The original version of this letter, posted to uucf-chat on 4 Jul 1998, had a factual error, which was pointed out by Bruce Vernor. Ed Cacciapaglia supplied this corrected version.
Dear Bob:
You seem to think I am avoiding the "Real issue", because I am not directly attacking Jim Nelson. You wrote "You are still avoiding the real issue I was raising, Ed......The real issue for me is that since the beginning of the ruckus you and a few others raised last summer I do not think you have been honest about what I think is the central issue for you: you do not like Jim and you do not like the direction he is GENTLY trying to take the congregation."
Bob, it is sad to see an intelligent, mature adult like you questioning my honesty, trying to provoke me to attack, and mistaking the cause of the upset of a significant minority of UUCF membership. Though you may believe otherwise, I am not interested in personally attacking any individual, including you. Perhaps you are the angry one here. Our upset has been caused by the lack of caring and civility shown at UUCF by some of its members and leaders and the attempts by some in leadership to stifle any open mention of dissent. For reference you might try reading or re-reading the Ombudsmen Report compiled by three past Board members, who interviewed some of the concerned members without having any pre-ordained conclusions. Though you don't want to believe it, that report compiled many legitimate grievances and, yes, based on the Ombudsmen Committee recommendations, the Board has made some positive policy changes as a result. But trying to open the eyes of this congregation has been like trying to move a mountain.
I can understand you and Bob Hatfield questioning my comparison of the All Souls situation with UUCF's. Dan Aldridge's leadership style, whatever it was, did not fit for the majority at All Souls, whereas it appears that a majority of UUCFers are happy with the current direction. But the majority of the happy members weren't around here during the nurturing years of the 1980s.
Many of the more quiet unhappy members (not the just "30" who are vocal about it) believe that the real issue is that too often our leaders have failed to be responsive or empathic to concerns expressed by some of our members. A result of this lack of caring, is that the congregation is hemorraging talent, energy and, yes, $$money$$.
Why did the entire Stewardship Committee resign after their original report was found unacceptable by the Board? Orginally I understood that The Board rewrote the Committee's report. According to Bruce Vernor, "In fact, no written response was generated until Mary Tripp and I wrote one dated June 5, 1998."
Why is there still no open forum in our Newsletter, even though "no censorship exists"? Why was a member told she was being "Un-unitarian last year when her idea for a summer solstice service was rejected? Why have members been told to tone down their lively announcements? Why has UUCF active membership declined by over ten percent in the last year during a time when national UU membership has increased by 5%? To quote that great reactionary, Ronald Reagan, "Facts are stubborn things." Yes, membership in UUCF has declined in the last couple of years. As of our May, 1998 annual meeting, over 300 members have either left or gone to inactive status in the last 5 years, approximately 120 of those in the last year, counting the 70 who did not pledge for the coming year. Others, like Karen and me, are still officially active members, but are considering alternatives, where we can more freely worship in the style we became accustomed to in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Yes, Bob, the real issue is that I (and others) do not like the general direction the Congregation has gone. The mean spiritedness and repressive bent of some of our members has become too much for us to take. At this point, I am not angry, just sad. As a leader, Jim Nelson has some of the responsibility for the deterioration, but it is a copout to blame him. We all can look in the mirror and blame ourselves. As one who came of age in the Vietnam era, it is unacceptable for me to subscribe to a "love or leave it or just shut up" attitude. I don't believe in "my church right or wrong" anymore than I believed "my country, right or wrong" in 1970. I would have stayed a Catholic if that were the case. WE ARE NOT SHEEP! (At least I'm not.)
It seems like Arlington UU and Fairfax UU have traded roles. In the 1980's Arlington was seen as the stodgy conservative UU church and Fairfax Unitarian was the progressive, free-spirited church, but now Arlington is becoming more progressive and open with Fairfax becoming more conservative and closed.
Bob, you also wrote, "Why all this crap about the whole congregagtion needs "healing" when fewer than 30 folks out of 600 seem to not like what is happening.........Obviously, our (yours and my) perceptions of UUCF are very different. I do not think we are more "constrained," as you put it........UUCF is, after all, a religious institution--not a social club........"
Bob, that is you perception. Yes, my perception is different. Like Steve Clapp, Nan & Chris Johnson, Marcia Helme and countless others, my spiritual needs are no longer being met at UUCF. You might ask: Why did 1/3 of those who voted in the Board elections vote for me, even though my candidacy was not blessed by the nominating committee and why did over half of those voting include a vote for Tony DeCamp if only 30 out 564 active members are unhappy with the status quo? And how did Charlie Boothby, who openly and loudly supported having the nominating committee putting up a contested slate in future elections garner more votes than anyone else running for nominating committee? It may be true that ours is not currently the majority point of view at UUCF. But, a lot more than 30 people voted for change. And that didn't include those who have opted not to participate. Still, sadly, many of us are questioning whether we really belong here any more.
You wrote: "If you and the others had been more honest and direct from the beginning last summer, I think we would have had far less contention than we had this past year.......Stupid, dishonest whining and contentiousness is not."
Bob, this seems mighty judgmental. I am hurt by your questioning of my honesty, but it appears to me that you are angry because you don't understand the way I think. Besides, I've grown a thick skin in the last year out of necessity.
Hopefully, as we celebrate this Independence, you can reflect and appreciate that our great country was born 222 years ago because a few British citizens decided to fight to free themselves from what they perceived as tyrannical leadership. In that same vain, I will continue to speak out against injustice even when it exists in my congregational community.
In free spirit,
Ed Cacciapaglia
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy