I’m still pondering my opinion on the recommendation of the Unitarian
Universalist Board of Trustees to the UUA General Assembly to move the 2012 UUA General Assembly out of Arizona. This year at GA I will be a delegate, so I will actually have a vote on this matter. I have been given freedom of conscience in how I will vote on this matter by those I will represent.
There are many questions that I am pondering in relation to this decision. Is it worth the $615,000 in penalties and fees it will cost to move GA at this late of a date? Could a stronger statement be made by going to Arizona and challenging some of the objectionable laws of that state directly? Is the UUA changing General Assembly actually going to be noticed? Is keeping the GA in Arizona, when other conventions are leaving, going to be seen by some as tacit support of these objectionable laws?
There are some more general questions… Could the additional cost of moving GA finally provide the impetus for the General Assembly to be scaled down to just the Plenary sessions, and really become the business meeting it is supposed to be? Could that scaled down GA in another city (or maybe even a large retreat center somewhere we could dare to dream) allow for delegates from congregations to participate electronically? Could a GA stay in Arizona but forswear all of the usual swanky hotels and businesses, and just stay at the La Quinta’s and the Motel 6’s?
However, among all the questions I am asking myself about this recommendation of the Board of Trustees, one is louder than the others… because I think it is the systemic question. Why did the Board of Trustees recommend that we change the location for the General Assembly in Phoenix when they did not make the same imitrex generic form recommendation when similar concerns were raised about the General Assembly in Ft. Lauderdale in 2008?
Both of these General Assemblies were potentially “Papers Please” events. I distinctly remember the security guards at the entrance to the convention center in Ft. Lauderdale requiring each attendee at the General Assembly to present valid state issued identification before we could enter the facility each time (even when I was in uniform). In Arizona there is only the potential we could be asked to prove our citizenship… in Florida it was a certainty, often several times a day.
In Arizona, it is only one state government that has passed such a law, and there is every reason to suspect it will be declared unconstitutional (or at least under injunction) before the GA in 2012 anyway. In Florida, it was not the state government that demanded to see our papers, but the federal government… and as far as I have been able to determine that practice continues at the Convention Center in Ft. Lauderdale.
Now, it is certainly true that the law in Arizona has a broader scope and reach… within Arizona. It is also true that the UUA could conceivably be accused of tacitly supporting the law by the revenues that will eventually go from the UUA to the state government through various taxes (going to happen because of the penalties and fees anyway.
But the question I am interested in is this. The UUA faced a very similar question when it came to the General Assembly in Ft. Lauderdale in 2008, and it chose to go to Florida anyway. What makes the Arizona case different?
I’m really asking… because to me, it seems that there may be something important in why the reaction of the Board of Trustees was so very different this time.
Yours in faith,
David
I’m not at all sure I agree with the Board–I’m trying to find out what activists in Arizona would like us to do–but I think there’s a very simple logistical reason for the different response: timing. The problems with Ft. Lauderdale became evident only a few months before GA. This time we have over two years’ warning.
Amy,
I could buy that if it were not for the reports that the GA Planning Committee had done the study to see that it was possible, though it would have been expensive, to move GA in 2008.
Beyond that though… not having enough time to change venues was not the reason stated for the decision the Board took. What was stated was the need to go there and witness to the violation of civil rights… That argument applies even more so to the GA in Phoenix than it does to Ft. Lauderdale.
The other argument was that Ft. Lauderdale had given us a great deal on the convention space… But it was the need to witness that was emphasized.
And someone can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure the GA Planning Committee knew about the problem with the 2008 GA several years in advance. They simply chose not to do anything about it until several UU ministers and lay-members found out and began to criticize the site.
I dont know… I’m still sensing that there is something else at play here. Why were we called to “witness” in Ft. Lauderdale and not called to do the same in Phoenix?
Thank you for the post…
Yours in faith,
David
I know many Arizona activists who would like to see more strong voices of faith speak out against SB 1070. I can see the vengeful draw of a boycott, but these boycotts target tourism and hospitality, harming the same population that SB 1070 targets. And personally, I don’t think moving GA makes sense. Why? I’m going to let my minister, Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray of the UU Congregation of Phoenix, answer that. The following quote is pulled from a news article in UU World:
“I understand the reasons to support the boycott and even support some of those reasons myself. However, it’s disheartening to have UUs choose not to come here because of something our legislature has done. The groups calling for boycotts want to create an immediate financial impact and pressure on the state of Arizona, yet it is unclear if canceling GA in two years brings that kind of immediate financial impact. One of the things that religious groups bring and UUs would bring is a moral voice, an ability to engage around social justice advocacy. There is value that UUs bring that’s beyond financial, that’s something other groups don’t bring in terms of morally and politically engaging with what’s going on in Arizona.”
Short answer:
Because in Ft. Lauderdale it was guaranteed that EVERYBODY would be asked for their papers and it is quite likely that in Arizona only people of color will.
Also, because last time GA met in a Southwestern city with lots of racial tensions, a bunch unpleasant stuff went down.
http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/2604.shtml
CC
who doesn’t support the boycott, but that, in a nutshell, is why some people do.
CC,
You say that it was because everybody would be subject to the “papers please” requirement in Ft. Lauderdale,and not in Phoenix. While that was actually the reality we encountered, I’m not certain that was realized by the board at the time they made their decision… here is a quote from the UU World article on the issue back in 2008…
“Trustees expressed fear in October that the checkpoints would provide opportunities for racial and other kinds of profiling, especially of young people.”
Admittedly, I knew it would probably apply to everyone (it does on military bases afterall) but it was clear to me that racial profiling and ageism was a significant part of the board’s concern.
Now, your second answer seems to make alot more sense to me! I was unaware of the previous bad expeirence. This feels to me like a systemic reaction, and a “ghost in the system” would certainly play into that… thank you!
Thank you also Melinda for posting the quote from Rev. Frederick-Gray. She makes some great points, ones I’m inclined to agree with. In fact, her it is that so many rational arguments exist (and precedent exists) not to move GA that the speed with which the Board made its decision points to a systemic cause, not a conditional one.
Yours in faith,
David
CC,
You brought up another point for me… in 2008, when time was much shorter, the board took 4-5 months (October to January) to make it’s decision. Why, when time is so much longer now, did the board of trustees move so quickly at a draft resolution?
I’m sure some rational reasons can be found, and it still suggests to me that there is something more going on here.
Could part of the energy around this be, as hinted at in Rev. John Cullinan’s article, that we continue to want to play on a larger national stage than we actually do as a faith movement?
Yours in faith,
David
((((Could part of the energy around this be, as hinted at in Rev. John Cullinan’s article, that we continue to want to play on a larger national stage than we actually do as a faith movement? )))
I assume so.
Did anyone voting say if they had bothered to read the law?
Since you asked David. . .
“Is it worth the $615,000 in penalties and fees it will cost to move GA at this late of a date?”
Almost certainly not.
“Could a stronger statement be made by going to Arizona and challenging some of the objectionable laws of that state directly?”
Almost certainly yes.
“Is the UUA changing General Assembly actually going to be noticed?”
Even if it is noticed. . .
Will anybody other than U*Us care?
“Is keeping the GA in Arizona, when other conventions are leaving, going to be seen by some as tacit support of these objectionable laws?”
Not necessarily. Especially if UUA delegates engage in various kinds of protest actions while in Phoenix, assuming the whole issue hasn’t blown over by then. . .
“it seems that there may be something important in why the reaction of the Board of Trustees was so very different this time.”
Can U*Us say “knee-jerk”?
ChaliceChick said – Also, because last time GA met in a Southwestern city with lots of racial tensions, a bunch unpleasant stuff went down.
ROTFLMU*UO!
What part of “incidents in which *GA participants* mistook UU youth of color for hotel staff and others in which hotel staff ignored the needs of youth of color” did you fail to understand CC?
*That* unpleasant racial tension stuff that went down at Fort Worth *could* have gone down at *any* UUA GA *anywhere* in the U.S.A. or indeed Canada.
Ditto for “a confrontation between three youth of color and a *white UU minister* at the assembly’s closing ceremony, leading to cancellation of an intergenerational dance scheduled later than night.”
No CC?
Where does the fact that this particular UUA GA took place in Fort Worth Texas come into this? Its seems that much of the unpleasant racial tension stuff you referred to was created by U*Us themselves.
Perhaps it’s that witnessing in high summer sun in AZ is a form of really crazy.
I say that as someone who’s going to go to the large demonstration May 29th–which will be an action by many from many groups–and presuming I won’t be going to spend most of a week in 2012, during which time there might be one action by (likely) us alone, it being on our schedule.
Witnessing as the extra action… seems to have the focus all wrong to me.
Not sure if you’re on Facebook but also want to bring your attention to an open letter written by members of Valley UU in Chandler, AZ:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/valley-unitarian-universalist-church-chandler-az/an-open-letter-to-the-vuu-board-in-opposition-to-moving-2012-ga-from-phoenix/427874270085
They bring up some more excellent points.
Its taken me a while to respond to this post, but I have several constiutentcies I wanted to consult with (UUA Board’s response on this, as well as Allies for Racial Equity):
In Ft. Lauderdale everyone was expected to show I’d for entry. In this case, certain people are reasonably expected to be targeted for questioning/harassment or worse. In Ft. Lauderdale people expressed opposition on grounds that it was wrong to place ourselves within an area requiring such scrutiny vs. in AZ we are placing ourselves in a state in which some UUs testify they would reasonably feel in peril. Also, our not going to Ft . Lauderdale was not seen as trying to sway the port authority vs. AZ where we are trying to impact AZ law and other states that might follow.
Michael Tino’s suggested a different approach, one that acknowledges both the just desire of the Arizonans (of many sorts) for support in struggling against this law *and* the call from various groups within and without our movement that call for boycott.
He suggests that we (the UUA board, etc…) reach out to other religious communities which (on the whole) oppose this law, and invite them to join with us — and convert our convention commitments to a multi-faith gathering in opposition to the law, with a variety of actions against it. Make the whole AZ event centered on that.
Take GA–the business meeting of our association–somewhere else, in August.
He observes that the annual action of witness that occurs during GA is usually attended by roughly 10% of those attending G.A., so the suggestion that *that* would suffice is kind of deceptive–people are either so busy, tired, or unengaged (or G.A.-goers, in general, aren’t the folk who do that work…) just would be an embarrassment.
And yes, it would mean some added costs, and some folks would only be able to do one or the other, and would choose. That’s fine.
Congratulations on your ordination, David! I’ll look forward to welcoming you as a colleague in person one of these days.
“I could buy that if it were not for the reports that the GA Planning Committee had done the study to see that it was possible, though it would have been expensive, to move GA in 2008.”
I know, and I don’t recall (if I ever knew) what it would have cost. I was just guessing that with less lead time in 2008, the penalties would have been higher (and the cost of arranging a new site also higher).
“Beyond that though… not having enough time to change venues was not the reason stated for the decision the Board took. What was stated was the need to go there and witness to the violation of civil rights… ”
Good point. However, human beings have a tendency to rationalize whatever decision they feel stuck with by generating reasons like this. That doesn’t mean it was insincere–but it does mean that it might not be a valid reason, then or now, to go to the place in question. Nor are they exactly the same situation. I think SB 1070 is more egregious than the ID checks that were part of Ft. L., personally, though I’m inclined to keep GA in Phoenix anyway.
“And someone can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure the GA Planning Committee knew about the problem with the 2008 GA several years in advance. They simply chose not to do anything about it until several UU ministers and lay-members found out and began to criticize the site.”
The way I heard it was that they knew there was a problem but had been assured by the convention center that it would be cleared up by June 2008.
My other guess based on human nature is that this Board is (over?-)compensating for the frustration and anger they felt in 2008. And I agree with you: we are aching to make a splash. I’m not knocking the goal–praise be to Boards who want their organizations to raise a ruckus. That may again be a case of overcompensation, however.
I also wonder if this is a sign that the Board wants us to try to be a religion for Latinos, among other people not usually much represented in our pews, as Peter Morales urges; at least, I hope they do and we’ll join them, because it’s way overdue. That also doesn’t answer the question about whether the best way for us to stand with recent immigrants (of whatever legal status) is to go to AZ or stay away.
I like the suggestions about going there and protesting, such as Michael Tino’s and others’, but I’ll like them better when they’ve come true. I know how GA protests go. A few hundred folks and a drop in the bucket. If we go to Phoenix in 2012, let’s go way beyond that.
Amy