I am aware, though, that I don't really want to know more. I have an actual fear of knowing more. I suspect that if I find out more, I will find that somebody I respect, admire or have hopes in will have behaved badly. I don't want to find that out. It will shake up my little world.
Many express pain and sorrow over the situation. Is that an anticipatory grief over a feared loss of innocence?
Turning from this particular situation to a broader view:
UU institutions, down to the level of individual congregations, want to have "transparent" governing processes. It's part of being democratic. Yet many of the biggest decisions being made are personnel decisions: searching, hiring, evaluating, firing people. It is obligatory that those processes are kept confidential.
So, you end up with confidential transactions in the center of a transparent process: a glass box containing a black box.
If there is not overall trust in the institutions and in the leadership, it doesn't work. But when in UULand, is there ever that kind of trust?
There is a persistent anti-authoritarianism in UU culture (I hereby dub it "PopUUlism")
that believes that an elite manipulates our process somewhere inside that black box of confidentiality, no matter how transparent the rest of the process is.
While knowing nothing about the particulars of this case, I suspect that the larger issue involved is the conflict between transparency and confidentiality in the poisonous UU atmosphere of distrust. Whatever comes of this story, I suspect that we will see it again and again, even in local congregations.