “I think that you ‘paint with too broad a brush.’” I continued to explain the diverse and juxtaposed opinions of the two candidates. One perhaps presented a bigoted or at least exclusionist attitude; whereas, the other lobbied heavily for additional, civilized discussion of the proposal. I added that I feared that the Eighth’s dictate for “accountability” might lead to uncompassionate and divisive acts or punishments. In immediate response to my comments, another attendee called me a racist, to the group’s silent consent. I was instantly ostracized. When had polite questioning become inappropriate in UU settings, rather than revered? When had denigration become sanctioned? To quote Bob Dylan’s song, “the times, they are a-changin’.”

How can we praise diversity, if we squelch questions or other viewpoints? One application of diversity is empowering people by respecting and appreciating what makes them different. Those differences include perspectives and opinions, supported by both lived experience and empirical data. We should listen to and appreciate all sources of knowledge, not simply dismiss a different view as unfounded or wrong without ample consideration. Free and open-minded communication is key to harmony. Judgment without reflection is stereotyping, which can lead to oppression and/or suppression. A focus of the proposed Article II discusses dismantling oppression. Why battle oppression with oppression in our religious community? This situation only adds a new variation of the same problem – oppression.

I hope the 2023 GA Article II vote motivates delegates to use both their hearts and intellects rather than simply follow a “party philosophy” from either side of the debate. I’m a vacillating centrist, continually educating myself on the issues; seeing the pros and cons of both sides while trusting in delegate enlightenment. I long for a viable compromise.

My hopes center on amendments to the proposed Article II. Our GA delegates will cast preliminary votes on the proposed amendments and Article II modifications this June. Perhaps the proposed amendments will draw us back to a more level keel. Perhaps we can regain our liberal society that respects and values a diversity of thoughts not directed by a political agenda but by individual spiritual devotion bound together by mutual desires.

I fear a splintering of our denomination and congregations as has occurred recently among other religious groups when the “us-vs.-them” mentality became entrenched. Divisive and dividing steps are already afoot in the greater UU world. A single-issue focus harmed other organizations. Let us not join the ranks of the wounded.

---

Note 1: “Proposed Revision of Article II,” Article II Study Report 2021-2023,” by the Article II Study Commission of the Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 19-22 (PDF pages 21-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 2: “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: journeying toward spiritual wholeness by working to build a diverse multicultural Beloved Community by our actions that accountably dismantle racism and other oppressions in ourselves and our institutions.” From “The Eighth Principle of Unitarian Universalism,” First Unitarian Universalist Society of Burlington, https://uusociety.org/becoming-a-member/8th-principle/
[Return to Article]

3/14/2023.

Opinion

by Jen Ciolino

How I came to UU, and our seven principles

I am a relative newcomer to Unitarian Universalism, having come to the faith just under nine years ago and already in my 40s. I was moving away from a city metropolitan area to a smaller town of only about 40,000 people. While the town was small, there were over 100 churches. I realized that being part of a faith home was something I needed to consider for our family to help us fit into our new community. I started by searching for a Buddhist temple, and I stumbled on the local UU congregation because they hosted a weekly Sangha.

I was curious what kind of non-Buddhist church would host a Buddhist practice, so I explored the website, specifically looking to understand what Unitarian Universalists believe. I found it to be very different from other religions I had explored or practiced in that there was no particular required creed. Instead, I found and read the seven principles. The first time I read the principles, I was moved to tears and wondered if it was possible that I had found a church home where I could actually belong. The three principles that resonated most strongly for me are the first, third, and seventh. When people ask me about my religion, and I tend to blend those principles in my answer, saying something like, “We honor the inherent worth and dignity of every person, accept and encourage each person’s individual spiritual journey, and understand how we are all interconnected.”

I have learned through conversation and personal experience that each Unitarian Universalist is drawn more strongly to different principles, and that each UU tends to explain Unitarian Universalism in a different way. I see that as one example of how we live our principles, where each of us is on a unique spiritual journey.

I have never believed our principles to be perfect, in fact, far from it. I have seen people abuse the fourth principle by bringing their own definition of “responsible” to “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” I have balked at the fifth principle, believing that sometimes the majority become the oppressor simply because they can, even without oppression as an intent. I have felt that the second and sixth principles were “watered down,” setting an aspiration for a world nirvana without any guidance or accountability of how we live our faith to achieve that.

Nonetheless, I have supported our principles as written, and I have found my own meaning in them, with all of their beauty and all of their warts, much like UUs often do when elements of rituals or language aren’t an exact match for our own unique spiritual journey.

My first exposure to Article II

It was only very recently that Article II was something I was aware of. I had heard rumblings that our faith was trying to tackle racism in our congregations and in our society. I didn’t know what was happening, but I was so happy to hear that we were doing that. For quite some time I had seen how active and inclusive the church was for people who were LGBT. But I had always felt our disconnect to the reality of racism in our society, and my (black) husband and I have joked on many occasions that “UU so white.” I wondered if the reason that the faith hadn’t worked on racism was based in the fact that it doesn’t directly affect many of its adherents, since we are so overwhelmingly white.

As much as I love what Unitarian Universalism stands for, I have seen racial oppression receive lip service in our faith while seeing systemic initiatives for other topics, like certified Welcoming or Green congregations.

Then I read an opinion piece about a proposed Article II revision. I had a visceral reaction to what I read. I hadn’t read the current or the new Article II, but the opinion I read felt like a slap in the face. The piece tore into the language in the proposed Article II in a way that felt like it was attacking efforts to be racially inclusive and bring racial justice to the same level of prominence as LGBT justice in our congregations. It attacked language that those involved in racial justice know well, and I saw it as yet another symptom of the very racial oppression we say we abhor. I didn’t hear in that piece anything that centered the voices or experiences of the racially oppressed or of those who drafted the language.

I have since read additional opinion pieces. One common theme I run into cites that our principles of inherent worth and dignity of every person, along with justice, equity and compassion in human relations already cover racial injustice. It felt like the UU equivalent of “All Lives Matter.”

Article II – why it is important

I have now read Article II in its most recent form. I have not been following its development over the last couple of years, and I don’t know how it has evolved in its many versions. Those on the commission embody racial and generational diversity, along with a blend of formal religious training and lay people. I saw a commission of people dedicated to our faith and committed to this important work. And I saw the long list of stakeholders whose feedback the commission needed to consider.

To me, the language details of Article II are not as important as what it represents; whose voices are centered; and how it strengthens our faith. As a living faith, I am so proud to see us bravely and boldly seek progress. With the increasing diversity and multiculturalism in our society and in our world, and with the decline in numbers of faith adherents, our reality is we have to continue our progressive path. As my child once said to me, “The opposite of change is death.”

So I read Article II with an excited and open heart. I read it from a place of wanting wholeheartedly to support it. I fully expected it would not be perfect, and I read it assuming best intent and with full spiritual trust in those commissioned to do this work.

Article II – I see beauty in our faith

The first element of beauty I find is in the opening section on Purposes, stating, “The purpose of the Unitarian Universalist Association is to actively engage its members in the transformation of the world through liberating Love.” In reading this, I experienced the commitment of our association to all of us and to manifesting the aspirations outlined in our current principles.

In the next section, Values and Covenant, the introduction speaks to my heart and to my reason for being a UU. The first part says, “As Unitarian Universalists, we covenant, congregation-to-congregation and through our association, to support and assist one another in our ministries. We draw from our heritages of freedom, reason, hope, and courage, building on the foundation of love.” This says to me that we are a community first, and that we honor our past, respect our individuality, and build on Love as our foundation with hope in our hearts and courage in our actions.

The next two sentences are crucial in boldly proclaiming that our faith must be lived to be manifest: “Love is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values. We are accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of Love.” This says to me that we are not passive in this faith; we are active. We do not simply pay lip service to our values and principles; we bring them to life. This segment embodies the part of our own congregational covenant when we say, “Service is our prayer.”

Article II – some criticisms

As a person in a corporate career, there were elements of the proposal that struck me as an attempt to take large, complex issues and make it simple, resulting in the new graphic with the single words. I thought it missed the mark in many ways. I see that graphic as something we can anchor to in our religious exploration. The commission was writing words for Article II (and maybe they needed a visual artist!), and I would offer that the best use of this graphic is a basis from which to explore our faith, not a “logo” for Unitarian Universalism.

I have heard some say the new Article II is missing the poetry of our current principles. I understand that perspective, and I initially shared it. I asked myself to reconsider where I expect to find that beauty and poetry. What I found is that it is evident in the opening section for the values, and it is evident in each individual value. I think I was looking to read the values the same way I read the principles. I reframed my expectation, and I found the poetry and beauty I thought I was missing.

I have heard some say the language change from principles to values somehow fundamentally changes who we are. I did a lot of research on those terms, and I found mixed results about whether principles underlay values or the other way around, and whether principles or values are the basis for action. Either way, I concluded it was a semantics discussion that didn’t really impact the overall message for newcomers; it required a shift in thinking for those who might grieve the loss of what they have incorporated into their lives for so many years. I hope that if this article passes, many congregations will continue to honor their heritage of the principles by continuing to put them alongside the new values. I don’t think we as individuals or as congregations have to choose one or the other; both can live within us.

I have heard that some believe that the revised Article II pushes us away from being a faith organization by requiring activism. I humbly disagree. I do not see this Article challenge us to go beyond ourselves and our congregations in our actions. Instead, I see this Article challenge us to be uncomfortable where we might be complacent, to be willing to change ourselves where we discover we create barriers, and to continue to live our faith in our lives, beyond how we live our faith within the walls of the sanctuary.

Final words

This type of change is especially challenging for us because we have built our faith, our rituals, our language, and our lives around a set of words that have deep meaning for us. I offer that this is exactly why we need a bold change. We are by our own proclamation a progressive and liberal faith. We want to see our world transform around us, to see the manifestation of justice, equity, and compassion in human relations; the manifestation of a world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Would I have written some elements of Article II differently? Of course! Are there elements that could be improved? Of course! Will it ever be perfect or make everyone happy? Of course not.

It is time for us to allow new voices to articulate our faith, to keep us moving forward, and to help our faith change with our world. Growth comes from a place of discomfort. I am ready to embrace the discomfort of reframing my own faith. And I will do that while holding and honoring the steppingstones that brought us to where we are.

March 2023

Opinion

by Barbara L. Barnes

The term “judgment” means different things to different people and in different contexts. The definitions in multiple dictionaries range from opinion to legal pronouncement with consequences. In Christian circles, judgment often alludes to the “Last Judgment.” This construct purports that, come the end of time, God will review all lives, with those people found lacking condemned to Hell.

This religious use of “judgment” directly opposes our Unitarian and Universalist roots. As Lincoln Baxter states in his essay “Article II Comparison with Detailed Commentary” (Note 1), page 10, Unitarians “rejected predestination and adopted the concept of salvation through character … (and Universalists) rejected ‘original sin’ and proclaimed that God wouldn’t damn anyone to Hell forever.” Essentially, non-judgment, acceptance, or at least tolerance and compassion are bedrock for Unitarian Universalism (UU). The concepts explain UUs championing diversity and dissent. UUs have promoted debate as a route to individual truth. However, is non-judgment true in UU practice today? Is judgment creeping into our religion, at both national and local levels?

Judgment resides in the currently proposed Article II changes (Note 2) to the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) bylaws and the current UUA five-year plans (Note 3). The proposed Article II up for vote at General Assembly 2023 superficially appears noble and aspirational. I agree with the proposed Article II’s general concepts of love, opposing racism and all forms of oppression, and multi-cultural inclusion.

However, both the proposed Article II and UUA five-year plans repetitively connect covenants/commitments with accountable/accountability. Joining the concepts has led to selectively publicized situations of the UUA expelling UU ministers (Note 4) and congregations ejecting members (Note 5) for being out-of-covenant when expressing personal beliefs.

Enforced accountability arises on page 13 in the five-year plan report by UUA staff entitled “Widening the Circle of Concern, 2022 Implementation Plan,” (cited above.) It states, “Accountability Launch Group – The UUA Board is preparing with key UU identity groups and stakeholders to launch an ongoing, iterative accountability group to help ensure the UUA follows through in its long-term AR/AO/MC commitments.” (AR/AO/MC means anti-racism/anti-oppression/multi-culturalism.) The cited commitments are unexplained.

A follow-up bullet point in the document states, “Develop practices and frameworks for reparations within the UUA.” This statement, meaning codifying proper amends for judged wrong acts, reaches beyond just the organization. It applies to UU congregations and members, since the proposed Article II covenants address the organization, congregations, and individuals. The UUA plans also address embedded accountable action including “… audit(ing) for oppressive practices at the congregational level.” (Note 6)

In the proposed Article II, why covenant repetitively? In the current Article II Seven Principles (Note 7) we merely promise once to “affirm and promote” the outlined concepts with “mutual trust and support.” UUs often tease that we don’t have Ten Commandments we have Seven Suggestions. I consider this no frivolous joke. The proposed Article II replaces the “suggestions” with six specific action-statement covenants. I fled a religion that enshrined a code of thought, eliminating differing opinions. Allowing me to choose my own beliefs, rather than submit to enforced regulations, attracted me to UU.

Why dictate accountable actions? Inciting action often uses either a carrot or a stick. I believe that a religion should inspire adherents rather than compel with threats. The current Six Sources in Article II (Note 8) list inspirational resources. People opposed to the proposed Section C-2.3 Inspirations (Note 9) (replacing the Six Sources with vague allusions rather than a never-complete list) state that the new language doesn’t inspire. With no motivational “carrot,” the alternative of an accountability “stick” appears. Many religions have used disciplinary methods to assure adherence to their authority and philosophies. The Inquisition provides an extreme example.

Accountable covenant language in the proposed Article II Section C-2.2. Values and Covenants (Note 10) comes uncomfortably close to creedal language, often used in accountability tests. People argue that the proposed Article II is not a creed, because the covenants concern values, not theological beliefs. Perhaps better terminology suggests that the proposed Article II requires pledging “correct” reactions to a perceived set of “correct” values/beliefs. Creedal or “correct” allegiance, either assessment presses external judgment on my personal beliefs.

A counterargument to my viewpoint might claim, “But, UU centers on Love!” As stated earlier, I agree with the proposed Article II’s general principles of love, opposing racism and oppression, and multi-culturalism. However, in my opinion, a cornerstone of love is not accountable covenant judgment. Accountability produces judgment using conditional love – love when you believe/act as I do. Judgment, embodied in accountable covenants, codified in the proposed Article II and UUA plans, is not aligned with the bedrock UU value of loving acceptance/tolerance. According to the definition by Karen Armstrong, acclaimed religion scholar, accountable covenants fail the compassion test of a valid religious idea (Note 11).

---

Note 1: “Detailed Analysis,” Save the Seven Principles, savethe7principles.wordpress.com/analysis-commentary/
[Return to Article]

Note 2: “Article II Study Report 2021-2023,” prepared by the Article II Study Commission, Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 19-22 (PDF pages 21-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 3: “Widening the Circle of Concern: 2022 UUA Implementation Plan,” submitted by UUA Staff, Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2022-07/WCC_2022_implementation_plan.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 4: In “UUA Clergy Removed or Resigned from Fellowship with Completed or Pending Misconduct Investigations,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/mfc/clergy-misconduct-investigations, see the last two de-fellowships and two resignations, citing bullying and abuse. See “The UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry,” Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association, uuma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/uumaguidelines2021.pdf, page 5 point 8 and the definition of bullying and emotional abuse, page 39. See also Used to be UU: The Systematic Attack on UU Liberalism, by Casper & Kiskel, chapter 8, The Demolition of the Fourth Principle, The Real Meaning of Covenant and Accountability, re Rev. Eklof pages 147 – 151, and chapter 13, Accusation and Polarization II, The Suspension of Rev. Kate Rohde, pages 229-231. See also “UUMA Board to Ministers: Shut Up!” by Rev. Richard Trudeau, Truly Open Minds and Hearts, trulyopenmindsandhearts.blog/2019/12/21/uuma-board-to-ministers-shut-up/
[Return to Article]

Note 5: I know personally of two ejected congregation members, privacy maintained. For additional expelled members see “The Dark Side of Dismantling,” Fifth Principle Project, fifthprincipleproject.org/2022/10/04/the-dark-side-of-dismantling/
[Return to Article]

Note 6: In “Accountability and Resources,” part of Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/accountability-resources, see Recommendations and Take-Aways that discuss embedded accountability. See also Used to be UU: The Systematic Attack on UU Liberalism, Casper & Kiskel, The Expansion of Accountability, pages 158-163.
[Return to Article]

Note 7: “The Seven Principles,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles
[Return to Article]

Note 8: “Sources of Our Living Tradition,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sources
[Return to Article]

Note 9: “Article II Study Report,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 21-22 (PDF pages 23-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 10: “Article II Study Report,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 19-21 (PDF pages 21-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 11: “The one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion. If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express this sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God’s name, it was bad theology. Compassion was the litmus test for the prophets of Israel, for the rabbis of the Talmud, for Jesus, for Paul, and for Muhammad, not to mention Confucius, Lao-tsu, the Buddha, or the sages of the Upanishads.” Karen Armstrong. As found in LibQuotes. tinyurl.com/Armstrong-Quote
[Return to Article]

March, 2023.

Opinion

by Bob Lamb

You have read a lot recently in this space about things going on at the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) level, especially the review and rewrite of Article 2 of the Bylaws, which contains the seven principles. I want to provide my perspective as an observer and sometimes delegate for Heritage UU Church at the UUA General Assembly for the last seven years.

I came to UU looking for a religion where I felt comfortable as an atheist/ maybe agnostic/ quite possibly spiritual person. By religion I mean an organized movement focused on common goals and desires derived from a sense of something true and necessary in all people. I also mean a movement filled with joy and spirit. My religious experience had been Pentecostal churches both white and black. I loved the energy, never bought the message.

A work colleague said, “UU? That’s nothing but a Democratic Social club!” But it didn’t feel like that at Heritage. Heritage felt like love. I attended a couple of other UU churches and didn’t get that feeling, though. My first experience at GA reinforced what I felt at those other churches; UUism was neither a religion nor a Democratic club. It was simply a debate society for left leaning intellectuals. I felt religious when marching with the Side With Love movement, or with Black Lives Matter, but those efforts did not seem to be at the heart of UUism.

What was missing? This excerpt from an article by Rev. Mark Morrison-Reed in the Fall, 2017 edition of UU World tells a part of the story:

A 1989 study of UU worship preferences tells us that African Americans don’t fit the UU pattern. What was most important in worship for 74.5 percent of UUs overall was “intellectual stimulation.” What was most important for African American UUs who responded to the survey? “Celebrating common values” (chosen by 69 percent), then “hope,” “vision,” and “music”—all before “intellectual stimulation.”

Why did African American culture, experience, and sensibilities remain invisible?

There was cultural dissonance between a people who, having political rights, prized “intellectual freedom” in their struggle with orthodoxy and those for whom the struggles for basic freedoms—political and spiritual freedom—were paramount. But the white conscience does not want to know. Not knowing the history and not being reminded during worship means white liberals don’t have to feel guilty or be confronted by the emotional aridness of UU worship. (emphasis added)

The full article can be found here. It is an excellent survey of how African American UUs have been marginalized, ignored, and neglected throughout the history of Unitarianism.

So I found UU “worship” to be unfocussed and emotionally arid. HUUC was better than others–there’s that Universalist strain coming through.

Then Ellie and I attended the messy, amazing, chaotic, transformative GA in New Orleans, where Susan Frederick-Grey was elected President (not my vote, but I am very happy after seeing her in action) and the Commission on Institutional Change was appointed. And the rest, as they say, is history, leading to where we are now.

Where are we? First, GAs are a whole lot more interesting—singing, dancing, real preaching, actual emotion! But more importantly, African Americans and other BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People Of Color) people are in many positions of power and authority in our faith, positions they were unjustly denied in our history. And they are guiding UUs with great (religious) fervor to attack America’s biggest issue that has infected our institutions and held our country back in all our attempts to unite to make a better world: Racism, and especially the institutional racism that permeates our culture that we can’t even acknowledge because it is so much a part of everything.

As President Frederick-Grey said at the 2018 GA, this is no time for a casual faith.

So now I ask that you reread the proposed new Article 2 section on values and covenant, with my emphasis on the covenantal words. What’s different from our principles? First, everything is based on love—not even mentioned in our principles. Second, we are called to action—not the wimpy “affirm and promote” language of the principles. They want passion. They want direction. They want us to be a religion that stands for something. So do I.

C-2.2. Values and Covenant.

Love is the enduring force that holds us together.

As Unitarian Universalists in religious community, we covenant, congregation-to-congregation and through our association, to support and assist each other in engaging our ministries. We draw from our heritages of freedom and reason, hope and courage, building on the foundation of love.

Love inspires and powers the passion with which we embody our values. Inseparable from one another, these shared values are:

Justice. We work to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all people thrive. We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.

Generosity. We cultivate a spirit of gratitude and hope. We covenant to freely share our faith, presence, and resources.

Transformation. We adapt to the changing world.
We covenant to collectively transform and grow spiritually and ethically. Evolution is fundamental to life and to our Unitarian Universalist heritages, never complete and never perfect.

Pluralism. We celebrate that we are all sacred beings diverse in culture, theology, and experience. We covenant to learn from one another and openly explore the depth and breadth of our many wisdoms. We embrace our differences and commonalities with love, curiosity, and respect.

Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain a fully inclusive and accessible community of communities.

Interdependence. We honor the sacred interdependent web of all existence. We covenant to care for and respect the earth and all beings by fostering relationships of mutuality. We work to repair the bonds we have broken.

Finally, the proposal adds this to the freedom-of-belief clause: “In expressing our beliefs, we do so in the spirit of love, in ways that further Beloved Community.”

Beloved Community is where everybody helps each other, everyone gets along, everyone looks for the common good. Look it up and you’ll find most of the references are to Martin Luther King, Junior. It is what he was talking about at the end of his “I Have a Dream” speech. So all they are saying is, show love when you express your opinions. Here at Heritage we are bound by a wordier covenant with the same essential meaning (from our website):

Our Pledge for Living in the Spirit of Community

We, the members and friends of Heritage Universalist Unitarian Church, seek, encourage, and support the continued spiritual growth of our diverse community.

In support of this pledge, I accept responsibility for my words and actions and seek to understand other’s concerns and viewpoints.

I will listen actively to others, asking for clarification to avoid misunderstanding.

I will express my thoughts and feelings in a non-judgmental way.

I will seek to resolve significant conflicts directly in the spirit of loving-kindness.

I will refrain from gossip and hurtful comments.

I will be welcoming to visitors and others.

I will honor confidences that have been shared with me.

I will seek out the opinions of those who will be affected by my decisions.

I will carry out my church responsibilities in a timely manner.

We, being human, may fail to meet our pledge many times. I will seek to heal the hurt in myself, and others, when I and they fall short.

So the UUA is starting to be a religion, with service, passion, and direction, focused on love. There is also a lot of talk about the sacred and divine. Sound familiar? Read the HUUC covenant.

The UUA is looking more like Heritage every day. I love it.

January 2023.

“We will Transform the World by our Liberating Love”

Opinion

by Rebecca A. Pace

“We will transform the world by our liberating love.” These glorious words are the last sentence of the proposed Purposes clause, in Article II of our UUA bylaws, up for a vote for approval at the 2023 General Assembly. (To see a side-by-side comparison of the current Article II and the latest proposal, click here.) It sounds like a wonderful idea, but what does it really mean?

There is a school of thought that the purpose of religion is not to reach the individual soul, but is to change society, to raise up the oppressed. This concept is called Liberation Theology. I see liberation theology in another part of the proposed revision to our bylaws, the Justice Value. “We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.”

The 2020 publication, Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, suggests “our congregations must center themselves in the communal….” (Note 1) The new UUA style of Liberation Theology appears to attack individualism and “freedom of belief” as self-centered. According to the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, focusing on our First Principle, the inherent worth of an individual (individualism) is incompatible with collective work for social change.

The UUA workshop entitled Compass, Navigating the Paths to Liberation Together, which I attended in December 2021, illuminated the goal of the Article II Study Commission. The stated purpose of the workshop was to collect input for the Commission’s work. However, the Commission clearly had their version of liberation theology already in mind when they designed the workshop. Liberation terminology was often used by the speakers while denigrating individualism.

In his Sunday homily, at the Compass webinar, former UUA President Rev. William G. Sinkford said:

“Are we called to be a liberal religious movement whose first principle and priority is the empowerment and protection of the individual, or are we called to become a liberating faith…? Can we accept the changes that will be needed in ourselves and in this faith if UU is to become liberating with the power to help us all get free?”

We are not talking about liberating love, in the sense that we give ourselves and others the freedom for a personal search for truth and meaning. No, The Report by the Commission on Institutional Change calls for centering the communal for theological exploration. (Note 2) This liberating love defines church as a social justice action collaborative.

In the Justice Value, we are bound to the work of liberation. “We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.” The UUA Board began implementing the accountability teams at the May 9, 2022 UUA Board of Trustees meeting. (Note 3) Team members are drawn from marginalized identity groups associated with the UUA. The accountability teams are charged with enforcing the Values Covenants at the leadership and congregational level.

The process of reshaping our UU governance—and our Principles, the fundamental underpinning of our faith—is going on now. In the current draft, the Seven Principles and Six Sources are replaced by completely revised Values and Inspirations. A new draft will be released in January. In late winter, General Assembly mini-assemblies will start to consider and finalize the draft to be presented in June. Final adoption of any changes to Article II must be voted on and approved at General Assemblies in 2023 and 2024.

Please become familiar with the issues. If you would like more information or resources, so you may explore the issues yourself, let me know. I would be happy to share additional material and videos with you.

My fellow Heritage Board members and I want to know what you think about the proposed Article II.

To see other opinion essays by Rebecca Pace regarding the UUA proposed changes, click here.

---

Note 1: Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston, 2022, page 46. Or online at https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/congregations-communities, in the subsection “Backgrounds and Trends.” For a PDF version of the full printed document, go to: https://huuc.net/pdfs/widening_the_circle-text_with_covers.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 2: Widening, p. 10, or online at
https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/theology in the subsection “Backgrounds and Trends.”
[Return to Article]

Note 3: “Board of Trustees MEETING: May 9, 2022, 7:00 pm Eastern Time,” Unitarian Universalist Association, Appendix starting on the third page of the minutes, https://www.uua.org/files/2022-07/bot_min_05092022.pdf
[Return to Article]

January 2023.