UU World put up a good article yesterday about the move from districts to regions. If you don’t know, the country is divided into 19 regions now, and it looks like we’re headed to merging them together to come up with five regions instead. What I’m wondering is who loses in the move from districts to regions.
Districts provide a lot of program consultant-type services, put on regional events, and do other good things that are tough for congregations to do for themselves. The idea is that regions will be able to do all this better than districts primarily because regional staff can specialize better than district staff because of the economy of scale. There’s a lot to be said for that.
The UU World article mentions that “most staff” will stay on in the new order of things, but I find myself wanting more specifics laid out on what sorts of cuts will be made in the transition. Even as a district board member, I’m fine with those decisions being made above my pay grade—we’re a program, not governing, board, in my district anyway—but I’d still like to have a better idea of what the reorganization will look like administratively.
In this day of webinars and Skype, will regions have regional offices, or will they be diffused across several time zones? I imagine it’s pretty certain that 19 ten-hour-a-month accountants across the country will be losing their jobs, but what happens to district execs and their assistants? What happens to all the district RE staff, when most districts have their own RE program consultant? And is there enough work for all the program consultants that are currently employed by districts to remain employed under regions? I could see this last question in particular easily going either way.
More details please…
Another question: Assuming that at least some district admin staff will be laid off, what will be done with the money saved by this? Will it go back into the regions, so that they can hire more program staff, or will regions not see any of that money?
I’d be interested in hearing what responsibilities are being devolved from the UUA to the regions with this. If it’s just that there will be superdistricts, and “Districts” will fade (and/or linger, in the same was that some state Universalist Conventions do…), then I’m not sure I see any real value.
I imagine that if the 5th Principle Project’s objective of moving G.A. to every other year passes, we’d see regional assemblies. Which would… sort of obviate much of the objective, as they’d still be quite expensive for most to attend. Or we’d see district assemblies continue–making regions more an administrative reality, but one disconnected from experienced UU life for most.
If it started to mean that the MFC’s functions were decentralized, I’d be delighted–the pseudo-presbytery system we’ve got wasn’t something that really ever got congregational approval, as far as I can see, and I’m unconvinced that it’s a good idea. Of course, I think that could be handled at a district level too–but anything that starts decentralization would be a good thing….
I wonder if we could end up with a regional assembly held in three locations over a couple of months, with (mostly) identical programming. Might be good transition to a one-location, one-date regional assembly, though who knows how the costs would work out?
I’d also like to see some decentralization of functions, and the whole ordination/fellowshipping process is a great place to start.
[…] asks who the losers would be. Staff, to be sure. That’s what reorganizations are for. But I wonder who the […]
[…] will stay on in the new order of things, but I find myself wanting more specifics laid out on what sorts of cuts will be made in the transition. Even as a district board member, I’m fine with those decisions being made above my pay […]