There has been talk about making changes at GA for several years now. What if the planning committee, and the Board of Trustee were listening? And what if they were to propose to make some changes? We have seen how rapidly the reform of bringing congregational presidents to G.A. and giving them lots of interface time has become institutionalized.
I expect these changes to be instituted in the next few years. I suspect we will hear something of these ideas soon.
1) Plenary sessions where substantial business was brought before the delegates for discussion and decision will become the norm.
2. That means in the future the plenary agenda will see less reports (which we could read), awards, recognitions of local dignitaries, promotional films, and international delegates. And did I mention that this might mean no sing a longs, exercise breaks, and snake dances!You asked for reform, and you get reformed.
3. The General Assembly will ask congregations to discuss the substantial business coming before the GA and elect delegates that will represent the congregations discussions. There will be an expectation that congregations make efforts to fund their delegates.
4. I expect to hear a proposal that we (ministerial delegates) should be expected to attend plenary. We should model associational participation as we together work to renew our polity.
While I applaud the effort, I am know that I am part of the problem. I attended my first GA in the sixties, and have attended about 16 since then. Lately its getting to be a habit. Over the years, I have adjusted to what went on at GA, and found ways to make it a very productive time. I look forward to GA, and these proposals will require me adjusting my time.
That is the problem with reforms, it means that not only "they" have to change, but "we" do as well. It means Associational governance will be added to my "to do list." And the idea of being expected to go to plenary while I am at GA is going to take some attitude adjustment. I have used that time to good purposes for years, my date book for St. Louis is already full. In years past, I have gone to DRUUM meetings, had appointments with staff about Anti racism initiatives, met with delegates of Native American descent who wanted to connect, done UUMA business, and even had a soulful reunion with an old friend or two.
What is my response to this idea that ministerial delegates be a good example. First, It will take some time to make the adjustments, maybe I can be a model participant by 2008. Second, I want to negotiate the expectations! Our contracts need to be amended, we should not be expected to take money out of our professional expenses to "do the business of the association." Maybe the next generation will enjoy plenary and look forward to debating strategic plans, but I need a little incentive. And I am a boy scout compared to some of my colleagues.











