- Weren't there too many of them anyway?
- Aren't they an "organizational irregularity" in "An Association of Congregations" anyway?
- Aren't some of them just kind of support groups?
- Aren't others just political pressure groups that have as their purpose to lobby for certain political stances by the Association?
- How many have more than token memberships?
- Aren't they part of the problem of GA -- that bazaar of the bizarre that our substitute for a serious meeting where the work of the association can be carried out by representatives of our congregations?
- And aren't some of those IA's responsible for our fracturing into hyphenated-UU's and actually prevent the kind of clarifying and unifying theological discussion which we need?
Somewhere, there is an analysis of what kinds of groups serve our larger purposes and fill a needed niche in the ecology, and which ones don't. Or is there such an analysis? So the first reason that it matters is that there needs to be some accountability and transparency about the real reasons why things like this happen.
I get the sense that the real reasons are hidden behind a veil of UU-speak. When the rule says that an organization needs to "model interdependence through engagement with our member congregations" that somebody somewhere has a pretty specific idea of what that means, and who is and who is not doing it. I think that we all have the right to know.