I resigned. Here's the story...

At General Assembly 2006, I allowed Young Adult leaders under the age of 21 to consume alcohol in my hotel room.

Upon reflection and discussion, and seeing all that has happened now as a result of my actions, I know it was a covenantally inappropriate act to have allowed such behavior to happen in my room, especially given the changes in General Assembly Planning Committee policies regarding alcohol, and the Committee's understanding with other groups and individuals at General Assembly who have receptions, all of which I was well aware of as a Planning Committee member.

This was not the first time I have been in a place at General Assembly where recognized leaders from many circles of our Association have come together to be with one another and talk about what it is we do, and where underage persons have been allowed to drink with the tacit permission of other attendees. I have been in the same situation at every General Assembly I have attended (seven to date, since 1999). The same is true of District and Congregational gatherings, which I have attended from still younger ages. It is a culture that has been allowed to propagate for a long time, at all levels of our Association and its leadership, most particularly (or at least visibly) at General Assembly.

On Tuesday, September 5th, I had a conference call with Linda Friedman,Chair of the GA Planning Committee, and Jan Sneegas, Director of the GA Office. On this call, I was informed that someone had reported that I had allowed those under 21 to consume alcohol in my room. I learned that there had been a discussion between the GAPC Executive Committee and the Directors of the Young Adult and Youth offices, Michael Tino and Jesse Jaeger, to discuss the matter. I was asked if there had been non-alcoholic beverages available in my room. There had been, and I procured more when I began to run out. In addition, I clarified that most of the alcohol was not provided by me, but brought to my room by my guests.

I heard nothing until Saturday, September 9th, when Ms. Friedman called, and asked for my resignation. I provided no answer at that time, and continued to debate my actions. On the advice of those whom I trust, I expressed first that I wished to address my entire committee, and that I did not believe the decision had been the result of an appropriate process. I was asked to consider a conference call with the Planning Committee before the Autumn meeting started on Sept 13th, but in the end I elected to fly to Boston and meet the eyes of my fellow committee members.

In that meeting, which included the Executive Vice President, Kay Montgomery, as well as Dr. Tino by conference call, I expressed my concerns that at no point had I been informed of the process being used to adjudicate my actions and what would be asked of me in reparation. It seemed as if I learned of new portions of the process and who was involved at every turn. I raised concerns that the information of the initial complaint against me was misrepresented, which was then only clarified at the meeting. At no time was I ever informed of the complaint against me or the reasoning of the Executive Committee in their request for my resignation, and to this day I've yet to receive this information. That afternoon, I refused to resign,citing that I could not do so in good conscience, given the process used against me.

I have been part of a number of hearings both in and out of our UU community that have dealt with questions of ethical violations of a group's leaders. I must say I've never been part of a process that lacked as much honesty and clarity of process as this has, nor observed the behavior of a group of leaders within our Association that has smacked of such a lack of authenticity. In addition to the lack of information about the process, the accusation, and the basis of the final decision, the Executive Committee has been unwilling to discuss with me any issues of WHY my actions came to pass,nor shown a desire to come to an understanding of the behavior and culture of the leaders they work with in the execution of our General Assembly.

Upon my refusal, I was informed by the Chair that as the Executive Committee had only the power to request my resignation, they would now send a letter to the Board of Trustees asking them to remove me, and that though I was still a member of the committee, I was dismissed from the meeting that would have run until Sunday the 17th.

I left that same night, though I believed that the Chair had overstepped her authority in ordering my dismissal. While the Chair and the Executive Committee could decide not to assign portfolios of duties to me, pending the results of their request to the Board, my presence at the meeting itself was part of my call from and accountability to the General Assembly.

In subsequent communication, I have learned that some members of the Committee had argued, akin to my unspoken thoughts at the time, that the Chair had overstepped her authority, and that my dismissal was inappropriate. Still more have expressed to me privately that they had reservations about her decision though did not weigh in at the time. Apparently, the Chair was unwilling to consider these arguments, and the Vice Chairs did not take up their duties to mediate the issue, as their positions would call them to do.

I considered taking my argument to the Board, accepting my censure, while citing Article V, Section 5.4 of the bylaws, that my actions at GA 2006 did not indicate moral turpitude, and thus I was more than capable of continuing to perform my duties as a Planning Committee member. I still believe this to be right and true. But even as many of my confidants, advisors, and even Planning Committee members encouraged me to make such an argument, I had to be honest and accountable to the General Assembly that elected me.

I believe that had I stayed on the committee, the internal disagreements and stresses upon an already overworked committee, especially those that would have arisen between some of the Executive Committee members and the rest of the Committee, would have lead to detriment in the realization of General Assembly 2007. It was this recognition that has brought about my resignation.

It is with repentance that I send this letter, and deep sorrow that this series of events lacked both beauty and authenticity, resulting in something quite ugly.

In faith and continuing service to the General Assembly,

Donald Wilson