Some liberties have been taken with format, but not content.
[This was hand-typed. Please report any error.]
The summer months are usually light for the Board. The church's rhythms slow down, our new members get their bearings, and we spend time in planning and organizing for the fall. The first meeting for the new Board on July 11 was different because it included presentations from members of the congregation regarding their request for the engagement of a conflict resolution professional. The Board had anticipated that we would also receive signed petitions; however, we were informed that the petitions would be submitted only if the Board first agreed to certain conditions, including that the petitions would be kept confidential from other members of the congregation and from UUCF's Ministers. The Board unanimously refused to accept these conditions. I am writing this on July 25, and as of this date the petitions have not been submitted to us. If you would like more details, please see the minutes of our meeting, which are posted in the Commons, or contact any member of the Board.
Subject: Letter from John Cunningham
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:56:20 -0400
From: [Mary Foster]
To: [UUCF Chat]
John asked that I send this to the chat list as he is not a member of the
list. Mary Foster
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello, everyone.
On August 5, Pat and Robert Moore forwarded a chat list note to Patty Girman at the Church office, and asked that the note be published in the next issue of the newsletter. Patty sought guidance on this request.
Ordinarily, this would be a matter for the Newsletter and Online Editorial Committee. However, the Committee is not fully constituted right now and Jim Nelson, who is a member of the Committee under the governing policy adopted by the Board of Trustees on May 6, 1997, is in Romania with the choir. Under the circumstances, the Board considered the Moores' request at our meeting on August 8 and voted unanimously that the note was not appropriate for publication in the newsletter.
In reaching this decision, the Board was guided by a survey of the congregation that was undertaken in order to develop the newsletter policy. The report on the survey states that there was "a frequently stated aversion to the Newsletter being a vehicle for argument." The policy and the attached survey report are available for inspection at the Church office.
In the Board's judgment, publication of the Moores' note in the newsletter would be contrary to the wishes of the congregation as expressed in the survey, because the note seeks to explain and justify certain conditions that were sought to be imposed on the submission of petitions to the Board. Reasonable people can differ on the merit of those conditions, and a debate on that subject is certainly appropriate for the chat list or for Board meetings, but it is not appropriate for the newsletter.
Sincerely,
John Cunningham, President
Board of Trustees
Subject: Re: Letter from John Cunningham
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:18:32 -0400
From: Billye Stevens
To: Birds Of A Feather
Dear John Cunningham via David Heagy:
I have a copy of the Newsletter Survey Summary dated Feb. 18, 1997, compiled by Mary Tripp and Lola Usack. 84 surveys were returned.
John, where in the survey report is mention of argument/ aversion to argument in the Newsletter?
Our Senior Minister uses his Gams and the pulpit to present his side of conflict.
The past year or more, the President of the duly elected Board of Trustees, uses the space to present views which may or may not be the view of all the congregation.
Lola, Mary, and Tom, Will you please comment on the accuracy of these (my) statements.
My recollection of our UUCF history is that Jim Nelson had offered to be the senior editor. Some members saw his request as consolidation of control of the church. A Board subcommittee of Lola Usack, Mary Tripp, and Tom Livingston brainstormed and summarized a list of concerns and questions:
What is the purpose of the Newsletter? and What are/should be the criteria for determining Newsletter content?
Under Editorial Control,
To the question "What is the most important part of the newsletter to you?"
Respectfully. Billye Stevens
[Letter Denying Access to the Newsletter, John Cunningham, 11 Aug 2000 is quoted in fill here.]
Subject: Letter from John Cunningham
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:46:16 -0400
From: "Billye Stevens"
To: "UUCF Chat"
Dear John via Mary Foster,
I have a copy of the UUCF Feb. 18, 1997 NEWSLETTER SURVEY SUMMARY Compiled by Mary Tripp and Lola Usack. I cannot find any mention of argument or aversion to argument
To those in the dark about the history of the Newsletter Survey, it said in part:
"The Board is taking a careful look at the purpose and mission of our congregation's Newsletter as well as its editorial process." "A Board subcommittee of Lola Usack, Mary Tripp, and Tom Livingston brainstormed and summarized a list of concerns and questions."
"As with every decision the Board makes, we want to act in the interest of the whole congregation, so we'd like to hear from you as we go forward. Our goal is to decide the purpose of the newsletter and then build policies around that purpose.". . . . . . . "We'll let you know how this is progressing."
84 surveys were returned
I have spoken to several friends who have a historical memory of UUCF. They are not aware of the Board Policy, nor am I. Did anyone ever see the Policy decision, or was it available only in the office, if you knew to ask?
Respectfully, Billye Stevens
Subject: No Subject
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:52:56 EDT
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Birds of a Feather]
from Marcia Helme
On August 11, 2000, John Cunningham wrote
the Board considered the Moores' request at our meeting on August 8 and voted unanimously that the note was not appropriate for publication in the newsletter. In reaching this decision, the Board was guided by a survey of the congregation that was undertaken in order to develop the newsletter policy. The report on the survey states that there was "a frequently stated aversion to the Newsletter being a vehicle for argument."
What does "a frequently stated aversion" mean? In my dictionary, "frequent" is not synonymous with "majority." Since you have 112 identifiable signatures on the petition, I would say that constitutes a frequently stated preference for respectful disagreement.
If the Board is going to vote in favor of every frequently stated opinion within the UUCF membership, then the Board will be very busy spending every meeting refuting what they decided at the previous meeting.
Goldfinch
Subject: Letter from John Cunningham
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:54:47 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: [Mary Foster]
CC: UUCF Chat, Birds Of A Feather
At last it's out in the open. The Fairfax UU News is no longer a vehicle for discussion and debate but the house organ of the Nelson administration. As I understand John Cunningham's letter, Jim and his apologists can say whatever they want in columns and official pronouncements, but no one is allowed to reply.
I've got an idea. Why don't we censor all the newspapers in the country, not just church newsletters? Surely a majority of citizens have "an aversion...to argument." Democracy is so untidy! It's much easier just to present one point of view and not allow feedback.
P.S. Why isn't the board president a member of the chat list? Doesn't he want to know what the rest of us think?
Subject: Re: Letter from John Cunningham
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:43:04 EDT
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Birds of a Feather]
Let's form our own newsletter and not allow communication from any UUCF
board
members or staff or committees!!!!
?
No, that's just doing the same things I don't like in other people.
Better yet, let's form our own newsletter and have no rules!!!!
?
Come to think of it, Alex MB has already done that. That's what ruminations is.
Better yet, let's invite all Board Members, ministers and committee members to communicate whatever they want on ruminations. What would we have to lose?
But they must realize that we will respond, and some of us will respond based on UU principles, including respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person, use of democratic process, an independent and responsible search for truth. Also (and I think this may not be one of the principles) freedom of speech.
Goldfinch
Subject: Response to John Cunningham's letter, banning August 5 note Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:46:35 EDT From: [Pat and Robert Moore] To: [Birds of a Feather], [UUCF Chat]
Hi Mary: Please forward this to John Cunningham and other Board Members.
______________
Dear John,
In response to your August 11 chatlist posting, we are mystified by a decision to ban publication of the August 5 note.
Jim Nelson and others have used our UUCF Newsletter in recent months as " a vehicle for argument." Yet, when a civil and reasonable statement is made on behalf of 121 members and friends in response to your specific Newsletter commentary, the statement is banned. Where is the equity and justice in this?
It is such arbitrary restrictions on the free exchange of ideas within UUCF that require members to undertake initiatives such as congregational mailings and petitions.
Could you please advise us when the congregational survey on Newsletter policy was conducted and how many congregational members responded?
For easy reference, we have printed below the August 5 note.
Sincerely,
Pat and Robert Moore
Dear Patty,
In the August 2 UUCF Newsletter, John Cunningham refers to the petitioning process that is currently underway. We have received various phone calls requesting additional information.
Therefore, we ask that the note "To UUCF Members & Friends" (below) be placed in the next UUCF Newsletter.
Thanks as always for your good work.
Pat and Robert Moore
_______________________________
[The newsletter article quoted in Letter Requesting Access to the Newsletter, Pat and Robert Moore, 05 Aug 2000 is also quoted here.]
Pat and Robert Moore (on behalf of the April 18 letter signers)
cc: UUCF Board of Trustees, UUCF Chatlist
Subject: Re: Letter from John Cunningham
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:36:48 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: UUCF Chat
I am forwarding this comment with Marcia's permission. I continue to think that John's letter, and the board's support for it, is disgraceful...Steve
[Letter Challenging the Decision, Marcia Helme, 12 Aug 2000 (2), with a few missing question marks, is quoted here.]
Subject: [uucf-info] Board of Trustees Minutes
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:47:33 -0400
From: Kurt/Carol Jensen
To: [UUCF Info]
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax
Board of Trustees
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 8, 2000
[...]
Regarding the petition to the Board for a conflict resolution specialist: The question before the Board was whether or not to publish in the newsletter the Moores' proposed letter to the congregation. The Church policy on newsletter content was considered. It indicated that, based on a survey of the congregation, member letters would only be used if space allowed; and the newsletter was not to be used as a forum for argument. Mary noted that, given those guidelines, the newsletter is seen as informational rather than as a forum for any particular group(s). It was pointed out that the ministers are allowed, by their contracts, to have columns in the newsletter. John proposed that he write a chat-list letter of response to the Moores. The Board agreed with that plan.
[...]
Subject: in Responce to Steve Clapp's Newsletter Comments.
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:06:24 +0000
From: Alisa Joaquin
To: [UUCF Chat]
I whole heartily agree with Steve Clapp. Being also in Desktop Publishing and a producer of newsletters for over 10 years, newsletters are for information of all types and should not be censored. The one column that is lacking in many church newsletters (including UUS) is a Letter to the Editor Column that allows for public opinion to be voiced. Has anyone considered adding such a column? Such a column would allow people to voice their opinions freely, both for and against certain issues. It also allows the congregation to see for themselves what people's opinions are on a given subject. It is not a vehicle for argument but a forum for reflection.
With the amount of information that is published, the UUCF newsletter could very well go to 10 pages and still keep it's bulk rate mailing status. 10 pages is also the largest a newsletter can go and still be mailed at First Class. I have looked into this from other newsletters that I have done (having been editor for 5 years for the National Capital Astronomers).
Enough said.
Alisa
Subject: large and small minds
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:49:58 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: UUCF Chat
CC: Birds Of A Feather
"Yes, I am confused, but I will prefer a larger confusion to a smaller
certainty."
-- Karen Tse, summer minister, in the Aug. 16 newsletter
Bravo, Karen, and shame on the small-minded certainty that pervades the current UUCF leadership. I quote from the most recent board minutes:
[The Excerpt from Minutes of August 8, 2000 UUCF Board Meeting quoted above is also quoted here.]
As a journalist, I am deeply troubled by the board's decision. How is UUCF any different from a banana republic where only officially sanctioned communication is allowed in government-controlled newspapers? What is the board afraid of? That a stray breeze of criticism might blow down the artfully constructed illusion of congregational unity? That others might dare to ask questions, instead of blindly trusting the leadership?
I concede that church newsletters are subject to public relations considerations, but a UU newsletter ought to be more than a mere mouthpiece for the ministers. Our newsletter should be a communication vehicle of, by and for the congregation. We pay for it; and we should have access to its columns, bounded only by limitations of space, taste and fairness. The minister and the board should not act as censors.
Like Karen, I prefer an untidy community of great souls to a well-scrubbed club of the timid and those who would control them.
Subject: Re: in Responce to Steve Clapp's Newsletter Comments.
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:50:16 -0400
From: "Lynn McMartin"
To: "Alisa Joaquin", [UUCF Chat]
I had been thinking along the same lines. I had planned to suggest a Letters to the Editor at the next Board meeting. However, there is quite a lot going on right now with the startup of the fall schedule, the petition, etc., and I do not know if this idea can be dealt with right away. I also think that along with a Letters to the Editor should come some guidelines or "policies" to govern newsletter input from both regular columnists and those who send letters, so that people can express their opinions but avoid meaness. As an aside, although free speech seems to me to be in the spirit of UU ideas, I do not believe that members of a church have a constitutional right to free speech in a church newsletter, but I am not sure. Please feel free to call me, or speak with me at church.
[Letter Challenging the Decision, Alisa Joaquin, 19 Aug 2000 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: RE: large and small minds
From: "Alex Machina"
To: "UUCF Chat"
CC: "Birds Of A Feather"
> The question before the Board was whether or not to publish in the
> newsletter the Moores' proposed letter to the congregation. The Church
> policy on newsletter content was considered. It indicated that,
> based on a
> survey of the congregation, member letters would only be used if space
> allowed; and the newsletter was not to be used as a forum for argument.
It is interesting to me that the board considered the wishes of the congregation based on a survey.
The numbers I have heard is that 84 people responded to the survey about the newsletter, and that was 2 years ago. Furthermore, it is not clear from the survey whether the conclusion is warranted (i.e., "the newsletter was not to be used as a forum for argument").
Conversely, over 120 members responded to a member-led petition, but the board deems inconsequential and "argumentative" the attempt to provide the congregation with a viewpoint and status of the attempts to present the board with confidential petitions.
> As a journalist, I am deeply troubled by the board's decision. How is UUCF
> any different from a banana republic where only officially sanctioned
> communication is allowed in government-controlled newspapers? What is the
> board afraid of? That a stray breeze of criticism might blow down the
> artfully constructed illusion of congregational unity? That others might
> dare to ask questions, instead of blindly trusting the leadership?
Bravo, Steve.
What is the board afraid of? I think it would behoove the leadership to consider the phrase "what you resist persists".
This is not an isolated movement. This began three years ago, and those who began the struggle then are mostly gone. And yet their efforts persist with a new group. And when this group is silenced or wearies, a year or two hence there will be yet another group, with yet another petition. Until and unless this congregation confronts the issues that are being so artfully suppressed, there will be little peace or spirituality at UUCF.
I am of the opinion that perhaps the attempts at resolution have been suppressed too long, and that there is now no turning back without fracturing the congregation. What once could have been addressed with small changes and compromises might now be met with uncompromising attitudes on both sides. And so it continues.
Subject: Petitions
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:25:42 -0400
From: Kurt/Carol Jensen
To: UUCF Chat
To keep this list up to date, the Board of Trustees received the petitions concerning a UUA mediator. (Friday, I believe.)
Kurt
Subject: Re: large and small minds
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:37:32 EDT
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Birds of a Feather]
In a message dated 8/19/0 11:50:50 AM, you wrote:
[Letter Challenging the Decision,
Steve Clapp, 19 Aug 2000 is quoted in full here.]
Steve,
Well said. I'm beginning to think the uucf leadership are getting hoist by their own petards.
Goldfinch
Subject: newsletter policy
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:52:47 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: "Lynn McMartin"
CC: UUCF Chat, Birds Of A Feather
Lynn McMartin wrote:
"I had planned to suggest a Letters to the Editor at the next Board meeting...I also think that along with a Letters to the Editor should come some guidelines or 'policies' to govern newsletter input from both regular columnists and those who send letters, so that people can express their opinions but avoid meaness. As an aside, although free speech seems to me to be in the spirit of UU ideas, I do not believe that members of a church have a constitutional right to free speech in a church newsletter, but I am not sure."
Lynn, thanks for giving serious thought to newsletter policy. Free speech is not absolute right, either in society at large nor in public and private institutions. Sound editorial policy involves weighing several considerations, including the public face that an institution wishes to present to the world. However, democratic institutions work best when there is regular feedback from their members, including published articles and letters.
For 12 years I edited FootNotes, a quarterly publication of the 100,000-member Road Runners Club of America. I was always pleased to get letters to the editor, even the grumpy ones. It showed that members were reading the publication and taking it seriously. I can think of only one or two instances where we refused to publish a letter. Both involved attacks on gays following a review of a novel, "The Front Runner," about a gay college track coach and his proteges. One rather scurrilous letter was unsigned, and the other was written by a religious fundamentalist who said that what people thought of gays was less important than what God thought. I replied that God had told me not to print his letter. (He responded that it was Satan who had spoken to me, not God.)
Surely people of good will can work out acceptable editorial policy for the Fairfax UU News. Personal attacks and tasteless language are off-limits, but outlawing "argument" seems a dangerously overbroad policy for a supposedly democratic UU institution. I am amazed that the board so readily agreed to such a stance.
Subject: Re: newsletter policy
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:14:46 EDT
From: [Pat Moore]
To: [Birds of a Feather], [UUCF Chat], [others]
Dear Steve,
Your comments about newsletter policy are insightful. They demonstrate the need for and wisdom of consulting congregational members before developing guidelines on various church policies. I am hopeful the board will consider a "Letters to the Editor at the next Board meeting," and then will develop guidelines by inviting and incorporating suggestions from all interested UUCF members.
Thanks for sharing your expertise.
Pat