Event: B2017 0624 General Session IV 8:45AM CST Captions Provided by: Hear Ink Http://www.hearink.com Phone: 314 427 1113 **********DISCLAIMER********** THE FOLLOWING IS AN UNEDITED ROUGH DRAFT TRANSLATION FROM THE CART CAPTIONER'S OUTPUT FILE. THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT VERBATIM AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. TO DO SO IS AN EXTRA FEE. THIS FILE MAY CONTAIN ERRORS. PLEASE CHECK WITH THE SPEAKER(S) FOR ANY CLARIFICATION. THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY NOT BE COPIED OR DISSEMINATED TO ANYONE UNLESS YOU OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OFFICE OR SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT IS PROVIDING CART CAPTIONING TO YOU; FINALLY, THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY NOT BE USED IN A COURT OF LAW. **********DISCLAIMER********** >> Good Morning. I now call to order the Fourth General Session of the Fifty‑Sixth General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association. So I notice the crowd is a little smaller this morning. We will be awarding financial prizes to all of you who showed up on time. But tell your friends who aren't here that we did it anyway. And I'm paying for it. Also not coming out of the budget. Our opening words this morning come from board member Sarah Dan Jones, who will get us centered for today's business. >> Good Morning, friends. Will you breathe with me? So we're actually going to sing the opening words, because that's what I like to do. We're going to sing when our heart is in a holy place, and this is text by Joyce Poley, who is a pen tore and a friend of mine and a Canadian musician. So as soon as I see that it is up on the screen, I'd be happy to invite you to rise in body or spirit, but rise in body or spirit anyway and we'll see if we can get it up. There it is. Maestro? Here we go. [Singing When Our Heart is in a Holy Place"] >> Amen, friends. Keep your heart in a holy place this morning. Blessings. >> thank you so much, Sarah Dan. Before I call on the right relationship team this morning for their report, a couple of announcements. A reminder that if you have a responsive resolution, you can drop it off if it's in written form or typed form, room 101, the volunteer office. There is a lovely cardboard box there designed especially for you, and you can also e‑mail it to board@UUA.org. 6:00 p.m. central time is the cutoff for your responsive resolutions. In an effort to continue to stay green, the list of responsive resolutions will appear on the General Assembly app by tomorrow morning at the latest. We will not have printed copies tomorrow. So please be sure if you don't have an app, please find someone that does or perhaps you can visit the cyber cafe in the exhibit hall and check it out there. The other thing that I would like to remind you is some words that we heard the other evening about the difference between making a name or making a difference. We have a good deal of business to discuss this morning and all of the issues that we'll be discussing, the bylaw amendments and the statement conscience, are near and dear to the hearts of many. As we work through discussion and decisioning on those items, implore you as you come toward the microphone to ask yourself if you are working to make a name or a difference. [Applause] While we do have Roberts rules of order and our rules of procedure and those sorts of things, at the end of the day the essence of those discussions is not about the order, but about how they discern and decide what we want for this faith, so keep that in mind. So now I'd like to ask if the right relationship team has anything to report. I bet they do. >> I want to acknowledge that I am here without my co‑chair, Stephen Ballesteros. I was just texting him about what I was going to say, so I was not being rude during the hymn, I assure you. First I want to lift up a way in which we have not been fully accountable to you‑all. After the worship on Wednesday evening, there were some concerns brought to us about what it meant for General Assembly participants to be encouraged to ask local new Orleans about their experiences with hurricane Katrina and the federal flood and the hurt that that might cause and did cause. The process around that is ongoing and we're sorry that it was not communicated more directly to the assembly. Second, there have been instances of folks behaving in ways that treat the mobility devices that some folks use as part of public space, open for them to touch or use rather than part of the personal space of the person who use at his. We must do better. And finally, we have a more complicated report to offer this morning. There was concern shared, first on the app and then in some ongoing conversation, that yesterday's debate and procedure around the proposed amendments of our first principle as it appears in our bylaws was an example of parliamentary procedure being used to silence and erase the voices of people of color. The right relationship team is engaged in a process around some more specific elements of that debate, and it's bringing us and our team into that aspect of our work where we address not only interpersonal relationships and how they might be right, but also institutional relationships and how they might be right, and it's not ready for a full report this morning, but there are facets of it that I want to acknowledge, especially as we move into today's general session. Regardless of what happens in the rest of our process as a right relationship team, the reality is that we are not living up to our sacred promises to one another. Regardless of the intent of any one person or group of people involved, the processes and procedures of yesterday's debate were part of a structure that values correctness over inclusion and dominance over understanding. Those processes and procedures, even when they are used with the intent to reduce harm, will replicate the insidious evils of white supremacy. There is no resolution to offer this morning, friends. But only an invitation to witness that harm has been done and to demand of ourselves to do better. Is to demand of ourselves that we must do better, all of our lives, all of our spiritual lives are at stake. Thank you. [Applause] >> As the board learned hard lessons about the importance of selecting diverse people for things like job openings, volunteer positions, and other distinctions, we acknowledge that doing so requires a list of diverse candidates. Not unlike our new interim hiring policies, we will make decisions when the lists are more Representative of the community that we want to be. It is for that reason that we chose not to present the distinguished service award this year. There are many, many worthy recipients among us, but through education discernment and listening, we will grow the list of nominees so it is a more robust, colorful list. Thank you. [Applause] >> The commission on social witness is made up of five members, three elected by the General Assembly and two appointed by the Board of trustees. The mission of the commission is to discern and craft a vision for the association in pressing social issues as a reflection of the values of our faith and voices from our congregations. This year's statement of conscience, escalating inequality, was selected by delegates in 2014. Each year since then, the call has gone out to congregations and others list 10 ideas. I bring to you our tri‑mods this morning to tee up the discussion on escalating inequality, Kathy Burick, Greg Boyd, and Elandria Williams. [Applause] >> Okay. Good Morning. How is everybody doing? Good. So I'd like to begin with An apology. I was unaware that the little device I had setting at my hand was not counting the votes of the off‑site delegates. It was only indicating how many off‑site delegates wanted to make a procedural, a pro or a con statement. So I announced the outcome of the vote before all of their votes were in and to my off‑site delegates, I deeply, deeply apologize. I understand that this has happened before and it's one thing to make a mistake once and another thing to keep on making the same mistake as an institution. So the three of us, our tri‑mods, as we've been called, are going to be sure that we document all of these processes so that next year whoever is moderating debate and discussion has a nice checklist that says here's what you do. Don't forgive this. And here's the next thing. [Applause] So my apologies to the off‑site delegates, one of whom is my congregation president. I'll probably hear about it when I get home. So the statement of conscience is long. We had a three hour mini‑assembly. A lot of discussion. A lot of attempts to build consensus. You have received a pink sheet when you came into the hall, and if you didn't, hurry up and get yourself one. As a result of the mini‑assembly, there were an a lot of suggestions that were incorporated and those you can see in strikeout and underlined. There is a number of inserted corporate amendments. The commission on social witness on the very last page has listed these, and they've listed them in order that they think the delegates should can be, and the first five, they believe are things which substantially change their motion, and so they don't feel they are empowered under our bylaws to offer these changes or incorporate them, but they do think they're worthy of your consideration. So we're going to give you 10 minutes in a couple of moments to do the same kind of small group conversation that you've had yesterday. This does not count against the debate clock, so you can relax. But it's a lot of stuff, and if you weren't in the miles per hour a assembly, this is the first time you're seeing this. And then finally, part of the way you can use this 10 minutes is that if you want to offer an amendment to any of the incorporated amendments or to one of the unincorporated amendments, if you want to incorporate them, you will needing to over to the tech deck and get an amendment form and then be ready to move at the amendment microphone. So please be aware, you have to fill out a form to make an amendment. Okay. So one more word from Moderator Rimes. >> Well, I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. I was going to make a big mistake. Last night when we were looking at the schedule, we sent out a note that said that we would have this discussion at 10:10. And of course it's 9:10. So now you know that I don't know what time zone I live in. I'm very sorry about that. And I know that there are people who are not in the hall who would really like to participate in this discussion, and we are an hour early. So if we could just take a five‑minute break, with my sincerest apologies. I was waiting for this to happen. It was like a surprise party where no one showed up. That's how I feel. But if we could take five minutes and perhaps sing a little bit, say Good Morning to our neighbors and give us just a moment to figure out how to figure this error. We'll be right back. >> Well, that's what happens when they ask for singing with no warning. Good job, Leon. >> Thank you, Jason. The Reverend Jason Shelton, people. [Applause] >> Let's sing some more. I'll do my song and dance. How about a little Old Man River? ¶ Old Man River. ¶ That Old Man River ¶ he must know something ¶ But don't say nothing ¶ He just keeps rolling ¶ He keeps on rolling along ¶ He don't plant cotton ¶ He don't plant taters ¶ And all that's planted ¶ is soon forgotten ¶ But Old Man River ¶ he just keeps rolling along. ¶ You and me. ¶ We sweat and strain ¶ Body all aching and racked with pain ¶ Tote that barge ¶ Lift that bail ¶ Get a little drunk and you'll land in jail. ¶ Lordy, I get weary ¶ And sick of trying ¶ I'm tired of living ¶ And scared of dying ¶ But Old Man River ¶ He just keeps rolling along [Applause] >> Thank you. That's in memory of Paul Robeson. >> Have you ever had a dream where your clothes fell off? And you were in the middle of the street? I'm having it. So try not to think about it. [Laughter] I know that was a little over the line, but I had to be honest with you. Thank you. So we are whiting on our parliamentarian and legal counsel so that we can get into the actual discussion. So what we'll do is we'll resume. We had planned to have small discussions before the motion actual came to the floor, so I'm going to ask Kathy to come on back up. We can ask those questions as we are tracking down our support team. So bear with us. >> In terms of amendments, move to add one of the unincorporated amendments or move one of the incorporated amendments, but it has to have come in the mini‑assembly and if you are thinking about one of the incorporated or unincorporated amendments printed on the hot pink sheet, you can go to the tech deck and get the form. Please have deep conversation if you haven't read the full text. Please do that now. >> The Moderator recognizes that it's the folks at the amendment desk, which is immediately to your right. >> Two instructions. One is talk among yourselves. Read the statement of conscience be the incorporated amendments, the unincorporated amendments, and the second one is that if you wish to move one of the unincorporated amendments or to leave one of the incorporated amendments, go to the desk that's immediately to my left and to your right as you face the stage. Questions? >> Right now we're asking everyone to discuss the statements of conscience and the incorporated amendments and perhaps review the unincorporated amendments, share some ideas about what you think and we'll start the actual business of discernment and decisioning in just a moment. Is that clear for everybody? This is part of the dream where the clothes come back on and I can go back out in public again. >> Two‑minute warning. If you wish tone corporate one of the unincorporated amendments, you go over to the amendment table and if you wish to delete an incorporated amendment, over to the amendment table. Recognizing did he delegate microphone. >> I move to table this discussion to 10:00 o'clock when the delegates notify this is happening. >> But they're not here for the discussion. >> We're just having an informal conversation so supreme a chance to read and look at the amendments and make sure they get acquainted with the issue. Thank you. >> For right now I'd like to do a test vote. If you're a delegate, can you hold up your delegate card right now? There we go. It is very difficult for your tri‑mod to see if are you're not in these percent four sections. If you're all the way over here or you're all the way over here, I wanted to invite you to move in. It's difficult to scan the hall. I wanted to you make new friends. I see a few empty seats toward the back, toward the front as well. Some of the reserve seating, you might particular a look at that at this point, you can just move in a little bit, so it's easier for us to all know what decisions we're making together. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you all for your patience. Between one thing and another, we're trying hard to give you all the opportunity to have as full a discussion as possible, and so in the interest of that, we were trying to shuffle the agenda so that we could give good blocks of time to the business matters and less of reports, which most of them you could probably read online. We're told we can do them later. We're not in the hall. Who would have thought? And of course we've got times wrong. As a former East Coast person, but now living in the Midwest, I can tell you that the amount of time you spend translating time zones because it's always East Coast time is the standard and it gets a little annoying, doesn't it? Time zone privilege. Darn it. [Laughter] Okay. So here's what we're going to do. So we can make good use of your time, you've had a chance to talk about the statement of conscience. You should have received one of these green forms about one of the next business items that will be coming up, and the proposals to change the bylaws so that our sources are prophetic people rather than prophetic men and women. Please spend some time talking about that. And you're also welcome to spend time talking about the matter we postpone from yesterday, which is the idea of changing persons to beings in the first principle. You're all clear and ready to go when the next time comes for a vote, and the next thing I would ask ‑‑ did you ask the delegates to move yet? The reminder, if you have a voting card, it will help us and anybody needing to count those a whole lot if you move in. So take another few minutes to talk about these next couple of items, if we can get five minutes on the clock to the speaker? We'll move to journey toward wholeness report, because they are here. And thank you for your patience. >> One more minute and we'll hear from our journey towards wholeness. >> Give us a moment. We're doing set up. >> All right. I was going to go change my clothes just to really fulfill the dream. [Applause] >> But I was too hot to go back outside. So we are going to bring you a report, and again, this is what happens when you push the envelope and try to do new things. Things get a little messy. It gives us an opportunity to be a lot more creative, but that creativity sometimes takes time. So again, my apologies for the time issue and I've already signed up the class on using an analogue Watch. Really, it's analogue. >> Our journey toward wholeness transformation Committee created by delegates 1995. Please welcome the Committee and the co‑chairs, Reverend Wendy Von Courter and Theresa Soto. >> We're pleaded to be joined by fellow members. Also, with us is 20 years ago, delegates at our 1997 General Assembly had a belief that it wasn't enough that our faith called us to achieve a Beloved Community where all people were cherished and valued. The delegates believed that we as an association need to monitor and assess our progress on the journey. This body's vote that year called this committee into existence for that purpose. But, on this anniversary, and given our current context, it's important to note that the delegates did much more. The language of the resolution urged all Unitarian Universalists to "examine carefully their own conscious and unconscious racism as participants in a racist society, and the effect that racism has on all our lives, regardless of color." It asked our UUA, our congregations and other community organizations to develop an ongoing process for the comprehensive institutionalization of anti‑racism and multi‑culturalism, understanding that whether or not a group becomes multi‑racial, there is always the opportunity to become antiracist. It urged the creation of racial justice committees. The vote urged all Unitarian Universalist leaders, including ministers, religious educators, leaders of associate and affiliate organizations, governing. Boards, Unitarian Universalist Association staff, theological schools, and future General Assemblies to engage in ongoing anti‑racism training, to examine basic assumptions, structures, and functions, and, in response to what is learned, to develop action plans. It called for the creation of relationships of sustained engagement with all people of color with a goal of opening up authentic dialogue about race and racism and how to appropriately honor and affirm the cultural traditions of all people of color. And it urged our UUA to establish relationships with other international and interfaith organizations that are working to dismantle racism. >> Twenty years later, your JTWTC appears before you with the following reflections: We bear witness to the undeniable fact that progress has been made on the journey. Two decades have not passed without significant contributions. >> But today it is far more important that we bear witness to the facts of our failure to move far enough, fast enough, and true enough to that resolution. Or truly, to the call of our faith. Two years ago we showed a video about the gap between the UUA experience many, many of us experience and the experience of our siblings with historically marginalized identities. The video used composite characters. Line drawings of people we created from the stories we had collected. >> This year, we do not need drawings or composite figures. We have the voices and experiences of real, identifiable UUs. Thank you Aisha Hauser. Thank you Christina Rivera. Thank you Kenny Wiley. [Applause] We bear witness today and we raise the voices of these people, and others, who have paid high prices for challenging the white supremacy culture in our systems. We note the concern many have raised on social media and in person of personal costs for doing so. Of hate mail from fellow UUs. Of lost relationships. Of deeper oppression as a cost of challenging oppression. Costs paid by these courageous individuals and their families as well. We observe that just as ideals were not enough for the 1997 GA body, appreciation is not enough today. To acknowledge voices from the margins does not equal dismantling white supremacist culture. [Applause] Nor does it serve the goal of centering those voices from the margins and providing pathways to power in our association. To be sorry, has never been enough. >> Amen. >> We also bear witness to the positive movement that came in response to these events. We hold up the leadership of Lena Gardner, Christina Rivera, Aisha Hauser, and Kenny Wiley and over 680 congregations who participated in the UU White Supremacy Teach‑In. We reaffirm the vital importance of having this committee continue its work in service to the ideals of the 1997 resolution, the reality of today, and the hope of who we yet may be. Your journey toward wholeness transformation Committee will continue to be present as we move forward into the next chapter of our journey. Weapon a we'll be examining how institutional Unitarian Universalist responses carefully. We will also be providing process observation as UUA board meetings. We are aware that actual measurements for successful transformation need to be rooted in the stories of people of color, Indigenous people, people who are both, and other historically marginalized people and we will continue to seek their stories. [Applause] >> We add that although we are observers on the journey, we are hopeful in our role. Our hope is not offered as salve to the very real pain in our system. Rather, as a continual reflection. We cannot change what is not visible. Whether we view it with our eyes or hands or hearts. The events of these recent months offer us an opportunity to connect what some have viewed as work, others know to be their lives and all might come to understand is central to our identities as Unitarian Universalists. Grounded in our faith that calls us forward to our better selves, that we might achieve a better tomorrow, may we treat this opportunity as a sacred gift. >> And we pray it may be so we now invite the body to join us in an affirmation of the 1997 resolution by reading it with us: >> And it's not ‑‑ wow. And it's not a short resolution, but neither is the journey. Join us, lift your spirit with ours and join us as we say WHEREAS the 1996 General Assembly resolved that all congregations, districts, organizations, and professional and lay leaders participate in a reflection‑action process throughout the 1996‑97 church year using the Congregational Reflection and Action Process Guide and the Anti‑Racism Assessment; and WHEREAS our Unitarian Universalist principles call us to affirm and promote "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations" and "the goal of world community"; and WHEREAS our history as Unitarian Universalists includes evidence of both great commitment and individual achievement in the struggle for racial justice as well as the failure of our Unitarian Universalist institutions to respond fully to the call for justice; and WHEREAS racism and its effects, including economic injustice, are embedded in all social institutions as well as in ourselves and will not be eradicated without deliberate engagement in analysis and WHEREAS because of the impact of racism on all people, and the interconnection among oppressions, we realize we need to make an institutional commitment to end racism; and WHEREAS the social, economic, and ecological health of our planet is imperiled by the deepening divisions in our world caused by inequitable and unjust distribution of power and resources; and WHEREAS we are called yet again by our commitment to faith in action to pursue this antiracist, multi‑cultural initiative in the spirit of justice, compassion, and community; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 1997 General Assembly urges Unitarian Universalists to examine carefully their own conscious and unconscious racism as participants in a racist society, and the effect that racism has on all our lives, regardless of color. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly urges the Unitarian Universalist Association, its congregations, and community organizations to develop an ongoing process for the comprehensive institutionalization of antiracism and multi‑culturalism, understanding that whether or not a group becomes multi‑racial, there is always the opportunity to become anti‑racist. Early steps toward anti‑racism might include using curricula such as Journey Toward Wholeness for all age groups, forming racial justice committees, and conducting anti‑racism workshops. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly urges all Unitarian Universalist leaders, including ministers, religious educators, leaders of associate and affiliate organizations, governing boards, Unitarian Universalist Association staff, theological schools, and future General Assemblies to engage in ongoing anti‑racism training, to examine basic assumptions, structures, and functions, and, in response to what is learned, to develop action plans. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Unitarian Universalists are encouraged to enter into relationships of sustained engagement with all people of color with a goal of opening up authentic dialogue that may include, but is not limited to, race and racism. Such dialogue should also include how to appropriately honor and affirm the cultural traditions of all people of color. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly requests that the UUA Board of Trustees establish a committee to monitor and assess ou transformation as an anti‑racist, multicultural institution, and that the Board of Trustees shall report annually to the General Assembly specifically on the programs and resources dedicated to assisting our congregations in carrying out the objectives of this resolution. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that in order to transform the racist institutions of our world, the General Assembly urges the Unitarian Universalist Association and all its parts to establish relationships with other international and interfaith organizations that are working to dismantle racism. >> Amen, blessed be, and Ashe. >> Thank you so much. And to those presenters who had to jump out of bed to get here, we are very, very grateful. Let's sing. Let's just sort of relax and have a song and then I'll feel better and when mama's happy, everybody is happy. [Laughter] >> This is awfully short notice for the tech deck, and you have to bear in mind that we also have to make sure that we have permission to sing whatever I call. And so I decided to go rogue and your reception of my Paul Robeson‑inspired offering was such I want to take another thing from his repertoire and I would like to ask you if you know it, please come with me. I'm going to sing deep river. Please rise in body or spirit, y'all. We're in Louisiana. ¶ Deep river ¶ My home is over Jordan ¶ Deep river ¶ Lord, I want to cross over into campground ¶ deep river ¶ My home is over Jordan ¶ Deep river ¶ Lord, I want to cross over into campground ¶ Oh don't you want to go to that gospel feast ¶ That promised land where all is peace? ¶ Oh, deep river ¶ Lord, I want to cross over into campground Ashe. [Applause] >> Just goes to show you that sometimes beauty arises out of chaos. I'm pleased to introduce Reverend Kathleen McTigue to bring us up‑to‑date on what is happening at the UU College of social justice. Let's give it up for Kathleen. >> I wasn't actually in bed. I was in route here. The time has been changed several times. Because flexibility is the name of the game, we are all rolling with what unfolds. So I have the proud honor ever speaking to you about the College of social justice on the occasion of our exactly five‑year anniversary. >> Those of you who remember Phoenix, Arizona, will probably remember that that was when it was officially announced that we were forming the College of social justice. And the time has gone like that. The College of Social Justice grew out of a longing for the UUA and UUSC to collaborate more closely on the issues we all care about so deeply. The goal was to inspire and equip spiritually grounded activists. The strategy was to offer direct experience, training, and face‑to‑face encounters that would lead to long‑term commitment. None of us could have predicted five years ago that we would find ourselves in this political moment: a government that would deny climate change and support the most polluting industries; one that enacts willful, conscious racism, from voter suppression to mass incarceration to phobic hostility toward migrants; a national leadership. Hell‑bent on widening the gulf between the ultra‑rich and The rest of us. We did not anticipate this moment. And like most of you, we had some weeks of angst right after the November election, wondering what we are called to now in response. As we regained equilibrium, we realized that our mission is more relevant now than ever before. Those entwined malignancies of racism, economic injustice, a broken immigration system, and the impacts of climate change were of course already with us. We did not anticipate this political moment, but the College of Social Justice was created for it: to help our people see more clearly what we face, imagine more boldly the ways we can act, and live our values more radically and courageously on the side of justice. One way we've done this is through focused attention on our leadership. Our dynamic programs are possible only because of the skill and commitment of the people who lead them. Of the 21 CSJ Program Leaders this year, Most of whom you see in that photo, half identify as people of color. [Applause] Fourteen are religious educators, ministers or seminarians; and eight are Spanish speakers. It's because of these leaders that we have succeeded in bringing the lens of racial justice to every one of our programs. It's through them that we ground each program in spiritual practices. And it's because of them that the immersion learning we offer has so often been characterized as "life changing" by those who participate. Over the past five years, we have led immersion‑learning journeys to India, Haiti, Tanzania, Guatemala, and, within the United States, to Lummi Nation in Washington, to New York to help with Hurricane Sandy recovery, to the border lands of Arizona, the tomato fields of Immokalee, Florida, and the devastated mountains of West Virginia. We are expanding our newest programs in Nicaragua with amazing grassroots partners working for women's rights, land rights, and climate justice . These partners remind us not to become isolationists, in our distress about our own country, but to keep one hand out for international solidarity. [Applause] We are expanding other programs as part of the Love Resists campaign. An example is our border witness journey. Even when participants think they know how warped and unjust current US policy is, immersion learning kicks things into a higher gear. It awakens us to the reality that this policy is not just wrong, it is literally murderous: many hundreds of people die in our deserts every single year. Their desperation is no less than that of refugees drowning in the Mediterranean ‑ just less visible. [Applause] Our program brings home the truth that this is not happening on the Arizona border with Mexico, or the Texas or California border: it's the Massachusetts border with Mexico, the Illinois border, the Louisiana border: it's ours No matter where we live. Once we wake up to that truth, we can't go back to sleep. We have to pour ourselves into the struggle for justice. There are other kinds of immersion learning. Our Activate! programs. For high school youth are week‑long dives into immigration, climate, or racial justice, grounded in our Faith and these are the programs we have that are expanding most rapidly and being adapted to the specific needs of districts and regions. We have collaborated with other branches of our UU family on new iterations of the Goldmine leadership training for youth, and on the UU‑UNO spring seminar, strengthening the justice thread in each. We're making sure that the Love Resists campaign brings along our youngest leaders and activists. GROW ‑ the Grounded and Resilient Organizers' Workshop ‑‑ is our program for young adults. Just this week, right here in New Orleans, our latest iteration of GROW Racial Justice brought together over thirty racial justice activists, two thirds of them young adults of color. In separate caucus groups, participants explored Racism and their racial and ethnic identities, and then came together for worship, community, and organizing skills. In this political moment ‑ of both our wider world and our religious movement ‑ it's hard to imagine a more essential program to support bold, grounded young leaders for racial justice. [Applause] We have a wide range of summerlong internships for college age young adults, in organizations around the U.S. and overseas. By the end of this summer we will have given nearly 70 young people a deep dive, a summer long dive into a justice organization that in some cases will change in some cases will change the whole trajectory of their lives. The immersion programs we've developed have one more incarnation: skilled volunteer placements. In our most robust of these programs, the College of Social Justice has organized more than sixty volunteers to work in San Antonio, TX, for one to eight weeks, supported with ‑‑ I bet those are San Antonio folks. Supported with home stays through the amazing San Antonio UUs. [Applause] These volunteers engage in literally lifesaving work with women and children refugees who are in danger of deportation back to the violence they have fled. In the coming year, we'll have new volunteer placements. As part of Love Resists, we hope to channel volunteers toward voting rights in a few key states, so if you have some time to give, stay tuned: we may be looking for you! I am so grateful for our exceptional Program Leaders, for our small but mighty staff, for the incredible generosity of the donors who have supported us in these first five years, and for the many hundreds of you who opened yourselves to true transformation through our programs. The UU College of Social Justice is yours. It's the place to turn to when you want new ways to harness your passion for justice. It was made for this political moment. Come join us! Thank you. [Applause] >> Hey, friends. Hi. All right. So what I want us to do again, if you could just hold up your delegate cards. We want you to move as close to the center as possible. I can scan pretty well right now. The rest of the tri‑mod will help me do that. If you see you're kind of over there, if there's empty seats, you can move in. That would be great. While we're on this, it's really hard to replace our delegate credentials. You can put your cards back down. So a member of the delegation from our congregation Shelter Rock has lost their voting card. If you are a member of this delegation and would like this voting card, come up to the stage and get that. We're going to go ahead with our conversation. All right? Now we're going to discuss our statement of conscience. This is the end of a four‑year process. You should have that on a little pink sheet that they gave you at the door. If you do not have that pink sheet, you can go to the back right now, although you probably have a friend right next to you. And you can ask to read that if you need to. And so at this time, I'm going to invite the Chair of the commission on social witness to make the appropriate motion. >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Based on the results of the congregational poll that was done in February, the commission on social witness moves to adopt the statement of conscience on escalating inequality as revised and distributed this morning in the CSW alert. >> I second. >> Moved and seconded. We can have some discussion. I need 15 minutes on the clock, and actually, for this particular type of discussion we need 30 minutes on the clock if we need that much time. >> 15 minutes. Okay. There we go. We have that up. Is there any discussion? I'm not going to force this, but I'm going to give you some time. Some movement in the hall. Some folks at the procedural mic. They're still consulting. So I'm going to recognize the speaker at the con microphone. >> Hi. I'm Nancy Shrofnagle from Madison, Wisconsin. There's two issues that I feel are necessary to be considered also in this statement of conscience. One is I feel that we need to request and promote individual spiritual work on white supremacy for this type of work to be effective, and secondly, I think we need to request of others specifically the 1%, for their identities, work, and financial help in creating a more equitable society and world. >> Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> I have a point of order. My name is Teresa Wilmot from the congregation of the Unitarian Universalist church of Rockford. There are two terms in here that I don't understand. One of them I heard yesterday. LGBTQA+ could someone define the additions end of that? And number 143, time banks. >> The delegate has a point of information. Would the member for the commission come to the mic nearest to you? >> I recognize the commissioner at the amendment mic. >> Hello. I'm Jafie Christos Rogers, a member of the commission on social witness. And the term, in the use of the A, it refers to asexual. So we're talking about a wide range of places that people set in terms of their sexuality. >> we also had a question about time banks, if you can? >> Time banks are community organizations where people can, basically, barter time and exchange time. So it's an economic system outside the monetary system that allows people to exchange their work with one another. >> And finally, there was a question about the plus line at the end of LGBTQA+. >> So there are other letters that either could be added to this range or others that we expect will emerge, and so that plus refers to that open door in terms of our growing understanding of sexual orientation and sexual identity. >> Does that answer your question? >> Thank you. >> We learned something today. Thank you, friends. I recognize the next delegate at the president you recall mic. >> I'm zapped I Shaw, member of the Unitarian Universalist church in Bethesda, Maryland. I participated in my congregation's comments on the statement, and it was involved in a Washington, D.C. or area group of congregations and some said they intended to move or table the statement. Much to my surprise, I was asked to make that motion myself, so I rise to do so. And he will give my points. I suspect there's other reasons they want to table. The statement is fine for what it is, but my objection is what little not yet. There is a line in there about listening to prophetic voices >> We've moved into advocacy and a motion to table is not in order at this time. If you would like to make a motion to table after another couple minutes have expired, you can find how much time we need in order to table on 78 through 79 in your program book. A motion to table is not order at this time. Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Carolina Crevard Graham, a delegate from the church of the larger fellow she. Thank you. I thought I heard we were moving to adopt this as amended and I'm a little unclear about does that mean without looking at the unincorporated amendments or do we do that after? I'm just not clear. Are we saying yes to this thing and then we won't be addressing unincorporated amendments or yes to this thing and then unincorporated amendments? I'm just not clear. And maybe I misheard. >> At this time, the motion is to accept the statement of conscience as amended. If we need a few moments of conversation, we have about 30, then we can take some of the amendments. We can either unincorporated already incorporated amendments. We can incorporate amendments that were not incorporated that were made during our mini‑assemblies. So right now we're discussing, as long as we're at the procedural mic, we are not using the time that we have for discussion. There aren't too many folks that want to discuss this, so we'll get to that. >> all right. >> there's no delegate at the off‑site procedural microphone any longer. There's some consultation at this procedural microphone. I registration okay knees the delegate at the ‑‑ I recognize the delegate at the con mic. I recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm a teller. I'm reading from an off‑site delegate. My name is Jess Culenon and I represent the Unitarian church of Los Alamos, New Mexico. I joyfully support this statement of conscience as it has been amended by the mini assembly. The off‑site delegates work through the rather cumbersome chat room format and somehow manage to have a thoughtful, thorough discussion on almost every line of this statement. Our online moderators and tech support were invaluable. Online, we reach consensus on a number of substantive additions to the document, including language regarding economic challenges faced by women, a police to advocate for workplace protection and staff that fully include LGBTQ I A‑plus persons. Lifting up language on prison reform, immigration reform, supporting those with disabilities, and expressing the need for paid lick leave, universal healthcare, paid family leave, and economic support for caregivers. I am so proud to have been part of the process to shape this document into a statement that I believe will serve our association well as a guide to dismantling systems of economic I know he can quit any every level of our society. May we do this work with the same joy, compassion, and collaboration that I saw from my fellow online delegates. Thank you. [Applause] >> I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> I'm [indiscernible] Crafton Dawn, delegate for North Woods UU from the Houston, Texas, area. And speaking as someone who is a delegate in the mini‑assembly and also is in conversation with often site delegates, I have to respectfully contradict the gentleman at the pro mic. They did not feel like there was a good discussion and he was specifically to ask someone in the mini‑assembly and was unable to find out at the time what input was from off‑site delegates, as well as people in the other sections that were going on during the mini assembly. If any of the incorporated or unincorporated amendments came from off‑site delegates and if discussion that managed to happen from off‑site delegates was considered by the Committee when determining this document. >> Right. Will the commissioner please come to the microphone to answer that question? I recognize the commissioner at the pro mic. >> This is Susan Goekler. Yes, all of the amendments that were submitted by off‑site delegates were given to us in writing when we met. We considered those, the same extent that we considered those of the people who were here in person. There are amendments included in this that were from off‑site delegates. There are also unincorporated amendments that came from off‑site delegates. We did not distinguish whether they came from on‑site or off‑site in what we wrote here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Nancy Pappas from Manchester, Connecticut, Unitarian Universalist society east. A point of clarification, please. Online 20, I think there's a grammatical goof that actually directly changes the meaning desired. When it says lack of access to conventional financial institutions and predatory lending, clearly we don't mean that we're sorry there's such a poor lack of access to predatory lending. Could we please remove the "and" and add a comma. I believe that was what was intended by the authors. >> a clarifying amendment is in order at this time. [Laughter] >> So if we can make the appropriate grammatical changes to not indicate that we need to have great access to predatory lending, and we'll put that text back up on the screen when it's time for that. All right? I recognize the delegate at the con mic. >> I'm the Reverend Joe Cleveland. I'm the minister of the UU congregation of Saratoga springs, New York. I agree with and support the intentionality behind our mini assembly process and I rise to speak against lines 15 through 18 as they stand revised. They assign blame for inequity to, quote/unquote, those people, and effectively disavow our complicity in these systems. If it had said, we who own and control, who take for ourselves, and talked about, quote/unquote, these actions rather than their actions, I would not be rising to speak against. [Applause] >> Seeing no delegates in the off‑site cue or at the pro mic, I take the next delegate at the con mic. >> My name is Karen Griffin. I'm a member of the Venice, Florida, church. My biggest concern about this statement is that there is nothing in here where our congregations are looking inward and acknowledging that there are people in our congregations that are affected by economic inequity and that there is nothing in here that supports okay congregants that suffer from this. It is all outward looking and I feel we have a lot of work to do within our congregations to support our own members, and so that is my biggest concern about this statement. Thank you. >> I recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm Marta Pearson from the Unitarian Universalist church of Tampa, Florida. My concern is that without passage of this, we tend to debate this forever. It will never be perfect. It will never satisfy everyone, but it addresses most of the issues that I find, and in response to the gentleman who says that this is outward, it says those people, but those people could be us as well. It doesn't exclude us. It just talks about the people who do these things. I hope that this will pass. [Applause] >> I recognize the delegate at the con mic. >> my name is Julio Torez. I'm a summer minister/student minister at the community church at New York Unitarian Universalist. As a member of the Newport people's campaign and Iraq Veterans against war, as much as I love this statement of conscience, I feel that it does not act national Martin Luther King's analysis on the racism, militarism, and poverty. It leaves a lot of militarism out of the loop. The militarism, military industrial complex includes, for example, little federal discretionary budget and Imperial policies of this government, foreign and locally, with regards to the wars abroad, the national issue with the budget, divesting from social programs, as well as the issue with police brutality, ice, and so much of the police have either rifles or Armored personnel carrier vehicles from the military. And I could talk for hours and barely scratch the surface, but I would ask that if not this particular statement of social witness, in the future, that this statement of social conscience could address the issues of militarism as so much resources are divested from the poor and the oppressed. And it drastically intersections with an escalating inequalities, whether economic or not. Yes, at the very minimum, as a denomination, as a religion, as a faith tradition, we need to divest from this war economy and all the deaths that are occurring because of the Colonial imperial issues that unfortunately our Department of Defense not living up to their creed of defending this country or the lives of people around the world. Thank you. [Applause] Seeing no delegates in the off‑site cue or at the pro mic, I recognize the next delegate at the con mic. >> I'm [indiscernible] Giles from St. Paul, Unity Church. With this document, it's very inconsistent to the conversations, to 20 years that are moving from racism, the pictures that ‑‑ the most consistent word I have heard throughout this conference is white supremacy, yet we have not been able to put it in documentation. So this documentation is inconsistent, not complimentary to anything we have talked about. [Applause] And I'm conferring with my co‑mod, my tri‑mod. There is white supremacy mentioned. We're looking for it. If somebody else finds it, it's in line 33 I'm hearing from the floor. So it's in line 33. You are allowed to speak against, even if sometimes you don't know all the information in the document. So that's the fact that I acknowledge you does note mean that anything is coming out is truthful or not truthful or intended in a certain sort of way. Seeing no other delegates in the cue, I recognize the next speaker at the con mic. >> I'm Carolina Graham, from church of the larger fellowship. I would urge the General Assembly to vote this down. While I see vast improvement and I hear vast improvement, it is far from enough. I think the previous speaker captured it well. While the term white supremacy is used once or twice, it is not used in the very beginning of the document. Maybe the 17 times it ought be used. I'm also deeply concerned about the process I heard about. I want to speak on behalf of some of my colleagues who are off‑site. A very, very wise person who is now co‑chair of the journey toward wholeness transformation committee once said to me, it matters how we enter that space. If this is what came out of, quite frankly, the Malay that was the discussion in the off‑site delegate group, I am concerned, even if I think it's great, I'm concerned that this is something out of a process that is not really all that great. So I urge the General Assembly to vote this down. It is not good enough, and if this is the best we can do, I don't know what I'm doing here. Thank you. >> Thank you I recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> Sally Gellert, central Unitarian from Paramus, New Jersey. I'm speaking in favor of this resolution. I came here today thinking I would probably be voting against the resolution, because what I saw originally I felt was too weak. I think the substantial amendments have helped us substantially and it is now still not perfect, but good enough, and if we fast now, we've got time to have it out for a period of time before the 2018 election, and I think that's particularly important. I do have a couple of more suggestions. I'll be at the amendment mic later. Thank you. >> Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the off‑site procedural mic. Do we have the appropriate teller for an often site? Thank you. >> Jess Coleman from Unitarian church of Los Alamos in Los Alamos, New Mexico, asks, it is my understanding that once there is no balance between the pro and con mics, the debate ends and we vote. Why are we hearing so many con statements in a row? >> It is our process that we have a lot up to 30 minutes if we need that much time for a statement of conscience. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> That's not my question. In the past, we haven't ‑‑ I'm Steve [Indiscernible] from the Unitarian Universalist church of Greensboro. In the past we've made a point of not just extending all the time because we had it. If there was enough discussion going on, then we continued, and that makes sense. What we're doing here is having one of the microphone spend most of the time stating cons and nobody at the pro microphone. It seems to me like the discussion has reached a point where we could call a question. >> We can't call the question just now, but we could start doing an amendment. >> Well, but in the past, again, when we only had ‑‑ we didn't have anybody at one mic, we ended discussion and I wonder why we're not doing that now. >> I hear the question, and I'm going to consult with the rest of the tri‑mod. I'll take the next speaker at the procedural mic. >> Heather Malar, Annapolis, Maryland, UU church. Online 16, if we take out the Word those, is that a similar kinds of editorial adjustment like we are going to do in line 20? >> Can you restate the question? >> In line 16, if we take out the Word those, is that an editorial kind of change like we agreed we are going to do in line 20? >> It's my ruling that that would be a substantive change, so we should wait until it's time to make an amendment. If you want to make the appropriate amendment, just go over to the amendment table. I recognize the next speaker at the procedural mic. >> Thank you, Co‑Moderator. Gene Bergman, president of the first Unitarian Universalist society of Burlington, Vermont. And I need your attention on this. Thank you. And that is what is the effect of a no vote on this? What happens to it if the General Assembly votes no on the statement of conscience? >> You have two options with our statement of conscience. You can send it back to the commission on social witness for another year if you'd like or we can vote it down and then we don't ‑‑ we have not approved a statement of conscience. We don't have a statement of conscience. It doesn't mean we necessarily haven't taken a distance on income inequality. >> I have to ask a clarifying question on how would that choice with presented to the General Assembly. Is it in the motion to vote know? You have it before you. How will the moderators present yes, no, and this seems to be a third alternative? >> Our bylaws mandate, in order to pass a statement of conscience, we must have a two‑thirds majority vote of the delegates. If there's not a two‑thirds majority vote, it will fail, and we have not pass that had statement of conscience. As someone made the appropriate motion to refer it back to Committee, then we would vote on that as well. >> So a no vote without a referral would mean it would die entirely, but a vote ‑‑ >> Correct. >> But a motion to refer back would allow the process to continued? >> Potentially, yes. >> Potentially? Thank you very much. >> Pleasure. I recognize the next delegate at the procedural mic. >> I apologize. I was going to defer to the pros and the cons. My name is Jasmine Walfton, first Unitarian church of Louisville, Kentucky. I was going to make the motion to refer when there was no more discussion, because equipment it to go to vote without the motion being made. But because there are still people at the pro and con, my preference would be to hear them talk. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Just so you know what happens, the procedural mic always takes precedent. So if I have someone there, I have to recognize them, even if there are other people lining up. That's why I did that. I recognize the next speaker at the procedural mic. >> Mr. Moderator, my name is Carl [Indiscernible] from the Unitarian Universalist society of [Indiscernible] Springfield, and I would like to make the motion to refer this statement of conscience to further study. >> Okay. So a motion to refer is not in order right now, because we have to have at least 30 minutes of conversation on this. If there's a need for 30 minutes of conversation on this, so when there's no one else at the pro and con mics or we've reached that 30 minute Mark, you can do that. I'll also let you know right now, when we're at the procedural mic, that means that the time for the discussion is not elapsing. So if we want to have a conversation about our options, that's fine. I encourage that. But that means that we also don't get to move ahead in the process, and it sounds like we want to take some other actions on this issue. Does that answer your question? Thank you. >> Back in 30 minutes. >> I recognize the next delegate at the procedural mic. >> I guess I should step away. At what point do we get to talk about amendments? And if I'm taking up time, preventing us from doing, that I'll walk away now. >> The delegate rise to his a point of information. Either when there's no one else in the cues here or off‑site or the 30 minutes have elapsed. >> Isn't the amendment time included in that 30 minutes >> No, it's not. >> My mistake. >> I recognize the next delegate at the procedural mic. >> Good Morning. My name is Dave Geloff and I am the co‑president of DuPage Unitarian Universalist church in Naperville, Illinois. I have a procedural question or even an informational question. I don't know how you want to put it. But on lines 28 and 29, the United States is technically still a progressive tax system. We still have a progressive tax state. Regressive taxes are what municipalities in our community are having to resort to. He have a point of information on how the Wording is being used to 28 and 29. >> Could I have a commissioner come to one of the mics to clarify the intent of the statement? I recognize the commissioner at the pro mic. >> When we say tax system, we are not ‑‑ we didn't say federal. So all of the taxations that are going on in the United States is part of the tax system. >> Does that answer your question? >> Not really, but I'll leave it be. >> And I misspoke a little bit earlier. A motion to refer would be in order at the 15‑minute Mark. We have not reached the 15‑minute Mark. I recognize the off‑site delegate at the procedural mic. >> This is from Eric Birch, Unitarian Universalist congregation of rockville in Rockville, Maryland. Move to change the orders of the day and start taking amendments to the current question, which is a two‑thirds vote. >> I am going to confer with my parliamentarian. All right? I'll be right back. This is not an orders of the day issue. We need to have 15 minutes of conversation before we're able to amend. And a little bit longer than that if we're ready to vote if we need that much time. So I'm going to recognize the next delegate. Do we have a delegate at the procedural mic? There we go. >> Good Morning. My name is Joanne Rowe from first Unitarian in Albuquerque. I had a question that may be a technical question. I note that the word inequalities has been changed to inequity on most of the lines, but online eight, it still says economic inequality and I was wondering if that is a technical error. >> I recognize the commissioner at the pro mic. >> Yes. It should have been changed and we didn't catch it there. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That can be fixed as a technical fix if the statement is adopted. >> Thank you. >> All right. And just a reminder, we need four and a half minutes of conversation that's not at the procedural mic. And then we can do some of the things that folks want to do. [Applause] >> I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> I'm Marjorie Carson from [Indiscernible] valley Unitarian Universalist society in Middlebury, Vermont. Point of clarification. Online 119 where it says by centering resourcing and empowering communities who are most impacted by economic inequities. I'm not sure what that means. There's a lot of words that sound kind of corporate to me and I would like to say someone that says what that means and there might be a simpler way of saying it. >> All right. If I could have a commissioner say what's intended in line 119. I recognize the commissioner at the pro mic. >> Hello. I'm so few an Christoff Rogers, member of the commission on social witness. I can say that we received this. When we received this, what I understood it to mean was that we needed to name the fact that the people most impacted by escalating inequality and inequity, that economic inequality and equity, that that population needs to be at the center of our conversation and needs to have a voice that we listen to. [Applause] >> Does that answer your question? >> Well, it does, and I really appreciate that clarification, but that's not what I'm hearing when I read this, and I wanted to call that to the attention. I am channeling my late mother‑in‑law, who was an English teacher and editor. Also, online 66, our sources and our faith, a one‑word change, would also take care of a redundancy. I'll let other people think about that. I do want to echo what someone said, the perfect is the enemy of the good, I think this is mostly very, very good. >> All right. Thank you. >> We're going to take a breath. We've heard a few voices. Let's just breathe in, take a breath together. Breathe in and breathe back out. Before we went to the procedural cue, we were about to recognize the delegate at the con microphone. >> I'm Cynthia Littleton, a member of the UU congregation of beautiful Shatakwa county, New York. Sorry. And can we Cynthia little ton, member of the Littleton UU congregation in that talk way county, New York. I agree with others who say this is overall a very good document. For all that it encompasses, I am surprise that had only online 114 and 15 where there's a reference to systems of restorative justice. I'm surprised there is no explicit mention of the need to restore voting rights for the previously incarcerated, particularly given the inequity that some can seek legal redress for restoring voting rights if they can afford to do so and many are denied long after they have served their debt to society. So I just wanted to pointed that out as I think an omission, and then just on a copy editing note, online 33, embedded is spelled with an E. Thank you. >> So noted on the spelling. I recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm reading for an off‑site delegate. The delegate is Christine Haggard of river road UU congregation, Bethesda, Maryland. I am an economist who has worked on issues related to racial and ethnic disparities, poverty, and other issues. I read and reviewed the previous SOC, participated in the off‑site delegate mini assembly, and have read the revised SOC. I think the SOC has incorporated most of the relevant amendments. I support this SOC as amended. >> Thank you. And just so you know, we don't begin the clock until you say your name and your congregation, so that affects our clock time. I recognize the delegate at the con mic. >> Sandy Shaw from cedar lane Unitarian Universalist in Bethesda, Maryland, again. My objection to the document as it now stands is not for what it says, but what it does not have. There's one line about listening to prophetic voices, but I believe deeply this is the vehicle in which we find our own Unitarian Universalist prophetic voice. Anyone with values that we claim personal organization is duty‑bound to speak out with indignation about the current situation. I won't read the whole thing, but I'm the author of unincorporated motion C, the first sentence of which is the current levels of economic inequity, genuine moral outrage. I don't know why Unitarians can't speak with language that Reverend barber or Dr. King would recognize. [Applause] >> I recognize the off‑site delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm reading for Genevieve O'Malley knight, off‑site delegate from hope Dale UU community, Oxford, Ohio. The off‑site process in the mini‑assembly was difficult at the beginning and smoothed considerably as we practiced and became familiar with our technology and supported system. We made amendments and see all of them on the CSW document. I believe I presents the sense of the off‑site chat room when I say we are happy with the results of our input. I appreciated the work of the CSW with the incorporated amendments, and I believe we have made a strong statement. There is much work to do beyond and after this statement of conscience. I hope we will pass what we have and continued this good work. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> I recognize the delegate at the con mic. >> My name is Benjamin Franklin [Indiscernible] Dawn from North Woods UU. And while I deeply appreciate the work that was done on this document, which I helped participate in and overall definitely enjoyed the changes, I find it very significant that white supremacy is placed as an intersectional issue and not addressing how the entire economic history of the colony and the United States is based onset her Colonial white capitalism and as a faith that explicitly repudiated the doctrine of discovery, which is, in its essence, all about whom is allowed to own property and materials, it is fundamental to our economic inequalities from the roots of our entire history involving white supremacy and Colonialism and settler‑ism, not an intersectional issue. Thank you. [Applause] >> I recognize the off‑site delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm reading for Katherine Alberte, the UU fellowship of northern Westchester, Mount Kisco, New York. I am strongly in favor of passing this SOC as presented. It is strong and clear. Like anything, one could find ways to improve it, but this is the time to stand up for our principles and got get bogged down from locking for perfection. >> I recognize the delegate at the con mic. >> Gwen [Indiscernible] Bethesda, Maryland. >> I am coming to speak con from the participant from the assembly and I worked a great deal I worked with many people invested in the process on the first portion. I feel that the statement has a lot of important stuff, but that as Benjamin before me said, we really haven't gotten the overall incorporation of the problems of capitalism creating economic inequality, creating economics, and the ways in which that connects with white supremacy and connects with the marginalization of people with disabilities and a lot of other communities and I just feel like we didn't have a chance as a mini‑assembly to come back together after we divided into sections, and so some of the overall underlying points that I think a number of different groups thought about weren't able to be brought to the top, weren't able to be brought to the introduction, and really integrated into the whole piece, and so I would really encourage people that this was not quite yet the time for the right vote. Thank you. >> Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Hi. I'm Michael Scott from the first universalist church of Rochester, New York. Mr. Moderator, I would like to require whether I am correct in thinking that the only comments currently in order at the con microphone are from delegates wishing to argue against the entire motion rather than arguing against specific points or weaknesses in it. >> I think it's important for the assembly to hear the issues that would lead for people disagreeing with the statement passing. >> I was under the impression that that would work more effectively once amendments start to be introduced. Is that not the case? >> That is correct. >> Let me note, then, that we could move to amendments others the people in favor of amendments sat down from the con microphone. [Applause] >> Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> Good Morning. [Indiscernible] UUCA, Arlington Virginia. I'm rising in support of this statement of conscience. I've reviewed it. Yes, there are certainly some technical amendments that we've been proposing, but I think overall I think the committee did a great job. They really did try to go through a discernment process and I think did try to take into account the very many diverse viewpoints I was hearing today. So I think in an uncertain time, I think with politically our country, and you have just current events, I think it would be a more powerful statement to pass something today rather than send it back to Committee or to actually vote no. The Southern Baptist convention, they had a very strong statement, historic statement that came out recently. Thank you to them. And I think we should also fall in line with our brethren, also. So I strongly vote that we vote yes. Thank you. [Applause] >> I recognize it is delegate at the procedural mic. >> Mr. Moderator, my name is Christy stockman from UUC3 in Corpus Christi, Texas. I note we are past the 15 minute Mark and I believe a motion to refer would be in order. Am I correct? >> I would like to make a motion to refer the statement to the commission. Is that what I'm saying? >> Yes, it is. >> I would like to make that motion, please. >> There is a second. All right. We can debate this. Now we are having discussion on whether we refer or not. Are there people who wish to speak to the merits of referring this statement back to the commission on social witness or against it? I recognized delegate at the pro mic. >> My name is the Reverend Jan Tatio and I serve our congregation in Lawrenceville, Georgia. I am very much in favor of us having a statement of conscience on escalating economic inequalities and we don't have it ‑‑ it's not ready yet. We need to do some deeper work around white supremacy language, around all these etch eyes coming up and emerging since this was originally created. I think another year of study and another year of tweak and go another year of examining how it could be stronger would do us all well. And >> Do I have delegates speaking against the motion to refer? I recognize the delegate at the con mic. >> This is James Sty again from UUCA, Arlington Virginia. I switched mics, because I strongly urge that we vote against this current motion to refer. I think we should give an up or down vote today. Thank you. [Applause] >> Another delegate speaking in favor of referring to the commission on social witness for another year. >> Yes. My name is Steve Extrand from the Unitarian Universalist congregation of Rockville, Maryland. I speak with some ambivalence, because I strongly support the overall concept of a statement of conscience on economic inequality, but I feel that some recent information has come forth. There's a book recently called dream hoarders by Richard V. Reeves which points out that it's not just the one%. That there's the 20%. There are people who move from one neighborhood to another so their children can go to better schools, guilty as charged. That there are people who, you know, the top 20% is able to maintain the status of being in the top 20% for their children. And I think we need to add some statements to this it effect, to our statement of conscience, and also to add some of these things to the remedies that we have. So yes, and finally, I think the other thing is I think it would be good to do some consolidation of all of the various actions, you know, 15 or 20 items under each of the things we can do individually and as congregations, and I think consolidating some of those to a smaller number that people will actually pay attention to would be a good idea. >> Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> My name is Margaret Bordon from the First Unitarian Church of Austin, Texas. My question is I believe for the Committee on social witness and I'm about to display my ignorance, as I listened to all the discussion, it sounded like we were writing this for ourselves. And there's a purpose in doing that. I had assumed we were writing it for the outside world to see what we were about. So I would like clarification as to who is the target audience and what is the purpose of the statement? [Applause] >> Because ‑‑ >> Statement of conscience is statement of our conscience as association. It commits us to specific actions in the world. I recognize the Dell gay it the procedural mic. >> Ted Papas, university Unitarian Universalist society east, Manchester, Connecticut. He wanted a point of clarification. Were we to table the current motion, would we be looking at a one year delay likely 1234 and if we were to vote con on the principal motion, would we be looking at least a two year, if not a four‑year delay if we were to bring that back to the assembly? >> I'm just going to disambiguate this. If we table it, we'll decide to discuss later in General Assembly. If we referred it to a committee, it would go on the commission on social witness another year. If we voted no against the motion, we would not have a statement of conscience and we would get a new congregational study action issue/statement of conscience process next year. >> Which would take, at a minimum, two and possibly four years. >> It would take up to four years until we were at this point again, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Reverend Emily Burke from Franklin, New Hampshire. I would like to call the question on referral, please. >> I heard a second. That is in order at this time. So I'm going to explain what we're about to do. If we accept this, we would be moving back and accepting the entire statement of conscience as amended with no unincorporated amendments. >> I need the delegate to come back to the mic so I'm clear about the question that we're calling. >> I was calling ‑‑ >> Recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Still Emily Burke. I was calling it is question about referral. My understanding was that was the motion currently on the floor. >> Okay. I misheard. Thank you so much. >> Okay. So that's in order. With we're voting about whether we're going to refer this to the commission ‑‑ yes? >> No. >> We are deciding on whether we are going to refer to the commission on social witness. >> The motion was to call the question on referring to the Committee. The Committee that this would be referred to, for an additional study, is the commission on social witness. That is the motion that the delegate made. This is not debatable. So we need to take a vote. All right? I have some other folks at the procedural mic, so I'm going to take the delegate at the procedural mic. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> There does seem to be some confusion on the floor. If we could just clarify, I believe ‑‑ >> who are you? >> Thank you. I'm Carl Ponernan from the UU church of greater Lansing. And they may be discussing the issue that I'm about to raise anyway, so it may be moot. There seems to be some confusion on the floor. I believe we need to vote on the motion for previous question itself, which happens to require a two‑thirds majority, and then we can vote on the ‑‑ >> And then we can vote on the actual question of whether to refer. >> That's correct, thank you. That's correct. We are voting on whether to call the question, then we would vote on whether to refer. That's exactly the order. Thank you. >> We'll vote to end debate on the motion to refer. I recognize the delegate in the off‑site procedural mic. >> Fred Hammond from UU Congregation of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Off‑site delegates need some time for the voting process to come up. >> That is correct. The voting process is up right now. I just saw it on my screen. I have a couple of additional screens up here that you don't necessarily see, but I know that and they're already voting, as a matter of fact. [Laughter] So all those in favor of ending debate on the motion to refer, please raise your card. Keep them high. This requires a two‑thirds majority. All right. All those opposed? Let's see the off‑site votes. Okay. We're ready to vote on this motion. We have a motion to refer, and this motion to refer this would send it back. This statement of conscience, as written right now, to the commission on social witness. All right? That's what we've just done. All right. We're ready. Now all those in favor of sending this statement of conscience back to the commission on social witness, please raise your cards high. All those opposed? Off‑site vote. We are not ready to send this to Committee. [Applause] So where we are now, we ever no motion to refer. We're back to discussion on the main motion, which is the statement of conscience as amended. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Marcus Swiliano from the Unitarian Universalist association of [Indiscernible] he'd like to call the question on the motion for conscience. >> That is in order at this time. I hear a second. All right. So we're calling the question on the statement of conscience as amended. We're going to ‑‑ no, we're not considering any amendments. This is the document that we have. >> Well, wait a minute. >> Give me a moment to confer with my parliamentarian. All right? Can we have a song while I do that? I want to get some clarity. >> Hello, everyone. You're so kind. From what I just saw, I'm going to need to breathe in and breathe out. I'm sorry. We all know it. So can we have this? Breathe in? Breathe out. Okay. And four. ¶ Breathe in ¶ breathe out ¶ breathe in ¶ breathe out ¶ When I breathe in I'll breathe in peace. ¶ When I breathe out, I'll breathe out love. ¶ When he breathe in, I'll breathe in peace ¶ When I breathe out, I'll breathe out love. [Applause] >> Thank you, Leon. All right. Sometimes when we breathe we get clarity on something, so I'm glad we got to breathe together and so I want to clarify what we're about to do. Right now, there has been a motion made to call the question, so we have to vote, again, on whether we wanted to vote or not. All right? If we do that, that means that we're going to go back to the main motion, and the main motion in this case is the statement of conscience with the amendments that have been made. None of the unincorporated amendments. That's the white sheet. We won't be entertaining any amendments if we call the question right now. The next thing we would do is just vote on how it's written, what any of the dramatical changes that are noted. We don't need a motion for that. It's been noted. We'll take care of it. Does everyone understand? >> Yes. >> It's A through Z. We won't vote on those unincorporated amendments. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> All right. Marti [Indiscernible] from the Unitarian Universalist church of silver spring, Maryland. I'd like to ask a question of procedure. If adopted in whatever form today, is it possible be to consider changes in amendments in future years? It occurs to me that if adopted last year, it would appear very different due to the social, political, and economic conditions this year. We could debate amendments for several years and not have done anything. So adopted today could amendments and changes be considered in future years? >> No, but we could amend our actions in future years. Weak mend our behavior. This statement of conscience becomes an official record of what we do. It does not limit that we can do in the future. >> Thank you. This is not debatable. There was just a question on what would happen. All right. Now we're going to vote to vote. This requires a two‑thirds majority. So all of those in favor of voting on the statement of conscience as amended, no unincorporated amendments on A through Z, that white page, please raise your cards now: Keep them up high. They're closing debate. All right. All those opposed? Off‑site delegates? And I'm going to confer for a second. We need to closed cue on voting now. Thank you. We're fog to try this one more time. Open up that voting cue. All of those in favor of ending debate so we can accept or reject the statement of conscience, hold your cards up high. Keep them up. Don't wiggle them. You can wiggle your feet, though. All those opposed? Off‑site? This passes. Now we're going to volt on the statement of conscience that's written with any grammatical changes we've already made. This requires a two‑thirds majority vote. All those in favor of the statement of conscience as written in your CSW alert, please raise your cards now. All those opposed? Off‑site? This passes. [Applause] We did a thing. [Laughter] I'm going to hand the mic back over to Moderator Rimes for the time being and we're going to switch some things up. [Cheers and Applause] >> So, you know, there was a lot going on this year, in case you haven't been reading the news, the UUA news, and when the board decided, with a lot of discussion, to change the way that we do this a little bit, we said, why not? Everything else is away from normal. Let's throw this into the mix. And I think our tri‑mod ‑‑ tri‑facilitators got their groove on. They got in a roll. And I think they did an amazing job. [Applause] We also wanted to make sure you got a little bit of a feeling of what it was like during a board meeting, so now you can ‑‑ [Laughter] Each year, we take a special collection for the social justice efforts that are near and dear to us. This year we honor Standing on the Side of Love. Please welcome Elizabeth Winn and Nora Rosmond from stand okay the side of love. >> Thank you. We also are glad to be here with you all. When my brother and I were little kids, like so many families, my parents were searching for a spiritual community that would fit our multiracial, multicultural family. That would honor my parent's roots in the catholic church and in Vietnamese Buddhism and give us a place to call home. They found home at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. I was a college student learning about community development in my mom called me to tell me there had been a shooting at TVUUC. I remember standing under the big starry sky, trying to make sense of this world and how it breaks us and heals us. Through many hands and hearts, the Standing on the Side of Love campaign was born as a response to that shooting and over the past eight years has tried be radical love with teeth, Not aiming to reflect a consensus of Unitarian Universalists, speaking to a vision of our justices work, offering us a platform to practice risk, courage, flanking of movements led by those most impacted. >> This year, in this denominational and political movement, we are being tested. We are being asked to show up differently than we have before. We are asking questions about what it means to answer the call of love in the face of an unpetitionable government, and the ongoing criminalization of our families, loved ones and communities. We are asking questions about what it means to, as southerners and new ground asks, commit to our own transformation in the service of creating a faith community that unapologetically vows to dismantle white supremacy within and beyond our congregations. How can we best organize on the side of love, pray on the side of love, show up on the side of love, leverage our resources on the side of love? And how can we do that work, grounded in love and faith? We want to use this time to talk about gratitude: something we understand to be the ground on which our spiritual fortification and salvation rests. We want to begin with gratitude for the voices that, from the campaign's inception, called us to account about our work. They said that to name a justice campaign Standing on the Side of Love, is ableist, limiting, harmful and not aligned with the way we believe none of us are free until we are all free. Thank you to those who named that and those who have continued to lift this important reality. We know the time to shift this language is past due. I have a deep desire that the times we find ourselves in as Unitarian Universalists will call us into our fuller selves ‑ to take care with our framing, language, and indeed with one another. >> We've realized that we're hungry for gratitude that is not based on how we want to be seen, not based on wanting to be cute on Facebook, but based on acknowledgement of leadership and labor, recognition mistakes, relationship repair and authentic commitment. We invite you to, for a moment, join us in this and turn it a neighbor if you're willing and shear your name, your pronouns if you like, and thank them for going through this morning with you if you've been alongside for a few hours. And share something you're grateful for and what that might lead you to risk, to change, to give up, to let go of. So go ahead. Just if a moment, turn to a neighbor. Something you're grateful for and what that gratitude could lead you to risk. Thank you. As we have tried to model however imperfectly ‑‑ I am a facilitator, but I didn't bring any tricks on the stage. Gratitude must be rooted in our willingness to be transformed. Gratitude transforms us when it is emerges from our commitment to personal and collective change. Ongoing assaults continue ‑‑by the state and between individuals‑‑ against those of us who are People of Color, Muslim, queer and trans, lesbian and gay, women and femmes, disabled, poor. When people in those communities call us to action, we can show gratitude for their leadership not just in word, but through our deeds and actions. If faith without work is dead, what is gratitude without work? Today we find ourselves particularly grateful for the ways our work has been an experiment in creativity and risk. >> We are grateful for the many ways we have been able to offer technical assistance to movement partners, letting go of needing to be given credit or visibility for that work; we are grateful for the leadership of Caitlin Breedlove as director, who left Who shaping oh many of our understandings of the role institutions can play in movement building. We give thanks for Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism and DRUUMM, who continue to call our faith to who we can become. These are revealing times. Amen? In this ways, the best ask would be for me to cast a vision of the work of this campaign and as you all know too well, The Times are of such great uncertainty that there's no way to do that with integrity. So what I can tell you are the questions that we are grappling with, and I hope we can grapple together. What is the role of people of faith and moral courage to flank, fortify, and participate in movements? Can our institutions exist to serve movements? What spiritual qualities are required? Not optional. Of leadership in these times? What practices of prayer, song, silence, alter making, ritual, can we bring to the daily challenges of morale, lack of focus, and that uncertainty that we face in justice work. And what are our covenants with the people we claim to be in partnership with? Which covenants have we broken by not showing up how we need to and how do we repair? Love resists in so many ways, in congregations, expanding sanctuary, beyond four walls, chaining background check policies to meet the need of undocumented Unitarian Universalists. Providing housing to water protectors over long legal battles have gone, and so much more, this is the work we do as Unitarian Universalists and our challenge is to do it with even greater courage, less ego, more skill, less cowardice. We are grateful; ready for whatever comes, rising up, whatever shape this campaign takes, this forward leaning, risk‑taking piece of our Unitarian Universalist Association. Please join us in gratitude to give generously, on the side of love. [Applause] ¶ You're broken down and tired ¶ Of living life on a merry‑go‑round ¶ And you can find the fighter ¶ But I see it in you so we're going to walk it out. ¶ And move mountains. ¶ We're going to walk it out and move mountains. ¶ I'm rise up ¶ I'm rise like the day. ¶ I'm rise up ¶ I'll rise unafraid ¶ I'll rides up ¶ And I'll do it a thousand times again. ¶ And I'll rise up ¶ High like the waves ¶ I'll rise up ¶ In spite of the ache ¶ I'll rise up and I'll do it a thousand times again ¶ For you ¶ For you note ¶ For you. ¶ For you. ¶ When the silence isn't quiet ¶ And it feels like it's getting hard to breathe ¶ And I know you feel like dying, but I promise we'll take the world to else feet ¶ And move mountains. ¶ Bring it to it's cetera feet. ¶ And move mountains ¶ I'll rise up ¶ And I'll do it a thousand times again. ¶ For you ¶ For you ¶ For you ¶ For you ¶ All we need, all we need is hope ¶ And for that we have each other ¶ And for that we have with each other ¶ We will rise ¶ We will rise ¶ We'll rise, oh, oh. ¶ We'll rise ¶ He'll rise up ¶ Rise like the day ¶ I'll rise up ¶ In spite of the ache ¶ I will rise a thousand times again ¶ And we'll rise up ¶ Rise like the waves ¶ And we'll rise up ¶ In spite of the ache ¶ We'll rise up ¶ And we'll do it a thousand times again ¶ For you ¶ For you ¶ For you ¶ For you. [Applause] >> You've been hearing Jen, Jabone, and Jen. Thank you very much. [Applause] >> Thank you. Can I say the Word? Damn. [Laughter] Back to business. Carry that in your heart. Not the Word I said. The Unitarian Universalist service Committee or UUSC advances human rights and grassroots collaboration. In more than a countries around the world UUSC fosters social justice and works toward a world fee from oppression. Their innovative approach and measurable impact‑in promoting economic justice, bolstering environmental justice, and protecting rights at risk‑are grounded in the belief that all people have inherent power, dignity, and rights. Join me in welcoming Tom Andrews, president and chief executive officer of UUSC. [Applause] >> Wow. Rise up. If there was ever a time for Unitarian Universalists to unite and act on behalf of principles and values that are fully under siege, it is now! Good morning. It is an honor to join you on behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. What I am about to say may come off to some of you as politically partisan. It is not meant to be ‑ UUSC is a strictly non‑partisan organization. And to be completely transparent, like Will Rogers, I personally belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat. [Laughter] But while UUSC does not take sides in elections, we do take sides when our values are undermined and innocent men, women, and children are put at risk. [Applause] Now, I think it is fair to say that we are all deeply concerned about developments in Washington DC and in many state capitols across the U.S., and for good reason. What we care about is deeply endangered when political leaders, starting in the white house, alert that global warming is a hoax, that tens of millions of Americans should no longer have health insurance, that undocumented immigrants are criminals and terrorists who should be deported immediately while those of the Muslim faith should not be aloud into our country at all. And that the LGBTQ I community should be demonized and stigmatized for asserting their humanity, while being denied equal protection under the law. When xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and attacks on people with disabilities are not only ok, but useful political weapons. My message to you this morning is straightforward: I cannot think of a time when the principles and values of Unitarian Universalism have been more important nor when it has been more necessary to transform them into vigorous and sustained action. [Applause] From our founding in 1940, UUSC has sought to speak truth to power through words and, most importantly‑action. We unite and act with and for people facing horrific conditions and brutality not because of anything that they have done, but because of who they are. We unite and act with and for those who are the most marginalized, the most threatened, and the most forgotten. And our approach at UUSC turns out to be revolutionary. Instead of descending from our on high with prepackaged solutions to a crisis, we ask communities in crisis what they think and what they believe it most needed. And then we become their partners in addressing not only the immediate crisis but the source of that crisis. [Applause] Now, the toxic use of fear and xenophobia are by no means limited to the United States. At UUSC, we are working with communities under siege all around the world. Among them, the Rohingya ethnic Muslim minority of Burma. More than 1 million people have been stripped of their citizenship, forced into heavily guarded villages or imprisoned in squalid isolation camps.this is not exaggeration. I have seen the building blocks of genocide in Burma with my own eyes. How has UUSC responded? By partnering with local Rohingya organizations and human rights advocates. By building bi‑partisan support among Members of Congress through public hearings and one‑on‑one appeals; And By mobilizing thousands of you‑our members and friends‑to call on the administration and Congress to support a UN ‑‑ what our partners were telling us was correct I Cal, support for a UN resolution authorizing an international investigation of the systematic, brutal attacks by military forces against innocent Rohingya villages. What happened? Despite a State Department in chaos and an administration not known for defending human rights, the US not only supported the UN resolution, it became a cosponsor! The resolution passed and an international investigation is moving forward in Burma. [Applause] In other words, by engaging the power of deep listening, grassroots partnerships, strategic advocacy, and your active support virtually anything is possible! And fors those who are the greatest victims six environmental injustice, through dynamic working partnerships, UUSC is partnering with Indigenous communities in Alaska and the South Pacific who are losing everything to rising sea levels. It is an unacceptable truth that those who have had the least to do with the devastating effects of climate change are those who are suffering the most from its consequences.that is an unacceptable truth. [Applause] Our values call us to unite and act with and for those who are working for economic justice. Why we believe that a living wage is not only a key ingredient to a strong economy, but a moral imperative. And our values demand that we speak truth to power. The world does not need more walls to divide us but bridges that connect us. And that's what the UU SC is all about. [Applause] It is why we are working with the UUA to build a wide, inclusive, community of justice‑seekers and action‑takers through "Love Resists", a campaign that unites and acts with and for those most at risk from the politics of xenophobia, bigotry and fear. And if you have not already signed up, we encourage you to come to our booth in the exhibition hall and do so. Finally, last but not least, last but not least, our values call us to recognize, support, and celebrate one another. We will do so tonight at the UUSC gala where we will honor the work of Linda Sarsour, National Co‑Chair of the Women's March on Washington, where 2.6 million people marked in 673 communities in all 50 states and 32 countries around the world. [Applause] I invite you to join us tonight and then join us tomorrow on our journey to transform the values we share into robust and sustained action. Growing up I was inspired ‑ and drawn to the idea of social and political action ‑ by the late Bobby Kennedy. He spoke these words (that I have paraphrased slightly) to a group of students in Cape Town during the dark days of Apartheid South Africa: "It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man (or a woman): Stands up for an ideal; or acts to improve the lot of others; or strikes out against injustice, he (or she) sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. "I invite you to become a part of our UU SC community, to promote and defendant principles that are truly under siege here and abroad. But as we do so, let's join together, but let's not just make ripples, as Bobby Kennedy suggests. Let's make waves. Thanks so very much. [Applause] >> Good Afternoon, everybody. All righty. So I want to make an announcement that impacts our timing with each other and how we are with each other. So we as UU's like to talk. Right? Oh, yeah. We also like to debate things. Oh, yeah. And we love procedure even more. So Jim Key's memorial service is at 12:30. 12:30. We also have to vote on two bylaw amendments. So I just want us to hold there's a service at 12:30 and if we want to go to it, that means something for how we show up in this space. I'm not saying not to talk. Please don't get that ‑‑ I love to talk. I'm just saying for us to hold two things at the same time. And to hold impact over grammar. Right? Impact over grammar. All grammatical changes can be made. Just write them down. Right? Impact/grammar. Thank you, and love you lots. [Applause] >> Hello again. So we are back to where we were yesterday. We have a motion on the floor that we postponed until today that would amend our first principle to change the Word people or persons to being. And as soon as I can find it. Okay. And in a moment I will recognize the delegate at the procedural microphone. We can have a mic for the procedure? Thank you. >> Madam moderator, I'm reverend Beth Johnson, Unitarian Universalist fellowship in vista, California. I move to table the motion to amend bylaw C 2.one, the principle changing the work person, to being, I am of the mind that it would be most appropriate for this not to have been on the agenda. But it is. Now what is it ours to do? I believe that this is a distraction from the work that we are called to do as an association. I believe our work at this time is to do the important work of dismantling white supremacy within our association, our congregations, and ourselves. >> Out of order. >> I believe our work is to hear and heed the call of our siblings of color to focus on consideration of an eighth principle that will allow us to engage in the deeply spiritual work of anti‑racism and building a multicultural Beloved Community. I want to heed concerns from my sick brings with disabilities, as well as sick brings of colors whose inherent worth and dignity has yet to be fully realized. Therefore, I believe this motion should be tabled. >> Is there a second? >> Second settlement this is not a debatable motion, but it does require a two‑thirds vote to approve. Simple majority. Thank you for the correction, with all of these different levels, it's ease to forget which one tie to his where. If you vote for this motion, the amendment goes away and we don't talk about it any further today and the you want UA doesn't do anything further with it. I recognize the next delegate at the procedural mic. >> I think I may have been toll the answer to my question. Carl Ponenan from the church of greater Lansing. If you could clarify. Earlier today we had a debate where the ruling was that the motion to table was not in order until there had been 15 minutes of debate. So is this in order or did we have 15 minutes of debate on this yesterday which makes this in order? How does it work? >> We had it yesterday, which makes it in order. >> Right. The delegate at the procedural mic is correct that we did have 15 minutes of debate yesterday, and so this motion would be out of order ‑‑ no, in order. It's in order. I apologize. Okay. Yes. The motion to table is in order. We're ready to vote. The motion is not debatable, but I see should be coming to the procedural microphone. >> Clarification. >> Yes. Sir, your name and congregation. >> David Shay, VUU in chapped her, Arizona. My understanding a motion to table means we have to consider it later before we adjourn. >> No. >> Or a most to postpone indefinitely would kill it. That's my understanding of Roberts rules of order. >> She's tabled it indefinitely, I believe. >> No? >> No? Please restate your motion so we're all clear about it. >> My initial motion was to table the motion to change that principle, and I mean, that's what I said. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Or to table I know definitely. I don't know if I change that or not. >> Okay. I'm advised that it does not come back. So there's a motion to table. There's a motion to table. I recognize the delegate at the procedural microphone. >> reverend Amy Williams Clark. I am the minister at Cedarhurst Unitarian Universalist and I have a point of clarification. My understanding yesterday was that we were going to have this voted after we had our bylaw vote about changing women and men to persons. And my understanding was that also there was going ‑‑ the resulting vote around the first principle, the goal was to send it back for further discussion. >> Okay. Thank you for your question, because I'm sure other people are confused as well S the decision was ultimately made by this body to move ‑‑ to postpone the discussion until today before the vote on changing men and women to persons. And instead, what we have in front of us is a motion to table. So that does not send it to a study commission. If you want to send it to a study commission, you would vote against the motion to table so that you could take some further action and have further discussion. I'm just double‑checking with the parliamentarian, because these things get incredibly confused when we start large all of these motions on top of one another. And I wanted to give the procedural people a chance to really help us and understand what they're trying to do. And just so you know, the people in the green and white striped vests, they help us by explaining to the delegates before they come up whether they're in the right place. And so this is part of the coaching that goes on. The second piece of this is that your moderator team is available to help any of you craft motions, help you explain parliament, help explain to you the parliamentary process to help you accomplish whatever it is you wanted. And we will do that evenhandedly to anyone who wants to come and approach us at any point in the process. So if you're coming to the mini assembly, we can work with you there, even if sometimes what we have are people who don't want to do something and people who do want to do something. We want to be fair in our technical assistance to those of you who want to be engaged in this process. Moderator recognizes the delegate at the procedural microphone. >> The off‑site delegate, Eric Birch from Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Rockville, Maryland. Per bylaw Section 151C2, do we need a four/fifth vote to proceed? We're mending article two without a study being performed. >> No, we do not. This came from the congregations by petition. And also, we have the wrong motion up. This is the one to change persons to beings that we'll be considering. The Chair recognizes the delegate at the procedural mic. The next person we procedural mic? Okay. Since we don't have anybody ready at the procedural mic, I'll go to the ‑‑ this is not a debatable motion. Sorry. We're trying to make sure there's good understanding of what's happening. Okay. Go ahead. >> Yes. I'm Reverend Beth Johnson from Palamar Young Fellowship in Vista, California. I would like to move to table the motion to amend bylaw C2.1 is, the principle changing person to being, to table that indefinitely. >> Okay. So this is a motion you meant to make as opposed to what you said. >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> So it's a motion to table I know definitely that basically says we're done with this issue for now. It's not done forever and ever, but we're not going to deal with it any further in this General Assembly. >> Yes. That's exactly right. >> So by virtue of having clarified her motion, this one is debatable. Isn't this fun? I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Karen [Indiscernible] from First Unitarian Orlando. I have a procedural question. If we vote to table indefinitely, this amendment, yet for the ‑‑ >> Hold on just a moment. I'm getting some input. Okay. They say too many cooks spoil the broth? >> Are we ready? So here is our option. If we want ‑‑ [Cheers and Applause] >> Three heads are better than one. >> Okay. So if we want to postpone and not debate, but just move forward and table it, table it, like right? Not debate it, not bring it up. Just let it go so we can move to the next one, then we do the original, but nobody bring it up tomorrow. [Laughter] Are we clear? So I'm giving you your options. If we want to move so we can change the other one or do whatever you want to to the other one, we do the original motion, so stand back up. You're not going to say it again. We all know it. So then we're going to vote on that, but then don't bring it up tomorrow, because if you bring it up tomorrow, we'll vote on it again. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Does that answer your economy >> Yes. I had a procedural question here. If we vote to table this amendment now and then we have another discussion coming up, if we vote to accept that one, it sends the entire article to the study. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> So we could table this one and the entire article two in its entirety would be sent to study commission, as long as ‑‑ >> No, no, no. I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you said. If we table this one, we're done were the next motion that's going to come up is also addressing C bylaws. If that passes, then it's referred to a study commission and at that point all of article two is up. >> That's what I was trying to say. Thank you. >> If it doesn't get a fourth/fifth vote. Are there other procedural questions? Okay. >> I am ‑‑ >> Can we have the mic for the procedure? >> Steve Hollingsworth, UU Chattanooga. I am still unclear, because the language yesterday brought up a distinction that I had never heard, which was that a motion to table could not be in order for this resolution, but that it could be laid on the table and if that were moved and passed, that then it would go to study. And this is not resolved in my mind and I thought it was very clear the way I heard it yesterday. >> Okay. The motion is in order. We are going to move to table it. It's not a debatable motion, and so if we put it on the table and nobody moves to bring it back up, we don't talk about it anymore and that's how we're going to proceed. Thank you. Okay. All those in favor of calling the question? We didn't have a motion to call the question. All those in favor of moving to table this motion, please raise your voting cards. We need help counting. Okay. Off‑site delegates, can we have the count, please? We're trying to get the off‑site delegate cue up so I don't miss them. So all those opposed to tabling the motion? We clearly have more than a majority, and I want to give the off‑site delegates a chance to weigh in. We understand there's more of a lag than any of us realized. We're looking at 88% in favor of tabling in 10% against and two% abstaining. I declare the motion has been tabled, and thank you. [Applause] >> Okay. We're ready to move to our next bylaw amendment. Right? And this is ‑‑ can I have that back up on the screen? This is prophetic people. >> We just say, y'all were amazing. We did two things. [Applause] >> we did do two things. We did do two things. Thank you, tri‑moderator Elandria. All right. I recognize the delegation at the procedural mic to make the appropriate mission. >> Hi. My name is Jamie Andle. I have no gender pronouns. Just call my Jamie. Candidate for ministry and member of First Unitarian Church of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. I move we adopt to change the second source which reads words and deeds of prophetic women and men to words and deeds of prophetic people, replacing women and men with people. >> Second. >> Using language like women and men reinforces the gender binary which fails to acknowledge the gender fluidity of Cis gender people and does not truly embrace the experiences of gender nonbinary and transgender people. [Applause] I wish to thank the churches that rallied in support of this movement and got the petitions to the UUA. I wish to also acknowledge those who have come before me, particularly womenists and feminists who gave so much in order to be included at the table, alongside men. And now it is our turn to continue that work. In order to ensure a more inclusive world for our children and youth so that they know they are loved and embraced here. I would like to yield my time and pass the mic to my friend Marcus. >> Hello. My name is Marcus Foliano. Unitarian Universalist churn. Peoria. I use they, them, their pronouns. I want to second this motion for the reason this past week I sat through the thrive program and Dr. Yamin said something that really resonated with me, which is that the people at the edges of the margins are the ones that usually have the most freedom, the most vision for freedom and liberation, and we have genderqueer, gender non‑confirming, and gendered youth within our churches, and within movements that are speaking to us, that are calling us to the work of liberation, and they, too, can be prophetic, and we want to make sure that they see reflected in our sources that they are reflected there. So with that, I second the motion. [Applause] >> Thank you. Thank you. I recognize the delegation at the pro mic. >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. My name is the Reverend Chris [Indiscernible] my pronouns are they/them/there, the minister in Houghton, Michigan. I am so honored to be here representing transgender religious professional UU's together. And to read this statement written by Elizabeth [Indiscernible] and Alex. We have officially endorsed this amendment proposal to liberate the second source from the gender binary and create a more inclusive covenant for gender nonbinary gender non‑conforming and transgender Unitarian Universalists. We have watched this denomination move toward becoming more trans‑inclusive, making improvements to Our Whole Lives, the welcoming congregation program, and the inclusion of gender identity in our nondiscrimination bylaw. The 44 members of TRUST, all of us leaders in our movement, include not only trans‑women and men, but also people who are nonbinary, genderqueer, gender fluid, agender, and polygender. Whenever the words men and women are used, they exclude the majority of us in TRUST. Changing these words to our second source will not only acknowledge our existence, but will proclaim that people of all genders are prophetic. It will tell the gender fabulous children and youth of our movement that we will not only shelter them when they need us, but that we need them to enrich this faith and to be our prophets. [Applause] We honor the history that made the Wording women and men a true and courageous move toward justice when it was first written, affirming a multitude of genders is our aspiration now, and we hope that this General Assembly is ready to take the challenge into our hearts and into our sources. Thank you. [Applause] at this. I recognize the delegate at the procedure mic. >> We need to have at least 15 minutes of discussion. If there are people who are both for and against. If we have people who are only four, we still have to do at least five minutes. All right? So ‑‑ >> We don't have anyone at the mic at all. >> We need no one at the mic at all. So we're going to listen a little bit longer. This is a moment when we can speak to that. So I'm going to recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> My name is Peregrine [indiscernible] of Morgal Williams, pronouns are they them and I'm from the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia. The question before you is close to my heart. I am not a man or woman. Our sources do not acknowledge my existence or identity. They do not make room for our young people in all of their gender fabulousness. Friends, let us live into our values. Inclusion and diversity. I encourage you to vote to change men and women to people. Thank you. [Applause] >> I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> I would like to move that we ask for a four/fifths vote, which would avoid the study process, and be an immediate affirmation. Susan Ritchie, North Unitarian. >> Thank you. I'm going to speak this out. I conferred with legal counsel. We need to first authorize that this would go to a study commission and then if that is successful, we can also make a motion for a four/five vote. We'll do it in that order. I recognize it is delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm Tamara [Indiscernible] I'm from all souls church in Washington, D.C. My pronouns are they and them. I'm fully in support of this change. It makes me feel more included in our faith tradition, and I would also like to take a moment to remind us that this inclusiveness should not stop with this one change. For example, as a teen youth group facilitate for all souls church, I'm getting trained in OWL this summer. Highly there doesn't seem to be anything in writing were the practice has traditionally been that the teacher teams for OWL are one person who identifies as male and one who identifies as female. While I can see high this practice occurs, it leaves no place for me to participate. Therefore, while I'm in support of the this amendment, I would like to remind us all it is not just in our language, but also in our practices that this kind of thing matters. Thank you. >> I recognize the delegate at the off‑site pro mic >> [Indiscernible] west shore UU church, Cleveland, Ohio. [Indiscernible] this improves please ability and increases inclusion for other intersectional identities, as well as non‑gender binary >> Sometimes we can care about impact and grammar. Right? >> I recognize the procedural mic. >> This is from Rebecca Barger from UU congregation of Wyoming valley in Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania. Pointed of information. When can we introduce amendments? Please make it clear when amendments are possible. >> Amendments are possible after 12 minutes of discussion. That's in pages 77 through 78 of your rules. >> Do we have anyone? I recognize it is delegate at the procedural mic. >> Yes. As a follow‑up to the previous procedural question, it's also been stated that we may ‑‑ oh, I apologize again. That's what I always forget. Carl Ponenan from the Unitarian Universalist church of greater Lansing in Lansing, Michigan. The follow‑up to the previous question. We have heard the Moderator say we could close debate after five minutes, but just said that amendments are not admissible until 15 minutes. So is it possible to close, as the mod is saying, it's possible to close debate before any amendment could even be allowed onto the floor? >> That is correct. >> I recognize the delegate at the pro mic. >> I am Sara Smith from the Allegheny Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My pronouns are emphatically she and her and I am a proud trans‑woman and I am asking you to support this amendment for many reasons. I volunteer with the Pittsburgh gay and lesbian Community Center's youth group, and I confess, I'm often astonished at how many young kids we're dealing with now who don't see themselves as men or women, who have gender fluid, nonbinary intersex. Half the time I feel like a dinosaur. [Laughter] And then I think, my God. This is what my generation fought for, the right to define yourself. [Applause] And that makes me feel successful. I am asking you to support this change in amendment, simply because it is the most inclusive language. It includes men, women, and all those who identify as something else. And I cannot emphasize that strongly enough, particularly when we find ourselves in a nation whose government is increasingly trying to narrow its definitions of citizenship, to narrow its definitions of who is allowed to speak in the public forum. This is our way of saying we stand against that. Thank you. [Applause] >> I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Susan Ritchie, north UU, Louis center, Ohio. I would like to call the question. [Applause] >> Right. I'm going to consult for a second, because I think, I believe that is not in order and I want to make sure that I know why. [Laughter] It is not in order, because rule number five in our amendment rule says that it is not in order until 15 minutes has expired or we don't need that much time for conversation, which means no one is standing at any mics. Now I know you can't see them. I still have two off‑site delegates at the pro cue. So that's something we have. So I have them. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Mr. Moderator, Gini Von courter, delegate from the Unitarian Universalist congregation [Indiscernible] >> Wait a long time for this moment. >> And a we loved friend of moderators and rules. Isn't this cool? I want to sit down and chat, but I'm here for an actual purpose rather than reliving our history together. [Laughter] I find that we have a rule that I know was created temporarily, because I spoke to the person who drafted it. And that is this rule on how long we have to wait to introduce an amendment. There was never an intention two years ago that that rule live with us going forward, and it's getting in our way. We're trying to kill time so we can an membered stuff. I would like to move that we modify the rules of procedure, rule five specifically, paragraph one where it says except for clarifying amendments, amendments, dah‑dah‑dah, will not be in order until there has been at least 15 minutes ever discussion if that much is needed on the merits of the main question as moved. Or, and now I want to pick up the language that we've already approved for time limits. Or if there has been ‑‑ this is in rule 6C, same page, if there has been at least 15 minutes of discussion concerning the main motion, and there are no speakers at either the pro or con microphones, whether on‑site or off‑site. >> second. [Applause] >> Some mystery voice. That would be Madam moderator Denny Davidoff. In other words, if it's in order to be done, it should be in order to amend. So moved. >> All right. >> He recognizes the delegate at the procedural mic. >> In the past, and somebody said that it said if that much time is needed, yes, the rules rule 6f that much time is needed, has always been here. The language that has only appeared for two years is the amendment language that was currently having us trip over ourselves, and kill time with 2,000 great people, but still. Okay? So I'm asking that we restore the language that would have been in these rules two years ago and prior. >> Thank you. The former moderator will give me a moment to consult. Okay. Here's some things. Sounds like, and I'm saying it this way simply because there is a real motion on the table, but I want to talk this out. What our language says is if that much time is needed, which means we can go to the amendment when there's nobody else speaking. I still have two people in the pro cue who are off‑site, but once we're finished chatting with them, we don't need any more time. We can introduce amendments. We can vote. We can vote again. We'll have some fun with that. [Laughter] It was an interpretive issue, so is it okay if we don't amend the rules? I recognized delegate at the procedural mic. >> Still Gini Von Courter. If this is the current interpretation and the interpretation going forward into tomorrow, then I withdraw my motion respectfully. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> And it is. We're going to take with this. Okay. I recognize the final off‑site delegate at the pro mic. >> I'm reading for Christine Haager, river road UU congregation, Bethesda, Maryland. Let's support this change. For too long, women were assumed to be included when the Wording says men, so let's just make the change to people. [Applause] >> All right. Do I have another speaker at the pro mic? >> This is from delegate Katherine Jackson, Unitarian society of new haven in Hampton, Connecticut. I speak in favor of this amendment as it provides for the acknowledgments of all people. Thank you. >> It looks like we're ready to vote. [Applause] >> Are there any other amendments? I didn't see anyone at the amendment mic. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Chris [Indiscernible] fellowship in Houghton, Michigan. I want to call the question. >> Okay. That is in order. Takes two‑thirds vote. Okay? So all of those in favor of ending debate, which means we would not admit any amendments, although we have time to do that now. All right? I want you to raise your cards up high. All those in favor of ending debate? All those opposed? Off‑site votes 1234 and please closed cue. I recognize our fair witness at the procedural mic. Please use the mic. >> I'm sorry. There was an amendment, we were told there was an amendment before and then you were told by people that there wasn't an amendment, but there was an amendment there waiting to be. So it's just the difficulty of seeing and understanding, you know, all that's going on in the midst of this. And it seems that an amendment should be offered. >> Okay. Here's what I'm going to do. This is a time for us to get creative and let's figure out how much time we want to spend with this. Can you raise your card if you were confused by the process we just we want through? So it looks like we mostly understood what we were doing. Okay? And what I want to ask is we've already made a decision. We can revisit. It's fine. I'm not going to hard fist this one. Do we want to he wants tape the amendment? Let me know. Raise those cards up. If you want to consider the amendment, we decided to end debate, which meant no amendments. If you want to hear the amendment, I want to see your cards. I don't know what the amendment is. We haven't heard it. All right. I need to know if you want to hear it. It doesn't ‑‑ I'm just going to get real with you all. It doesn't sound like we want to do that. All right? So is it okay if we ‑‑ come talk to me. Okay. We've made a decision. We've ended debate. We're not entertaining amendments. [Applause] Now, I have an off‑site delegate at the procedure mic. I recognized off‑site delegate at the procedural mic. >> Randy Bosh, UU metro, Atlanta north congregation, Rossville, Georgia. Off‑site voting closed before a vote was even called. Can we please leave open long enough for off‑site to vote, please? >> I am going to ask that delegate to clarify what the request was. I don't know which vote we were referring to. And then I'm going to ask my tech folks to send me a message when we get that clarification. Is that okay? Thank you. I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Marta Pearson, Unitarian Universalist Church of Tampa, Florida. My question is, is there anywhere from our procedures that require fairness? Because that vote was so quick, without acknowledging the person who had an amendment, I'm wondering ‑‑ that's what I'm wondering. >> Thank you for that question. I don't want to be glib, but this is a structure of white supremacy and it doesn't value fairness. It values efficiency. And we all wanted to do this. We all wanted to do there. that's what that vote indicated. And when we went to revisit it, we also said, we still want to do this. Okay? I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> The Reverend Matthew Johnson, Unitarian Universalist church in Rockford, Illinois. I want to ask a question. If the delegates were to vote larger than four/five to pass this immediately, that would mean that there would be no commission to study this particular section. However, if the Board of trustees were to say to the commission on institutional change or if the delegates here were to do a responsive resolution tomorrow to encourage a more thorough look at structures in the bylaws, including the principles and purposes for the larger review, including questions of being, including questions of the eighth principle, because it may be that people also want to vote yes larger than four/five other that. That would be a way to get to these other questions without people feeling like 20% of ups needed to vote no on something we supported. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. How I heard the question, and I'm get something feedback from my parliamentary squad, we can't vote four/five all at once. It will take two separate votes to do that. In principle, what you said is correct. Okay. Okay. I'm being told that there wasn't enough time for the off‑site delegates to vote. There was a lag. We have a 30‑second lag when we announce a vote and it sounds like there wasn't enough time for them. So I apologize for that. What I can let you know is there is about 100 of you and there are a few hundred in here, so when we need a majority vote, if I have a majority in here, it's still a majority. Make sense, everyone? All right. Now we're going vote on the proposed change to our source to prophetic people. We ended debate, so now we're going to take a majority vote that refers this to a study commission. That's the only proposal before us. To refer this language to a study commission. All those in favor of sending proposed language to amend our sources to a study commission, please raise your voting cards now. All those opposed? Off‑site delegates? That clearly passes. [Applause] I recognize the delegate at the procedural mic. >> Marcus Foliano, Unitarian Universalist Unitarian Church of Peoria. I'd like to call for a four/five vote to surpass the study commission. [Applause] >> I recognized delegate at the procedural mic. >> I just want to ask for a clarification and my belief is that in taking the four/five vote, we have affirmed this clearly for the first year. It comes back for the second year volt. This is the kind of affirmation and direction that is not accomplished by referring this to a study commission. The study collision would have the freedom to do whatever it does under its own authority. So the four/five vote is a more clear mandate. Correct? >> correct. If we take a four/five vote, what would happen is that we have stopped the language. This comes back for consideration at a second General Assembly. Everything in article two comes back for a second General Assembly, and so we take a higher vote. We'll affirm it with a two/three vote if we do next year. This says there's no need for additional review. We like it. We want to see it again and see if we still like it. >> [Indiscernible] >> The motion has been seconded. All right. All those in favor of a motion ‑‑ all those ‑‑ give me a second. I have very specific wording on this, so I'm going to try to get it right 689 all those in favor of dispensing with a study commission to review the proposed language to amend our second source to prophetic people, please raise your voting cards now. All those opposed? Off‑site delegates? That clearly passes with a four/five majority. [Applause] >> We've got announcements. We see some folks rolling out. Obviously, our memorial service is about to take place. Remember to make space for those who needs a little bits of time to use mobility aides. So friends, please be sure to look around you as you prepare to leave the hall, to ensure you have all of your belongings. This includes items like your voting cards, bags, water bottles, and empty coffee cups. Many thanks from your volunteer usher team. I want to invite our witnesses up for fair process observation. >> Good afternoon. We're very aware that people needing to go to different space to memorialize Jim Key, and personally, there is ‑‑ I met Jim a couple of times before. We built a partnership for us to come here and he was a very great man. So I, too, would like to go to that memorial service. So very quickly, we just want to reflect, and I think we're going to be building on these reflections from tomorrow when we go to procedural, but I think really as we leave this room we must be thinking and deeply examine the relationship between language, bureaucracy, time, and trauma. So layers of trauma that lay within bureaucracy, in its sits temperatures, and we see some of this pain out here today. We must remember that bureaucracy was a system used and imposed by Colonialists to manage, control, and exclude people of color and communities and we must ask ourselves in moving forward, how do we build a new structure for UU's that holds procedural and decision‑making practices, while is it giving freedom to innovate, create, and shift inside and outside of the UU World? [Applause] At the heart of your movement is a critique of white supremacy, so we must ask where white supremacy exists within the procedural and the bureaucracy and the language that we use to [inaudible] bureaucratic and procedural systems. So we must discuss the intersections where language and bureaucracy meet and has the use of time to measure requested productivity, impacts, and connect these dots. As to connect, it's to find new creative ways to speak to each other, form new language of understanding that is not exclusionary, and create decision‑making practices that couldn't and collaborate between groups and congregations. So UU, we feel that we must seek to build your procedural ways in ways that can be shaped and reshaped, depend okay the needs of both specific moments and also long term growth inspired by reimaging what it means to build radical democracy and that his ways that dismantle white supremacy within UU culture and practice and does not reinforce them within the bureaucratic and procedural. Thank you. [Applause] >> Thank you, Natalie. We have a closing reading. And then it will be time to go. Two short readings. From courageous female leaders who inspired trustee Lucia Santini at a young age. The first from Marion Anderson and the second from Eleanor Roosevelt. When I sing, I don't want them to see my face is black. I don't want them to see my face is white. I want them to see my soul and that it is colorless. My greatest fear has always been that I would be afraid, afraid physically or mentally or morally, and allow myself to be influenced by fear instead of honest convictions. Never had this before. There being no further business to come before us, and in accordance with the schedule set forth in this program book, I declare the general session of the General Assembly shall stand in recess until Sunday, June 25th, at 12:30:00 p.m. And I expect you all back in here at 5:00 p.m. for our synergy bridging service. [Applause] **********DISCLAIMER********** THE FOLLOWING IS AN UNEDITED ROUGH DRAFT TRANSLATION FROMN THE CART CAPTIONER'S OUTPUT FILE. THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT VERBATIM AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. TO DO SO IS AN EXXTRA FEE. THIS FILE MAY CONTAIN ERRORS. PLEASE CHECK WITH THE SPEAKER(S) FOR ANY CLARIFICATION. THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY NOT BE COPIED OR DISSEMINATED TO ANYONE UNLESS YOU OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OFFICE OR SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT IS PROVIDING CART CAPTIONING TO YOU; FINALLY, THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY NOT BE USED IN A COURT OF LAW. **********DISCLAIMER********** Event: B2017 0624 General Session III 845AM CST Captions Provided by: Hear Ink Http://www.hearink.com Phone: 314 427 1113