Being PK But Not PC?

Comment

Comment by Natalia Averett on July 30, 2010 at 10:39am

Thanks Cynthia. I would like to note that democracy is a cultured term and different people view it in different ways.
Immigration reform is a major issue of VOICE, which the congregation voted to support. It is a major issue for many other organizations and communities that the congregation is involved with, such as Buckingham Outreach. The congregation has turned out in large numbers for actions, including the large rally on the mall that was focused on immigration reform. Additionally, the UUA congregations voted to make the 2012 General Assembly be a justice event focused on immigration and to have immigration reform be a study action issue. Its selection as a study action issue means congregations now have the responsibility to study the issue and possible actions around the issue, report back to the UUA our findings and initiate or recommend actions based on our study. That is how democracy in our denomination works. We make collective decisions then act on a local and individual level in support of our broader collective decisions. Additionally, the congregation noted in the 2008 congregational survey, in the input and vote for the 2009 strategic plan, that it wanted to take advantage of our size and proximity to the capital and to be at the forefront of our denomination, which compels us to be a strong presence in the major actions and dialogues of our denomination.
At UUCA, we call ministers, elect officers, hire staff and encourage volunteers to carry out work directed by our communal values and goals. We have councils and committees, employees, and lay leaders. Democracy requires a certain amount a trust in the people we have vested with authority, as well as trust in some of the people that they have further delegated authority to. In return, we expect that those people with authority will pay attention to the interests of the institution and will act in those best interests. If the people we have called, hired, appointed or elected have looked to a number of sources to decide what an appropriate issue might be to focus on for the near future, is that a failed democracy? What is a true democracy? I have seen groups at UUCA put out a survey on a specific Sunday to ascertain who we are or what we should do on a specific issue. That is one survey for one day of one year. It might be democratic to have surveys and workshops about specific issues, even to have a series of them. It might also be democratic to look at the whole picture and a number of existing pieces of who we are, our mission, our vision, past surveys and congregational votes, and look at those results in the context of the size of our community and the structure of our organization then to make decisions, as leaders, in accordance with what we think is the best and most effective way to meet the needs of the whole and be most effective in promoting the best interest of the whole.
In Salsa, Soul and Spirit: Leadership for a Multicultural Age, Juana Bordas speaks of multicultural leadership styles. She does address some of the ways that "democracy" is cultural, that perceptions of what is good leadership and decision-making is cultural. I would like to note that she is not the first or last to address this, that in the “Multicultural Studies” section of the library there are plenty of resources on the issue.
There is what is called "community-conferred leadership" and it is respected in a manner that’s not seen in traditional democracy, and it doesn't need to be reinforced with every decision made by the person given the authority so long as that leader has demonstrated that he or she is acting based on the best interests of the whole and has demonstrated that he or she is paying attention to the best interests of the whole.
What I heard in the social justice empowerment workshop was that many people, like me, mistakenly thought that Social Action Council was using all the different surveys, votes, congregational values statements and the responses to different activities and surveys that SAC put before us to create strategies for and to implement social justice actions that would make us a voice and model for justice and just behavior in UUism and in the community. What we learned is that members of SAC, current and former, did not feel that they had the information or the authority required to do this. We were disappointing and disenfranchising our leadership and the community that trusted our leaders to act on our behalf.
In some cultures, democracy is about having a vote and each individual, or each individual who is there for the vote, being involved in each decision made, sometimes to a great degree of detail. In others, it is about the relationship between the leaders and the community, about an ongoing dialogue, systems of accountability, and about community-conferred authority that is based on trust and faith in the ongoing dialogue and the capability and integrity of the leaders and the community. It is about communication, collaboration and competency. There is an expectation that there is communication and collaboration between the leaders and the community so that leaders are aware of the needs of the community and so that both parties are aware of their obligations to the whole. It is about competency in leaders, real and perceived, so that the leaders are able to act effectively in the best interest of the whole.
I think the worst form of democracy occurs when people speak and speak and leaders do not act because they are waiting for the right type of authority or approvals to move forward with any action as if waiting for the people to give them a stone tablet.
I think there should be mechanisms in place to keep gathering input from people about what they value but I don't think we should disregard the things that the congregation has put forward to us thus far. We have as recent references its support of the UUA, the 2005 visioning process, the 2008 congregational survey, the 2009 input activities and the vote on the strategic plan, the 2010 focus group assessments done by the Mark Ewert of the UUA, the ongoing support of and large turnout for certain social justice activities, and the feedback from the 2010 social justice empowerment workshop, not to mention the many other comments received directly from individuals to specific organizations and leaders within the church. The people are speaking and they are speaking loudly.
If we have the ability to act in any way now to address some of the expressed concerns and desires of the congregation, I think we should. I think to ignore what has already been expressed would be to stuff their words back down their throats and ask them to spit up something new for us to consider. I'm all for additional levels of clarification of and discernment, continuing feedback loops, keeping ideas fresh and constantly flowing, and promoting evaluation, analysis, and reflection, but I think to maintain healthy relationships we need to take care not to let some expressed concerns and desires go unaddressed.
There is a basic level of trust in someone's competence that comes with even allowing the person to keep her/his job (whether it's paid or volunteer) which warrants allowing her/him some amount of freedom and authority to discern and act, to fulfill her/his greatest potential to serve the community.
We do ask for things from our leaders in return- that they honor our UU principles, honor our mission, honor the feedback already received about the work we do, continue to seek feedback and input to make sure that they are acting in the best interest of the community, that they honor our legacy and our reputation, that they are conscious of the need to continually build the skills required to be effective in their work, that they create environments where diverse people can feel welcome at all levels of participation, and that help us to not just promote our values in the community but that they also be models of these values in their own lives and that they help us each do the same. We ask them to think and act in ways that are daring and transformational, and to, sometimes, take the responsibility or blame for failures and, often, spread the glory of achievement.
And last, but not least, they must respect the whole of the institution, past, present and future, and support all of the people within and affiliated with it and they must do this all with passion, patience, grace and gratitude.
Someone said at the March congregational meeting that democracy is messy. I would say that democracy is nuanced. And cultured.