Poster's notes are in italics. Brackets that are not in italics are in the original.
Subject: July 11 Board Presentation
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:57:03 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: UUCF Chat
CC: Birds Of A Feather
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear UUCF Member or Friend,
Unless you have recently joined the church, you all received, back in April, a letter from Pat and Robert Moore, co-signed by 17 others, citing numerous concerns and asking you to indicate whether you would us in requesting professional mediation services to get to the root of these problems and find solutions. 101 of you cared enough to join the 19 original signers of the resulting petition. Based on this response, the group requested that certain members make presentations to the UUCF Board of Trustees on this petition and the issues surrounding it. There were about 8 presentations. I submit to you as a cut and paste below, the verbatim speech I gave to the Board on July 11th. I think it is important for the health of this church that as many as possible know what is brewing beneath the surface here....to know what was said to the Board....to debate it....and to eventually work together to solve the multitude of problems we have here, while keeping the good things here intact.
With that as an introduction, my presentation follows. If you have questions or want clarifications, you may contact me at [e-mail address edited out]. I will attempt to answer all fair questions but will not respond to personal attacks or invective. I will be away from this e-mail address between August 4-12, so please do not expect a response from me until August 13 or after. Thank you.
Craig Goff
Presentation to the UUCF Board of Trustees
I sincerely appreciate this opportunity you have given us to present to you our issues. I personally would have hoped that I could have entered this room for a Board meeting once again after a two-year absence with joy in my heart and positive news. However, circumstances being what they are at UUCF, it is my contention and the contention of the 120 signers of a petition, that the issues in this church are so serious that they warrant professional conflict resolution. All of these member and friend petition signers feel a certain loss of safety in this church, and loss of trust in some of the leadership, both ministerial and lay. So serious is the safety issue, for instance, that many people have indicated to us that they would have signed the petition if it were not for the criticism they believed would be heaped upon them if it were known that they were part of our group. We have the June 7th GAMS as testimony to that. For in that front page issue of the church letter, Jim, who has final newsletter editorial privilege, saw fit to criticize us and take things out of context in an attempt to destroy our credibility.
We all know that there are many very good and positive things in this church: music, friendships, education, the Ministerial Associates program, and a smooth-running administrative office, to name a few. Coupled with this good are some very serious deficiencies and abuses of fundamental Unitarian Universalist principles that need attention for the preservation of the health and integrity of this church. We strongly believe a UU professional from outside our church trained in conflict resolution is necessary as a first step in healing. We cannot as a church resolve these issues internally. We tried to do this two years ago through Ombudsmen, and failed. The Ombudsmen themselves did not fail; the follow-through on the action plan failed.
I want to begin my justification for an outside UU professional trained in conflict resolution with the statement that there are two fundamental UU tenets that are sacred in this denomination and have been ever since the beginning in the early 1800s. These are Freedom of the Pulpit on one hand and Congregational Polity on the other. The first is a right accorded to the ministers of the church to speak the spiritual message of their choosing when they rise to the pulpit on Sunday morning or when they conduct other aspects of their worship program. The second, Polity, is the right accorded to the members of the Congregation to determine the destiny of their church. If you think about it, these two tenets are a sort of check and balance between the two forces charged with the power and authority they are granted.
I want to focus now on Congregational Polity. It my contention and that of many of the signers of the original letter and petition that there have been violations, yes, abuses by Jim of this sacred tenet accorded to the members of this Congregation. Congregational Polity is not a term that is part of the vocabulary of many in this church, now and in the past. No one in a leadership position as I can recall knows the rights accorded to him or her through Polity. I can assure you however, that Jim, being a trained UU minister, knows the meaning of the rights and to what authority they belong. It is clear as we review the record and add up all the infractions along the way, that there is substantial evidence that Jim has consciously contrived to mold and control this church the way he wants. Not only from the pulpit as is his right, but also in direct and indirect involvement in committee work to change to the Long Range Plan, mission statements, by-laws, revise his contract, determine budget priorities, determine his salary, influence Nominating Committee process and the influence the selection of lay leaders.
Soon after Jim was called, he turned his attention to our by-laws. He got deeply enmeshed with the By-laws Committee. It is easy to see how Jim construed this as entirely within his domain given the wording of Article IX, Section 2 of the bylaws at the time Jim was called. This Section is repeated in Jim’s contract. The Article reads: “The Parish Minister shall be an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board, Council [of Lay Ministers], and of all standing committees of the church.” (emphasis mine). Whether or not the Bylaws Committee is a standing committee, the thrust of Article IX, Section 2 is to give Jim the authority and responsibility to get involved in all workings of the church. At first blush, this is probably not a bad idea considering where we had come from with our previous called minister. However, Article IX, Section 2 can easily be abused as it essentially gives the Senior minister the license to take power, authority and responsibility that rightfully belongs to the members of the Congregation through the principle of Polity. It is my contention that the intent of the clause in Jim’s contract was to have him provide consulting or advisory services standing committees (of which the Nominating Committee is one). Instead, Jim interpreted the clause, intentionally or otherwise, to give him carte blanche in influencing the Bylaws Committee to transfer power and authority to himself.
Some changes made to the By-laws that have diluted or transferred power, authority and responsibility to the Senior Minister have been justified in the name of creating a representative democracy or streamlining for a large church operation.
I present four examples.
(1) Increasing the membership of the Board from 9 to 11 members. This
has the effect of diluting the power of any dissenting opinion from
someone who might challenge the single ex-officio member.
(2) Changing the election of Board officers from election by the
Congregation to election as at-large representatives (Treasurers
excepted). Officers are now elected within the Board. Prior to this
rule change the President and Vice President were traditionally thought
of as the senior lay leaders of the church, kind of Trustees. More
importantly, they represented the balance of power and authority from
the lay side against the power and authority of the senior minister from
the ministerial side. Jim did not want this competition from the lay
side of the church. He insisted on this rule change. Most of us
naively granted it although there was significant debate on the issue
when it came before the Congregation for approval. Now the Board
President’s only unique responsibility is the running the Board
meetings. With all Board members having equal status, any dissenting
point of view is easily squelched.
(3) Reducing the Congregational meeting quorum to 10% of the
Congregation for elected officers and budget approval. These are two
areas where authority should be vested in the members of the
Congregation through the principle of Polity. The reduction in quorum,
suggested by Jim and approved by the Congregation, is inordinately low
in light of the Senior Minister influence in nomination process and
budget process (I will give specific examples of the latter a little
later in my presentation).
(4) Senior Minister selection of Lay Ministers with Board approval of
the selections. This is a bona fide transfer of authority to the
minister side; authority previously and appropriately vested in the
members of the Congregation to chose their own leaders. (Choosing one’s
own leaders is synonymous with determining the church’s destiny’ a
sacred right. Approving the choices of the Senior Minister is not the
same as the lay leaders making the initial choice.) Again, the reason
given for this change is that we are a large church and Jim knows more
people and what they do than any of the lay leaders. This may or may
not be true and probably would be innocuous if it were not for the
Senior Minister’s tendency to want to control the choice of who is in a
non-elected leadership position.
Before I move to a new topic, I would like to say that as these bylaws changes have been brought forward to the Congregation, there have been dissenting views on the value of these changes. My observation is that as the people have risen to discuss their concerns, they have been systematically labeled and noted as dissenters or troublemakers. This labeling has had the ultimate effect of reducing the safety and trust these people have felt toward the leadership in this church.
Next, I would like to discuss the Ombudsman Report, issued January 7, 1998. The Report had 30 recommendations, and for each, the Board or Jim prepared a response. Let me report to you that on May 13th, Jim and I had a meeting and during that meeting he characterized the Ombudsman Report as “just awful.” I disagree.
Ombudsman Recommendation #6: “The Board and the Nominating Committee should make special efforts to recruit individuals from all quarters of the Congregation for leadership positions,…”. The Board’s response was: “We believe it is important to recruit individuals for leadership positions based on their qualifications, which would include, for example, previous leadership positions held,…”. The Board response ended with the sentence: “Volunteers are urged to come forward.”
I submit to you that in recent years this policy has not been followed. This year, for instance, a former lay minister made it known to a member of the Nominating Committee that she was interested in serving on the Board of Trustees. Her name was suggested at a Nominating Committee meeting. However, the Nominating Committee had two very restrictive policies (1) all candidates had to “get along with Jim,” and (2) any member of the Nominating Committee could veto a candidate. The volunteer was perceived to be unsupportive of Jim. She was blackballed and was forced to run as a petition candidate. It is actions like this that destroy the safety and trust of members in this church. Furthermore, it is my contention that “getting along with Jim” is a euphemism that really means that one is supportive of Jim’s policies and will not challenge his authority. This should not be a criterion for candidacy and is counter to democratic principles.
Ombudsman Recommendation #15: “The Board should monitor the effectiveness of the Lay Ministers for Fellowship’s Monthly Exchange in providing a forum for member concerns. If this is deemed not effective, the Board should consider establishing a permanent leadership-independent Ombudsman Committee.” In the Board response, they indicated that they would monitor reports from the Lay Ministers for Fellowship. They also stated that the Communications Committee “is studying all avenues of communication within the Congregation…”. It is noteworthy that the Board had no comment on the permanent Ombudsman Committee (I now realize I should have insisted on this as a Board member). The Monthly Exchange concept very quickly and quietly fell to disuse, as it was ineffective. One might have expected the Board to recognize this and act on the Ombudsman recommendation, but no action has been taken. This is indeed a travesty as the group of concerned members has grown considerably in the past two years. Obviously, member concerns are not being given attention they deserve, and no wonder considering Jim’s attitude toward the Report and its recommendations.
Ombudsman Recommendation #21: “The Board should charge the Senior Minister with establishing a program for conducting pastoral visits, both by the ministers and the Caring Committee.” The Board response was to reaffirm that the responsibility for pastoral visits rests with the Senior Minister. This is mandated by Jim’s contract with UUCF. However, this issue continues as a festering sore in this Congregation. It is time to stop talking about it. It is time to take some meaningful action to resolve the problem. Despite Jim’s contractual responsibilities, he refuses to perform certain aspects of this duty or more precisely, he refuses to render the service to certain people in the Congregation. We do not know what his criteria are for not tending to the needs of all members but the suspicion is high that unless one pledges a certain amount or unless one is supportive of Jim, his policies and his ministry, that person in need is ignored. That is not consistent with the loving, caring and supportive environment that is advertised here.
Ombudsman Recommendation #24: “The Senior Minister should consider providing more diversity in Sunday worship services—both in format and orientation.” Jim responded to this Ombudsmen recommendation, not the Board. Jim’s response is rather lengthy but a certain phrase stands out. Jim states “[I] am pleased with the current worship offerings and believe that there is adequate diversity of services.” (Notice the first person singular.) This answer on Jim’s part brings to mind a couple of things that are germane. Firstly, I was astounded at the December 1997 Board meeting, over which I presided, to hear Jim castigate the Board for not recognizing that he had recently gone through a spiritual transformation. Secondly, I refer again to the conversation I had with Jim on May 13th this year. I asked Jim why he had never asked me what my spirituality was. I got no answer and a blank stare. I asked Jim whether he had ever asked anyone in this Congregation to define their spirituality. He said how do I do this with 600 adult members? I said to Jim “We did it for you. In conjunction with your calling we conducted a survey to determine the spiritual inclinations of our members. You have not taken this into account in your preaching.”
I think the Ombudsman Report sums the problem up quite adequately. “The Senior Minister should serve the Congregation, not lead it—he should be more of a facilitator, helping us to realize our dreams, not striving to fulfill his.” I ask you to ponder this last statement because it has a lot of truth. It is only the lay-led services where one finds diversity.
Ombudsman Recommendation #30: “The Board should establish a formal Ministerial Relations Committee for the Senior Minister.” The Board response was: “The establishment of such a committee is being explored by the ad hoc Staffing Committee, which has as its responsibility the definition of evaluation and accountability criteria for all leadership positions in the Congregation whether professional or lay.” The resulting action was to form a MRC. The committee met once about two years ago, did absolutely nothing of substance, and has not met again.
While I was Board President, ministerial accountability was my personal objective considering how many people were concerned about Jim’s performance. Jim was adamantly opposed to his being accountable to the Board. He stated numerous times that since he was a called minister, he was accountable to the Congregation only. This I felt was a cop out since the Board members were the elected officers of the Congregation. I unsuccessfully attempted to introduce the discussion of an action plan for some measure of accountability at a Board retreat in January 1998. I still feel strongly that if there were meaningful accountability policies in place, there would be much less unhappiness on the part of Congregational members. What is needed is for the Board to develop some evaluation criteria and have these mailed to the members of the Congregation annually. A Ministerial Relations Committee, elected by the Congregation, should assess the responses and report to the Board and Jim on general comments, strong points and deficiencies, without divulging the names of the members responding. One of the evaluation criteria should be the Senior Minister’s ability to raise adequate revenue for the church because this is one indication of the happiness of its members and health of the church. The Senior Minister’s salary should be linked to this evaluation is some way.
It is clear that despite the time and energy spent on the Ombudsman Report, little has been done to correct the problems discussed in the report. The corporate (i.e., Board) memory of the report has faded, and Jim definitely does not want any aspect of it resurrected. I believe it is an excellent report. The first step for the professional conflict manager we seek should be to read this report and determine why little has been done despite the obvious sensible recommendations made. It should be the baseline from which new actions can emanate.
The next two examples are not only infractions of Polity but also examples of conflicts of interest. The first has to do with committee work to establish parity in Jim’s salary. The second pertains to committee work to revise Jim’s contract. In both cases, the principle of Polity dictates that it is the exclusive right of the members of the Congregation or their elected representatives to meet alone to discuss the called minister’s salary and contract terms. After the necessary number of meetings to establish a position, it is then that the called minister is invited in to the meetings to negotiate the final terms, salary, conditions, changes in contract, etc. Not in this church! Jim insisted on being involved in both activities from their very inception. The Staffing Subcommittee, convened during my term as President of the Board, had the action to bring parity to Jim’s salary. Jim attended virtually every meeting. How much influence he had on the 8% and 14.4% raises he eventually received is unknown, but the suspicion of influence is obvious.
In the case of Jim’s contract renewal, an activity that took place during Steve Gold’s tenure as President of the Board, Steve attempted to have private meetings of the Board. Jim would not hear of it and insisted on attending every meeting. The result was essentially a verbatim renewal of the old contract with no recognition of deficiencies in the areas of pastoral care, worship diversity and accountability. Instead the emphasis was when and how Jim would get his next sabbatical.
The last issue I want to bring to your attention concerns this year’s budget submitted to the Congregation for approval at the annual meeting. Namely, I make reference to the pledge revenue figure for FYE 2001. To shape the context of my point, I bring to your attention the fact that during the first Board retreat of my term as President, the Board and Jim pledged to establish as policy the presentation of a balanced budget to the Congregation. It may be that the Board memory of this policy has faded but Jim should have remembered. He has the corporate memory. Fact is that this year’s budget is nowhere near balanced despite the appearance to the contrary. I suspect Jim is at the bottom of this. The reason the budget is unbalanced is that the pledge revenue number is bogus by a very considerable amount (some 12% high). It has been tradition for many, many years at UUCF to note the amount pledged about 6 to 8 weeks after the start of the Canvass. This year the amount pledged at the traditional demarcation time was $532,000; $68,000 less than the number used in the budget submitted to the Congregation. When we asked about this, we were told “Oh, we’ll make it up somehow.” But the truth of the matter is this budget is far from balanced and what was presented to the Congregation is nothing short of voodoo economics. This kind of hocus-pocus on the part of Jim and the leadership only leads to distrust. Why do good leaders allow this to happen?
I close with a very simple statement. The cumulative effect of these many infractions of Polity and conflicts of interest, to say nothing about incidents of unprofessional, controlling and autocratic behavior on the part of certain leaders, coupled with the tyranny of the majority, have taken their toll. I feel very badly that when I had the authority to do something about these problems, I probably was emotionally more on the problem side than the solution side. I have seen the light. [See: Netiquette and Repression, 21-23 Jun 1998.]
You as a Board have several options; one is to do nothing. You take great risk if you do nothing because if you take this path, what is now a large minority will certainly grow. This can only make matters worse. On the other hand, you have the power to end the conflict in this Congregation. If you take this higher road, we will work with you and Jim to heal the festering sores and end the pain through the assistance of a professional UU conflict manager.
Thank you for giving me your time.
R. Craig Goff