RantWoman offers the following commentary in a spirit of being faithful to her Light. RantWoman is more concerned that the State of Society report contains what RantWoman considers several factual inaccuracies than she necessarily is with a great deal of what is in these minutes. However when RantWoman reached out to one of the report's authors, RantWoman received a request not to contact her further.
The long commentary here addresses a number of realities informed by RantWoman's experience with IT issues, RantWoman's perspective as a person with a disability, and by RantWoman's experience thinking about meeting process issues in many different contexts. RantWoman, humbly is called to be faithful to her Light.
RantWoman has changed all references to her own name and a reference to a newborn but has left all other names as is.
RantWoman uses the following font conventions:
Bold text is from the original draft, in bold for emphasis.
Bold Italic is a factual correction
Italic is commentary of fact and process provided by RantWoman. Most if it is not material for editing these minutes but is material that needs further consideration from Friends.
As annotated by RantWoman
In particular,
RantWoman’s comments relate to a newcomer named Sara BridgeSong.
Sara is NOT RantWoman
but does borrow RantWoman’s hands to type. Sara is a composite character based on several
people RantWoman has met and in some cases appreciated accessibility options
for
In the world of
technology, sometimes personae are created to illustrate or test principles or
needs of particular user groups. RantWoman believes in a single standard of
truth about why and how this testing is relevant both to other work and to the
life of Meeting. RantWoman has been devoting considerable time to issues of
inclusion for people with different disabilities in the burgeoning world of
video conferencing. RantWoman is happy to go on further, but the annotations
here are sufficient for the task of addressing minutes and perhaps of
addressing the points they illustrate to RantWoman..
[because of the social distancing requirements due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted via HIPAA-compliant Zoom. At the beginning, 51 people were logged in,
including several log-ins of couples, and parents with children]
Clerk Kathy Hubenet read a quotation from Quaker theologian
Marge Abbott, regarding how turning our
hearts to one another allows the “vivid clarity of moving through darkness… We
learn God through the love of others, which comes from God.”
What does RantWoman
keep saying: “God keeps sending people with disabilities to live among us and
asking us to figure out how to get along. People with disabilities are
frequently called to be places where they are either explicitly or implicitly
not wanted.” Humbly, RantWoman is wondering how letting someone’s difficulties
be seen, even a hypothetical someone relates to the word “disruptive” below.
The clerk asked for the identity of two people who were
recorded on the screen only by phone numbers; both were known to us. The co-hosts of the online platform reviewed
the mechanics of participating in a Zoom meeting: adjusting what shows on the screen, allowing
or blocking one’s visibility, and how to raise one’s hand.
We welcomed two first-time attenders: David Zeiss, and Sara Bridgesong (see below.)
2020-04-02:
approval of minutes
Dorsey Green, clerk
of Care and Counsel, announced that C&C is trying to stay in touch with
F/friends who live alone or who are particularly vulnerable to the
pandemic. Please let C&C know either
if you are contacting one of these people, or if you would like to be contacted
or have concerns about someone else: “let’s make sure the net is holding all of
us.”
RantWoman thanks the Friend who suggested
sending RantWoman physical cards at a time when RantMom had tested positive for
the Corona Virus and RantWoman was self-quarantining because of recent exposure
that is eating dinner with RantMom. Neither RantMom nor RantWoman ever developed
symptoms RantWoman was never tested and RantMom subsequently tested negative.
RantWoman did not get back to the Friend in time to discourage both sending
cards written in regular pen and sending cards to RantWoman’s mailbox across
town from where RantWoman lives. RantWoman was spared the obligation to be grateful
for cards she could read only with great difficulty because no one sent cards
or email or phone calls. RantWoman is grateful for other connections.
Committee clerk
then read a letter from Mike Clarke requesting membership in UFM, while noting
that Mike’s second child, daughter R, was just born. Norman Furlong read the report from the
membership clearness committee, recommending in favor of accepting Mike Clarke. Anyone with questions or concerns should
contact Mike directly, while still respecting the timing of a father with a
newborn.
2020-04-04:
State of the Meeting report
Ginger Boyle read
us the second draft of the “State of the Meeting report, 2019.” It had been modified somewhat after the first
reading. Discussion:
* Nora Percival will not return to Kenya until
sometime around fall ’20 to spring ’21, because Kenya is at the beginning
stages of the pandemic. Her ministry is
not abandoned, but it is on hiatus. There
is no need to change the report to reflect this. This led to a bit of discussion as to whether
or not it is customary to name those personally involved in a ministry? A Friend with decades of institutional memory
said we have gone back and forth on this issue, though normally individuals are
not named. The report will be posted on
the Yearly Meeting website, and so will be accessible to all of NPYM, and thus
the people who are named should be willing to have their names
distributed. The people named in the
report said that they are willing.
At this point in
the discussion, first-time attender Sara Bridgesong posted on the platform’s
chat box that she was “deeply unsettled” at the section regarding laying down
the membership of a Friend (RantWoman) who was not named in the report.) Sara said that the report needed to include a
statement from (RantWoman) and that she could not accept the report without
that inclusion. The clerk asked Sara
whether she had been involved in the many discussions leading up to this
action? The platform moderator said that she had privately chatted with Sara,
and “received a brush-off.” (Does the
platform moderator recall Sara’s exact words?RantWoman does not remember who
the moderator was but thinks this role may have been handled by someone who
CONSISTENTLY silences RantWoman, takes many conversations to get points that
seem really basic to RantWoman, Also, Bear
in mind that someone who can only type is at considerable speed disadvantage
compared to people who talk. The
clerk asserted that Sara did not have
standing, (interesting choice of words. Based
on what?) and directed the discussion to proceed:
* a Friend was concerned that, in mentioning a
long-time attender at social hall, the person’s homeless status was mentioned
first
* Yearly Meeting’s Ministry and Counsel will be
gathering these reports later in the summer, and is collecting ideas on how
they can be shared, since there will be no in-person gathering this year
Two Friends
expressed concern about difficulty agreeing to the content of the report based only
on the oral presentation and asked to have the report held over so that copies could
be emailed out. Friends decided that since
Quarterly Meeting was not occurring in person, there was time before annual session
to lay over the report for another month.
A Friend then
raised a concern: having read over the
chat offerings from Sara Bridgesong, she had formed the impression that Sara
was actually (RantWoman.) The clerk
asked one of the platform hosts to exclude “Sara,” but the host demurred and
asked if someone else could take this action?
A Friend privately checked Yearly Meeting records, and found no mention
of anyone by “Sara’s” name. (RantWoman
notes MANY reasons a person might not be listed in the NPYM directory) She
was in agreement that “Sara” had no standing regarding the acceptance of the
State of the Meeting report, but was hesitant to block her on-line
participation. Discussion:
* Zoom participation is so that people can be
included in our meeting, not so they can be disruptive. “Sara” was not
available on video or voice, only on chat.
RantWoman at this date does not remember
what Sara was able to make clear in the chat the day of the Meeting. RantWoman
is fairly certain that Sara made clear that the device she was connecting on
does not have either a camera or a mic and therefore Sara could only “speak
through the chat. RantWoman is unclear that there are explicit technological
requirements to worship among Friends. Sara has also made clear to RantWoman in
a separate blog post that Sara does not speak because of a birth defect she has
not identified to RantWoman. Sara has made it clear that her current level of
technology is adequate for her needs: besides the birth defect, Sara has a
severe skin condition and avoids cameras.
* a Friend shared discomfort with someone
joining our Meeting without being open, since it is our way to be transparent,
to show integrity, and to speak to one another. “Sara” was not willing to tell
us who they are or what their connection to us might be. Annotation not appropriate for minutes: Besides the issue of typing
speed, Guess what! Awhile ago RantWoman went to a wonderful Disability Justice
event at the Gates Foundation. The event had an app participants could use to
offer responses to the facilitator’s questions. At first RantWoman HATED just hearing the words
fed back and having no idea who offered them. However at some point it dawned
on RantWoman that she needed to get over herself: the room contained two
categories of people for whom the app was probably a godsend. There were people who because of some or
another disability might have a great deal of difficulty speaking at all or in
a large group. There were also people of color who might be quite happy not
having their pronouncements opined over from perspectives of privilege. So
while the principles articulated by the Friend above might be perfectly obvious
to her, they are not obvious to RantWoman. If RantWoman being faithful to her
Light about this is “disruptive,” RantWoman has a versatile God who can
probably find ways to handle.
If
we were meeting face to face, we would not tolerate someone coming into the
worship room and refusing to participate in Quaker process, nor would they have
the weight to speak to an issue if they were unknown to us.
Refusing? Sara was TRYING to participate in
Quaker process as well as her technology and the medium allowed. RantWoman also
notes that she herself has in fact been TRYING to participate in Quaker process
and can cite NUMEROUS moments where efforts to participate have been rebuffed.
See note above about technology and options
for communications. Also, although neither Sara nor RantWoman tried at the time
to make the point that as a blind person, RantWoman frequently has no idea who
else is in a room with her.
* another Friend shared the impression that
“Sara’s writing style is very similar to(rantWoman’s), and that he (?) RantWoman is under the impression that
this speaker was female.) believes they are the same person. IF the speaker was in fact male, RantWoman
believes that he is a person with a long history of trying to avoid RantWoman’s
efforts to talk about disability,
* a Friend who was participating via phone sent
out a chat text protesting the use of Zoom (RantWoman
remembers this protest and actually concurs: by this point the conversation in
chat had become quite confusing. RantWoman thinks this Friend also explicitly
mentioned something about RantWoman but RantWoman does not recall his exact
words. Because of past abusive
behavior RantWoman frequently gets triggered around this Friend anyway.
RantWoman has other experience where managing information flow between the chat
and the main meeting gets easily muddled. In RantWoman’s experience outside
Meeting, this problem can be handled with thoughtful process intervention by a
Zoom host. RantWoman suggests that everyone give each other grace about a
learning curve and try not to make hostile assumptions.
*
we should lay over the report, and ask “Sara” to contact the clerk and give
their identity. (RantWoman does not
recall anyone providing a way to contact the clerk, something a newcomer would
definitely appreciate. If the clerk believes the newcomer is RantWoman,
RantWoman believes the Clerk knows how to reach RantWoman)
The clerk asked,
should “Sara” be excluded at this time?
* it is to be expected that the reluctant web
host would be reluctant, since he is relatively new to UFM and is less familiar
with all that we have considered vis a vis (RantWoman)
* we don’t allow side conversations during business
meeting, and we should not use chat for this purpose. Some quaker events occur with interpretation. If chat is a person’s
only path to communicate, there should be process practices about how chat is
used. Again, that is a process matter related to learning how to work with new
technology and with specific communications needs.
* we excluded (RantWoman) because her presence
led to endless interruptions.
The clerk called
for a ten-minute break. When we came
back together, we had a moment of silence.
2020-04-05:
Facilities:
proposal for the Operation Nightwatch shelter to expand operations
during the pandemic
RantWoman
appreciates the detail in the draft minutes and the care taken in formulating the
discussion. RantWoman appreciates that many concerns on her mind were addressed.
At this point the clerk noted that
someone had joined our meeting, with no visual image and the name “Fuego de
Pablo.” She asked the individual to
self-identify, and when they did not, she asked one of the platform managers to
deny this person access. The individual
then left the meeting. We resumed
discussion of the proposed minute:
RantWoman
notes consistency about dealing with people who do not meet the clerk’s standards
for self-identification. In contrast with the case of Sara Bridgesong though, there
is no mention of anything to do with disability.
We closed with a lengthy sharing of Joys and Sorrows, and
then a period of silent worship. After
the close of meeting, a number of people remained on the platform, probably
happy to see one anothers’ faces, and exchanged news and updates and more
personal sharing.
Kathy Hubenet, Clerk
Amanda Franklin, Recording Clerk
Table of Contents
Attachment A: TBD
Posts
