Comments on: Why GA won’t go less frequent http://boyinthebands.com/archives/why-ga-wont-go-less-frequent/ Scott Wells on the practice of Christian faith Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:48:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Steve Caldwell http://boyinthebands.com/archives/why-ga-wont-go-less-frequent/comment-page-1/#comment-11960 Steve Caldwell Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:20:15 +0000 http://www.universalistchurch.net/boyinthebands/archives/why-ga-wont-go-less-frequent/#comment-11960 Scott wrote: <i>" ... The real reason is that’s where the power is. Not that there’s much formal power, but all there is rests there. The Association is a creature of the congregations, and the districts are the creatures of the Association. They are autonomous (per the UUA bylaws) but clearly not autocephalus. A congregation may unilateraly leave the Association, but I daresay a district cannot."</i> While it's true that many UUA districts are the creation of the UUA and would not exist without if it were not for the UUA, the Southwest District (which is actually the "Southwest Unitarian Universalist Conference" in its bylaws and non-profit corporation paperwork) legally exists as a non-profit corporation under Texas non-profit corporation law. As a non-profit corporation, it existed before the UUA merger. While I think it's highly unlikely that the Southwest District would leave the UUA, in theory it could exist independently due to this unique history. Scott wrote:
” … The real reason is that’s where the power is. Not that there’s much formal power, but all there is rests there. The Association is a creature of the congregations, and the districts are the creatures of the Association. They are autonomous (per the UUA bylaws) but clearly not autocephalus. A congregation may unilateraly leave the Association, but I daresay a district cannot.”

While it’s true that many UUA districts are the creation of the UUA and would not exist without if it were not for the UUA, the Southwest District (which is actually the “Southwest Unitarian Universalist Conference” in its bylaws and non-profit corporation paperwork) legally exists as a non-profit corporation under Texas non-profit corporation law. As a non-profit corporation, it existed before the UUA merger.

While I think it’s highly unlikely that the Southwest District would leave the UUA, in theory it could exist independently due to this unique history.

]]> By: Roger Kuhrt http://boyinthebands.com/archives/why-ga-wont-go-less-frequent/comment-page-1/#comment-11896 Roger Kuhrt Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:22:47 +0000 http://www.universalistchurch.net/boyinthebands/archives/why-ga-wont-go-less-frequent/#comment-11896 Scot wrote: "A congregation may unilateraly leave the Association, but I daresay a district cannot." I think your are correct. When this Connectional System was first inaugurated about 12 years back the Pacific NW District's director (for previous 21 years) did not want to be co-hired by UUA-HQ and fought the move in that direction. "25" pulled out all the stops and sent in the "big guns" (primarily Denny Davidoff) to our annual meetings and pressured the vote toward entry into the proposed field service concept. Our director resigned rather than be co-opted and not very long after died of a heart attack (I suspect due to the stress of the situaiton). As for GAs in general; I believe your assessement is right on the money--so to speak. Cheerfully, Roger Kuhrt Scot wrote: “A congregation may unilateraly leave the Association, but I daresay a district cannot.” I think your are correct. When this Connectional System was first inaugurated about 12 years back the Pacific NW District’s director (for previous 21 years) did not want to be co-hired by UUA-HQ and fought the move in that direction. “25″ pulled out all the stops and sent in the “big guns” (primarily Denny Davidoff) to our annual meetings and pressured the vote toward entry into the proposed field service concept. Our director resigned rather than be co-opted and not very long after died of a heart attack (I suspect due to the stress of the situaiton).

As for GAs in general; I believe your assessement is right on the money–so to speak.

Cheerfully, Roger Kuhrt

]]>