Responses to Letter
19 Apr - 9 May 2000

Subject: Congregational Mailling
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:49:09 EDT
From: [Pat Moore]
To: [Birds of a Feather], UUCFchat
CC: Jane Anthony]

Hi to everyone,

Most of you have or soon will be receiving a mailing from some of us at UUCF. In it is some information that may bring out the different opinions of our diverse membership.

One quality we are hoping to tap into at UUCF is our willingness and ability to listen to each other with open minds and hearts, and to respond with a respectful exchange of ideas.

I do have some concern this mailing might also trigger the anger some members (on every side of the issues) are feeling. I hope you won't mind my sharing some thoughts with you about this.

I, like some others, am angry about the friends who have left and many of the changes I have seen in recent years at UUCF. Others are angry with me (and those who share my concerns) because they apparently are comfortable with UUCF and don't understand why we are not.

I am as uncomfortable with anger as anyone--my own and everyone else's. In other places at other times, I have repressed my anger about problems for months, then let it all out at once. This type of built-up anger can scare others or at least stop them from listening. It can also be destructive -- causing me to leave friends and loved ones behind in the rubble.

I have come to see anger as a normal, healthy emotion. It tells me when something is wrong. The "something" may be within or outside myself. If I can find its root and use its energy to responsibly and constructively make positive changes, anger is one of my most valuable emotions.

I will do my best to keep my exchanges about this mailing mindful, respectful and constructive. I hope all of us will make similar attempts. However, if in a moment of heated concern about our church, someone's anger or sadness gets the best of her or him, I hope we will be compassionate, knowing none of us are perfect and UUCF is important to all of us.

Thanks for listening.

Pat Moore

PS If you haven't read Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav, you may want to check it out. Here are a couple quotes from that book:

"When you seek to dominate another you dominate no one but disempower yourself."

"The choice not to choose is the choice to remain unconscious and, therefore, to wield power irresponsibly."

Subject: Congregational Mailing
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:42:25 -0400
From: Stefani Cochran
To: [UUCF Chat]

Pat Moore wrote:
>Hi to everyone,
>Most of you have or soon will be receiving a mailing from some of us at UUCF.
>In it is some information that may bring out the different opinions of our
>diverse membership.
>One quality we are hoping to tap into at UUCF is our willingness and ability
>to listen to each other with open minds and hearts, and to respond with a
>respectful exchange of ideas.
>I do have some concern this mailing might also trigger the anger...

Dear Pat and others on this list, Dan and I did receive the letter, and we were stunned by the anger (and underlying frustration, pain and/or sense of powerlessness) the authors were/are experiencing which was evident in the letter, especially the list of issues. Pat is correct: anger does tell you something is wrong, either

within or without; however in the letter I see just the looking without. In my practice as a psychotherapist I have found it much more valuable to begin searching for solutions by looking within for sources of anger and discomfort, because that is where it can be most readily identified and dealt with constructively.

Clearly some people are disappointed in what they see as problems at UUCF, but my experience has been that every time I attend I am touched and amazed by the warmth, connection, and caring which is palpable between and among members and friends there. If the church and its leadership foster this kind of experience for most, they are also doing many things very right.

As for some of the issues noted: People leave; I might leave UUCF too if I couldn't get into the parking lot, or if there were little space for my children in RE; I might go to one of the newer churches UUCF has deliberately supported which has meant losing committed and pledging members to those developing congregations. It doesn't bother me that people leave because they don't get their needs met at UUCF; I'm happy we have many many UU churches from which to choose around the beltway. Where Dan and I now live we have just one. People change and grow as does UUCF, and people have a right to go where their lives' paths lead them and where they can get more of what they want.

I don't think the fact that meetings aren't attended by everyone means anything negative; to me low attendance signifies a high level of trust in those who do attend. I never attend my board of supervisors' meetings unless I think they aren't doing a good job and need my help.

>I will do my best to keep my exchanges about this mailing mindful, respectful
>and constructive.

I believe this is the desire of the authors, but I didn't experience the letter I received as respectful or constructive, rather I felt blame projected onto others--especially onto those in the church leadership--for the problems they identify. Just a few examples of that were: " erosion of democracy, free-speech and respectful treatment of members", "numerous complaints of ministerial unresponsiveness/insensitivity," "When you seek to dominate another you dominate no one but disempower yourself."

The authors clearly are unhappy with certain lacks they see in the church, and they are looking at a solution, but I have never known a mailing to the whole membership to be a constructive one.

When I lived closer was able to attend UUCF regularly, for the 25 years between l969-l994--including being president for two years--when we didn't like something that was going on those of us who were unhappy looked at our mission statement and used it to ground ourselves and then tried compassionately to connect with the people involved with the problem, find out the causes and then brainstorm win-win solutions with everyone involved. Often this included giving what we wanted to get: putting ourselves in the others' shoes, listening, understanding, offering more adult RE classes, becoming a members of the worship committee and creating services we wanted to see presented, different kinds of social and fund-raising events, working on committees we wished to change, chairing new committees to fill unmet needs. I wish that were being done at UUCF by all those who want to enhance congregational life.

I believe that people at all times are either giving love or asking for it. If we don't feel love coming from others, we might think of offering it to them. I also believe that the authors of the letter want the church to be as good as it can be just as I do, so I respectfully offer the above ideas to stir up the creativity we all have within us.

Sincerely, Stefani Cochran

It matters little what someone else has or has not done.
What matters is what you're doing right now.

- John-Roger
(From: The Tao of Spirit)

Subject: Response to Stefanie Cochran'slLetter about congregatinal mailing.
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:06:56 EDT
From: [Pat and Robert Moore]
To: [UUCF Chat]

Dear Stefanie,

Thank you for taking time to respond. A goal of ours is to encourage many more congregational members to become aware of, and participate in, discussing the issues in the enclosure to our letter about declining membership.

Because of your very active involvement in another UU church for some years, you may not realize there now is limited opportunity for UUCF members to discuss issues with the congregation at large.

It is not unusual for only 20-25 people to attend congregational forums. At annual meetings, there is often little more than 10 percent of members present to hear varying opinions about proposed policies. Even then, we usually have "special rules" in place restricting, to a large degree, the extent of discussion. It is for these reasons we decided to write a letter to the congregation, "in the spirit of Unitarian Universalism", calling their attention to our concerns about declining membership and encouraging them to become more involved in UUCF's governance process.

There are more than a few of us who experience changes in our church that seem to be undermining some of our democratic and UU principles. Twenty long-term active members signed the letter we mailed last week to the congregation. These include two past Presidents of the Board, several past lay ministers and a current member of the nominating committee. You may want to speak with some of these members before determining whether or not there are serious problems at UUCF. Also, we have received dozens of signed "Request for Mediator" forms already--just five days after the mailing. This from just one mailing--no followup phone calls nor letters, no Sunday morning pep rallies.

I am hoping to listen with an open mind to the views of all congregational members who choose to participate.I hope you and others will do the same. I expect many will believe there are problems and many will not.

This is where we hope the congregation will consider bringing in a mediator -- an outside, objective, professional who can help us to speak about our experiences safely, guide us in listening to each other carefully and with compassion, and assist us in determining options about and deciding upon healthy compromises that offer a balanced approach in meeting a diverse congregation's needs.

Thanks again for reading our letter and taking the time to respond.

Sincerely,

Pat and Robert Moore

Subject: Dear Stefani
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:06:10 EDT
From: [Ann Wood]
To: [Stefani Cochran], [UUCF Chat]
CC: [several others]

Dear Stefani,

I am sending this to the chat list because it is in response to your remarks sent there.

I admire and respect you enormously, and hold you in affection as part of my church family, so I was surprised to find us in very different places concerning the Moore's mailing. I have come to the conclusion that it is time to look outside our church community for some guidance.

I believe that many people from the various segments of our church community have tried very hard and sincerely over the past couple of years to "look within" and understand and respond to one another. But a wide sense of unease and frustration persists -- it is a rare church gathering where I do not hear it discussed. I do not agree with all the issues raised, but it is disheartening to me to look around after church and see ever fewer of my own dear friends. Some may have left for reasons such as your move to the country, but not all. I wonder if you had been more regularly involved over the past couple of years whether you would have come to the same conclusions.

It is interesting that you used the example of a psychotherapist -- because that is the perfect example of someone from the outside. In fact, I think that is pretty much what the Moores are asking for -- a guide from outside who can help us to look within, make sense of what is going on, and deal with it in a constructive way. I myself would use the term "healer" -- someone who can help us all understand each other and learn how to heal ourselves. My hope is that this would be done in a positive way, as an avenue of growth for us all.

Thank you, Stefani, for sharing your thoughts. I will always respect and give my thoughtful consideration to what you have to say.

In friendship, Ann Wood

From: Bruce Vernor
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:03 PM
To: UUCF CHAT
Subject: Pat and Robert Moore's Letter

Attached are my comments to Pat and Robert. Dear Pat and Robert,

Attached are my comments on parts of your April 18 letter. Regards,

Bruce

BRUCE VERNOR
[contact information edited out]
April 27, 2000
Attached to Email

Dear Robert and Pat,

I am sorry that you have concerns, but I am pleased to have them out in the open for discussion. I do have some disagreements with some of your points, which I will discuss in a moment. First, however, I must ask a question: what do you want a UUA arbitrator to arbitrate? I see room for discussion, but no defined topics for arbitration. I discussed this briefly with Steve Gold, a professional arbitrator, and he has the same question.

I am only commenting on the items for which I have enough information readily at hand.

Your numbers:

1. Declining Membership. All I would say here is that not all churches prune their membership rolls as we do. After the Canvass each year, those who neither meet the minimum requirements for membership, nor apply for a waiver, after a series of explanatory letters are dropped from the membership rolls. If we did not do that, we would have constantly growing membership with ever decreasing reliability. Not all UU churches are so careful, so comparisons have to be made with some reservations unless the pruning question is asked and answered in the affirmative.

3. Insufficient budget.
   
   
   2. Unable to pay for outside audit. I was church treasurer for two years in about 1993-1995. I asked the audit question then and received the same answer that I get today; that we have enough financial controls and requirements for two signatures that malfeasance is very unlikely. What professional auditors say is that we only need a procedural audit to be sure our procedures continue to be adequate, with a few tests to check some of the numbers. Volunteers can do this and not require the multi-thousand dollar expenditure that a professional outside auditor would charge. It is true we would be hard pressed to place high enough priority on an audit to fund it, but I don't believe we need that outside audit. I do not oppose audits - I came from the corporate world where they were common.
      
      
   3. Committees need more money for programs. This may be true, but there are always more needs or desires for money than there are funds available in any organization. The function of a budgeting process is to allocate a scarce resource, money.

5. Low attendance at congregational meetings. I have been attending congregational meetings since 1986. It is my recollection that congregational meetings were always relatively poorly attended. That is unfortunate, but not new.
   
   
   1. Unaddressed tension and conflict at meetings.
      
      
   2. Division among members who think meetings are too long or too short. I believe that the unpleasant comments and great amount of time spent on minor changes in documents such as minutes are very likely a contributing cause to poor attendance. I believe in democratic process, but not unlimited discussion on every point, major or minor.
      
      
6. Erosion of democracy, free speech and respectful treatment of members.
   
   
   1. By-law changes shift decision-making to board and minister and away from congregation. Please quote to me the sections of the November 3, 1996 Bylaws which do that. I do not remember that occurring. It is true that we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, an inevitable product of our size.
      
      
   2. Lack of support among leaders for bringing members with diverse opinions into leadership roles. I served on the Board for five years and the nominating committee for one. I do not remember attempts to restrict who the nominees were. Our primary concerns were to obtain competent candidates with demonstrated ability and dedication. Might I remind you of the easy petition process for adding nominees for office, 15 active member signatures on a petition.
      
      
   4. Board-developed rules (without congregational polling) restrict free speech in meetings, newsletter and chat lists. Meetings: we have used special rules at least since the Nov. 3, 1996 meeting to adopt the current Bylaws. In every case they were proposed at the beginning of the meeting, discussed, and voted on. That vote is hardly undemocratic procedure. The Newsletter, I believe, has a three person committee to which a few items may be referred. I believe that very few have been referred to it. I only remember one occasion while I was on the Board, and before the committee was constituted. A factually erroneous item was proposed for the Newsletter. One of us discussed the errors with the author and the article was withdrawn. The chat list rules, I believe, were approved after public opportunity for comment.
      
      
   9. New financial charges to attend important UUCF events, discourage members at some income levels from attending.
      
      
      1. Costs to attend the annual auction. I understood those complaints when the only auction opportunity was a sit-down dinner. I thought the two-night auction dealt well with that concern. Last year's auction was not a sit-down dinner and was lower in cost.

   Best regards,
   Bruce

   Kit Lueder & Richard Bergemann, 28 Apr 2000

   Subject: Re: Recent Petition for a Mediator
   Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:14:22 -0400
   From: "Kit (Christopher) Lueder"
   To: Bergemann
   CC: uucf-chat
   

   Hi Richard,
   While I also posted a response to the letter and have similar reaction to it, I'm unhappy with language to marginalize the people who wrote the letter.
   (1) They are all wonderful people who have given very generously to UUCF their time and (I presume) their treasure, and they have a right to express their concerns.
   (2) This is a new initiative and it is not fair to judge them by the actions of others in the past.
   (3) It is difficult to assert what their "desires" are.
   Kit Lueder.
   

   Richard Bergemann wrote:
   > After following discussions over the past 2 ½ years that I
   > have been attending UUCF as a Friend on issues expressed by the
   > concerned group of UUCF members and referenced in the letter (which I
   > will gladly send you a copy of if you haven’t seen it), I have
   > concluded that these malcontents who are behind this letter are
   > arrogant, self-centered and have no regard for anyone in the
   > congregation other than those who agree with them. They accept no
   > responsibility for contributing to the concerns that they identify.
   > They have little desire to work in a cooperative way to ensure that
   > the church includes them; they want it back the way it was and on
   > their terms. All of this is cloaked in language that appears
   > conciliatory on the surface. No matter how much they may have done
   > for UUCF in the past, they are not helping it today but holding it
   > back. Giving legitimacy to their latest campaign to be put on center
   > stage will only make it harder to address any of their concerns that
   > really require attention.
   

              Kit C. J. Lueder

   John Krutilla & Pat Moore, 29 Apr & 1 May 2000

   Subject: Letter from John Krutilla to Bruce Vernor
   Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:17:14 EDT
   From: [Pat Moore]
   To: [Bruce Vernor]
   CC: [UUCF Chat]
   

   Dear Bruce:

   John Krutilla has asked me to forward this letter to you by e-mail and to post it to the UUCF chatlist.

   Pat

   [snail-mail address edited out]
   April 29, 2000

   Dear Bruce:

   I have seen your thoughtful letter and do sense your genuine concern over the material Pat and Bob Moore sent to Congregants and Friends of the UUCF. It served to confirm for me that over the ten or so years I have known you I have never found anyone with greater dedication, genuine good will and willingness to serve the UUCF. Accordingly, your thoughts on the current issue are valuable and worthy of careful study. And I have done that. But in spite of a willingness on my part to give you the benefit of the doubt, I nonetheless come away from reading your letter with two troubling concerns:

   1. Somehow several recipients of the Moore's letter mistook the proposal to seek mediation assistance to be a call for arbitration. This confuses the role of mediator, which in this case would be that of a facilitator intended to use mediating skills to relieve the festering problems that seem to afflict the UUCF. This is different from petitioning for a process that results in a binding judgment from an arbiter After all we are seeking the benevolent services proffered by our UUA parent organization intended to be of help in just such circumnstances as ours. I can see no reasonable objection to that. The matter of cost is not an issue either, because at the special pre-budget meeting, our treasurers revealed that receipts from the canvass were confidently expected to exceed budget outlays by something like $15,000 during the 2000/2001 fiscal year. Further, they asked for suggestions on how to spend the surplus. I see no more constructive use of this surplus than in funding the costs of mediation under our current circumstances.
      
      
   2. You assert your belief that all that is needed to insure propriety in administration are clear and proper procedures, and the practice of requiring two signatures to ensure the unlikelihood of malfeasance. Regrettably, in the real world, the devil is in the details. Let me explain what I mean by giving an example with which we were both involved.
      
      You and Mary Binderman will recall that some congregants who were substantively involved in the financial support of Paul Boothby's ministerial studies, were equally supportive of Bill Newbury's (and later Henry Ticknor's). Accordingly, they proposed, and the Board accepted, a commitment to support ministerial students whom the UUCF sponsors. (See memo from Bruce Vernor to Patty Girman 11/8/94.) This commitment was formalized by the Board's establishing the FAIRFAX UNITARIAN CHURCH MINISTERIAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND during its October 1995 Board Meeting. Proposed guidelines for its management included a number of procedures for ensuring fidelity to the UUCF commitment, transparency in administration and accountability. These were in part:
      
      
      1. Appointment of an administrative committee comprised of the minister(s), the Board president and a member at large.
         
         
      2. This committee, in the language of the policy statement, "...shall be responsible for soliciting monies for the fund and distributing any monies on behalf of the seminarian."
         
         
      3. "The committee shall make an annual report to the congregation and the Board."
         
         
      With such essential functions to perform, it would seem that activating this committee should have been the first order of business. But this imperative was not undertaken for over four years; and then only because a congregant, with a bone fide interest, drew attention to this, among other irregularities that were discovered by happenstance. Instead of appointing a proper committee, there occurred, by some hugely opaque action, an unauthorized self appointment of a defacto custodian with broad, if not sole, discretion. Neither the Board nor the congregation nor even the benefactors were in any way apprised of this undisclosed anomaly and its implication for how the funds were to be administered.
      
      Despite explicit procedures requiring annual reports, no reports had been filed from the time the Policy went into effect until the moment of this writing. Accordingly, accountability has been totally compromised.
      
      It is equally clear that being above control by Board Policy, the administration of the scholarship funds has been autocratic and arbitrary. The Board Policy provisions that would provide transparency were effectively evaded.
      
      One attempt to raise funds for the seminarians in the past four years represents a pathetic display of indifference to our seminarians. The funds raised were multiple thousands less than were raised by pastoral letters in support of the Boothby ministerial education experience.
      
      With the history of this ministerial education support debacle before us, I believe that any one of good will and among them most prominently you, Bruce, would support my asserting a congregant's right to audit the book on this experience. It is an opportunity to exonerate those whom I believe responsible for what seems to me is clearly a breech of fiduciary courtesy if not outright dereliction of fiduciary responsibility. I earnestly hope that in an audit someone with younger eyes, a sharper pencil, and benevolent uncommon sense, will be able to persuade us both that there has been no malfeasance. If so, then I will earnestly apologize to you for ever doubting that explicit procedures and two signatures are sufficient conditions to relieve any doubters' anxieties over misconduct or malfeasance.
      
      I trust recuperation from surgery and collateral effects are improving happily in the Vernor household, and that we can expect to see you both soon in robust stride attending Sunday services.
      
      

   In Faith,

   JVK

   David Heagy, 4 May 2000

   Subject: increasing the congregation's chances of success
   Date: Thu, 4 May 2000
   From: [David Heagy]
   To: [Birds of a Feather]
   

   Birds of a FeatherIn a message dated 2000-05-04 11:50:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,[Pat Moore] writes:

   > David, because you are having difficulty understanding the concerns we have
   > expressed, you may find the Ombudsman Report particularly helpful. We share
   > most of the concerns cited in that report.
   

   Pat, I really am trying to be helpful. I do understand the concerns. I read the Ombudsman report shortly after joining the board. I have only two intentions with my comments:

   First, I want to express that I feel hurt by the accusations like "restricting freedom of speech" and persuade you not to use hurtful statements.

   And, second I want to increase the congregation's chances of success for making appropriate changes. As I have said several times, a mediator MAY be a good approach. But right now I see some barriers to success. All I can do is give my views. I hope you'll see them as constructive comments with good intentions, and perhaps act on them.

   Barriers as I see them.

   1. Public criticism of leaders. It is unnecessary and inaccurate and disrespectful. I have talked to people who have left the congregation because of the use of this tactic in the past.
      
      
   2. Avoiding using the available means of communicating concerns and ideas. There have been and are several ways to do this. The long range plan update, the mission working groups, the searching for the future sessions, the feedback form to document comments, the strategic plan sessions, the community forums, the board meetings, joining lay ministry committees, and meeting face to face with leaders. The letter avoided all those. Many of these methods are still available.
      
      
   3. Not offering to help work on changes by joining the committees or other ways to accomplish changes.
      
      
   4. Not taking into account the wants and needs of the rest of the congregation and brainstorming ways to satisfy both sets of wants.
      
      
   5. Unrealistic expectations for the mediator. A technique I've found useful in many situations is to begin at the end. Pretend we have completed a mediation process, and see it the results are "actionable". For example, if you take the "Need for greater diversity in Sunday services", what is a mediator likely to say or do? Won't they just report the need and the available ways to influence diversity? Will it lead to a good solution? Is there a better way to get to a good solution? Until I feel that a time consuming and expensive mediation process is likely to be successful, I cannot in good conscience recommend it.
      
      

   David (personal comments)

   Edward Cacciapaglia, 4 May 2000

   Subject: RE: increasing the congregation's chances of success: INVALIDATING perceptions
   Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:24:24 -0400
   From: "Edward Cacciapaglia"
   To: "'David Heagy'"
   CC: [UUCF Chat] [Birds Of A Feather]
   

   Birds of a FeatherDavid, you wrote, >>>>"First, I want to express that I feel hurt by the accusations like "restricting freedom of speech" and persuade you not to use hurtful statements."

   David, I acknowledge your hurt and I know you are trying to be helpful to the situation, but I take STRONG exception to your statement here. This is not a personal attack, but is merely meant to tell you my gut level reaction, David. If you are really hurt by some of us feeling that we are not being heard, I hope you can look deeper within yourself as to why these words hurt you. My current perception, right or wrong, is that you seem more interested in rebutting concerns and observations of a significant minority of UUCF then in giving the concerns an objective hearing.

   A perception of "restricting freedom of speech" IS NOT a personal attack, but the way you wrote to personalize your pain over it made it seem that way. And David, this pattern of behavior has gone on at UUCF by a few in leadership for at least the last 4 years, where criticism of restricting freedom decisions becomes a "hurtful" personal attack on the leaders. This is a major part of the problem at UUCF, criticisms of management practices are transformed into personal attacks. (It has an Orwellian feel to it at times.) This behavior was evident at UUCF several years ago when similar concerns were brought up and the ombudsmen report was issued, but some still seem interested in taking any criticisms as personal attacks. It is because of this attitude that I believe someone outside UUCF is needed to facilitate discussions if not mediate our differences.

   To me, it would be far more helpful to the discussion if we deal in factual matters instead responding with our emotions of feeling pain or hurt. The way to increase the congregation's chances of succes to have leadership that listens to ALL points of view in a non-defensive way and keeps an open mind to any criticism.

   In fellowship,

   Ed Cacciapaglia

   [David Heagy, 4 May 2000 is quoted in full here.]

   Kurt Jensen & Alex Machina, 9 May 2000

   Subject: Old haunts...
   Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 04:29:54 +0000
   From: Alex Machina
   To: [UUCF Chat]
   

   Date: May 08 2000 20:34:50 EDT
   From: [Kurt Jensen]
   Subject: List managers
   

   ....

   A final note: Some have recently complained about the suppression of free speech on this list. I believe nothing I say can or will ever convince them otherwise. All I can do is point to all the recent message traffic and ask: What is being suppressed???

   [Kurt Jensen]

   ======================
   [Censorship, by Rosalie A. Clavez, 15 Mar 2000 is quoted in full here.]