Subject: What has happened to Democracy within our congregation?
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [Edward Cacciapaglia]
To: [uucf-list and numerous individuals]
Something has been going wrong in our Congregation. This summer we have heard questions raised about the Congregation by current members including: "Why have so many of our friends drifted away from UUCF?" "What is happening to the volunteer spirit within our congregation that we could not even get volunteers to do a banner for G.A. and until last week a new sign?" (Only the eager, loving spirit of SUUSI participants got our banner makers inspired!) "Where is the caring within our loving Congregation which used to be so apparent back in the 1980s and early 1990s?"
As members of a significant group of concerned UUCF members involved in discussing ways to heal our congregation, this e-mail is being written as an initial public expression of a call to restore democracy to UUCF. We believe that the spirituality of our congregation has been hurt and the twin UUA principals of Democracy and Respect for the Inherent Worth and Dignity of ALL Human Beings have been violated by the carrying out of certain policies behind the Congregation's back in the last couple of years. To begin healing the situation, we ask our new Board to pay more attention to our concerns and take affirmative steps to restore the Democracy which Boards in the recent past have ignored by their actions or inactions. The Board is answerable first to the Congregation not the Minister. Also, we ask our Minister to listen carefully and lend comfort to the voices of concerned dissent.
Some of the areas we believe Democracy has been stifled at UUCF include: 1)The process of hiring an assistant minister without having the minister called by the Congregation, 2) The breaking down of many of the committee structures and replacing them with Minister appointed councils, instead of volunteers from the Congregation, 3) The limiting of the number and the restricting of the structure of lay led services (Many of us are bored to tears with the same order service every week!), 4) The fact that the Minister is editing (and apparently censoring content) the biweekly newsletter, and 5) The lack of a Board appointed ministerial liason committee since the early 1990s.
We have included only some our areas of concern and would like to hear what other UUCF members have to say. We encourage constructive dialogue, using email, verbal communication and any other expression available. Also, we ask all recipients to freely share this email with those UUCF members and friends who don't have email, so we can get the whole Congregation involved in this discussion. The task of healing our congregation and restoring active Participatory UU Spirituality can only truly take place if we get involved in sharing ideas and listen to each other instead of allowing actions to happen before getting adequate congregational input.
Love and peace from concerned members of UUCF interested in Healing Our Congregation.
Subject: Democracy and Stewardship
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 23:44:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [Edward Cacciapaglia]
To: [uucf-list and numerous individuals]
(Judy Gruner asked me to forward this. Our apologies if you have already received this, but some of the UUCF list recipients indicated that they didn't get a copy.) Ed C.
I have been watching and listening to the growing controversy over the summer concerning democracy and the inner workings of our church government. After listening to member's recent experiences and disappointments with their volunteer activities, I would agree that there seems to be a need for more congregational input and choice in choosing our leaders. I would like to contribute my experience on the now defunct Stewardship Committee which, I believe clearly illustrates this type of unconditional decision making emanating from "power at the top" with little concern for what the congregation actually might want and in this case had actually voted for in the general meeting which adopted the Long Range Plan in 1996.
To begin, as a part of the LRP a Stewardship Committee was to be created to examine the goals of the Long Range Plan and to begin implementing them. Thus, the Board appointed a group of us to begin working on this. As we moved into the enormity and importance of this project, we realized that a Stewardship Committee should probably not be ad hoc but a permanent committee with members rotating on and off and in the future and to be picked by the nominating committee. This was the first idea that was quickly shot down by the Board. I might add that we also put forth to the Board and Canvass Committee the suggestion that Stewardship might be a good theme for the canvass i.e "ask not what the church can do for you, but what can you do for your church" and again, this idea was quickly squelched as it did not conform with the Sweetzer model.
Undaunted, we continued over the winter in our monthly meetings to form a charter and plan of action to present to the Board for their approval and, at the same time we began attending other committee meetings in order to have a better understanding of all the aspects of church organization with the thought that it was important to help the committees foster stewardship in their activities and to serve as liaisons for them to interact with the other committees and avoid duplication of work.
By April we had finished our proposal , "Stewardship Committee Charter and Action Plan Proposal", and presented it to the Board. During that time we had repeatedly asked for feedback from the Board for guidelines on exactly what they envisioned our task to be but without success. At the heart of our proposals lay the underlying idea that Stewardship should promote responsibility to each other and more careful use of the church's human and financial resources. Quote: "To develop the means to broaden and wisely manage the Church's financial and human resources to support the principles articulated by our Mission and Covenant Statement".
In any case, we came up with a rather extensive list of recommendations and proposals which included a Plan of Action, Timetable ect. which we submitted to the Board. It was soon returned to us with the majority of it deleted and cut so drastically that we were totally stunned, dismayed and generally upset at the cavalier treatment of our labors and plans for the future of stewardship. We quickly realized that there really was no choice left to us but to resign since it was very clear that our goals were quite different than those envisioned by the Board. However, we did submit recommendations as a last ditch effort in hopes of making some impact and for guidance for any future Stewardship committee. In essence, the Board's recommendation was that we concentrate on the future space facility and its cost implications, and that alone should be our priority clearly de-emphasizing our more altruistic goals for nurturing volunteers and creating better communication and understanding about church fiscal policy to encourage increased giving.
In retrospect, it is my feeling that not all Board members were shown the original proposal or given the opportunity to review it or give their input. In addition, I feel that the majority of the Board was left with the impression that we dissolved because we had completed our task which is entirely untrue since we had barely begun.
I am bringing this matter to your attention because I think it is a prime example of the growing malaise emanating from too much quick decision making from the top without thoughtful consideration. I have been nursing my frustrations over my wasted participation and the resulting demise of this committee for which I had high hopes and for which I firmly believe would have been a great means for furthering communication and understanding within the church. Let me make it clear that these are not necessarily the opinions of my committee mates but strictly my interpretation of what happened and how I reacted to the results. As a result ,I am left feeling that it will be a long time before I once again volunteer or committ my efforts to future church projects or committee work without a secure knowledge that I am supported by the Board and that there are clear guidlines as to the expectations of whatever I am asked to do.
As many of you know, I have been a member of this church for about twenty years having served on numerous committees including three years on the Board. I am a strong supporter of our ideals, especially the one about respect for everyone's differing opinions and beliefs specifically our ability to accommodate views and opinions not held by the majority. The beauty of this congregation for me are the diversified components and the fact that they cooexist because we honor each others' worth and dignity.
However, I believe that we are presently at a crossroads as illustrated by the recent summer e-mail discussions and meetings taking place at the church. It is my sincerest hope that the new Board and Jim will respond positively to the present controversy with a reassessment of the goals of our Mission and Covenant Statement. I feel that there is need for creative dialogue with members of the congregation who are dissatisfied and frustrated, myself included, and I hope that some resulting substantive changes which will benefit everyone will result from the present controversy.
Yours in our faith and diversity,
| Judy Gruner |
Subject: Clarity
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 16:02:08 -0400
From: Jim Nelson
To: [uucf-list and numerous individuals]
Dear Friends,
Since I have invited everyone on the list-serve, with copies to the Board and Lay Ministers for a discussion on the 14th after the second service, I would like to take an opportunity to correct some things people have said so that at least we have facts accurate. I am sorry, and puzzled, that no one attempted to ask me about things concerning me. Like the dozen or so people who have made comments, the principles of UUism, including the decomratic process is sacred to me. I have yet to meet a UU - minister or lay person - who does not believe so, and I know of no decision made on policy at UUCF which has not been made within the democratic process. I was called by a vote of the congregation with certain responsibilities and certain authority; the Board was elected likewise. The By-laws were voted in, and so on. To suggest that processes have been subverted is both false and unfair. To argue that we can and should look for ways to improve our process is important and to the extent that we all agree on that, we have good basis for both conversation and progress. We have just begun operating under our new by-laws; they are no doubt imperfect like the old ones were imperfect, but their imperfections are likely to be recognized only as we experience them - and that we have not yet. We need to give this baby time to learn to walk before we begin changing them.
The e-mail flurry began with a letter from Ed Cacciapaglia in which he claimed several things to have happened, which in fact have not. There are currently two formal Councils at UUCF - the RE Council, created by members of the RE community several years ago and adopted by the Board. The Long Range Plan, approved by a vote of the congregation called for the formation of a Social Justice Council; its form, too, has been approved by the Board.
After conversations with Judy Harrison and the Lay Ministers for Worship and the Arts, I suggested we create a Worship Council [there is a certain logic to this, of course] and try it for two years, as an experiment. Previously, I was in conversation about worship with a number of groups and individuals and I believed, and still do, that to bring those people together would not only broaden the conversation but also make the conversation richer. We would set the schedule [something I did mostly alone before], both for Sunday and for other services, think about themes for worship, and discuss both standards and new possibilities for all worship opportunities. In consultation with Judy and the lay ministers, we asked people from the various worship programs - the chair of the Lay-led worship committee, a representative from Creative Arts, Healing and Intergenerational Services, the Lay Ministers, Judy, myself and - this year, Bill Welch. This ‘Council’ replaces no other committee [nor do the other councils as claimed by Ed]. We have had one meeting and I believe everyone was very pleased with it.
It may have been un-wise to call it a Council, thus suggesting a permanency. It is intended to be a try to see if a Council model is helpful for worship and I will look for a better name.
The number of lay-led services has remained constant for the last three years. In fact, there are more lay-led services than the survey taken before I was called indicated the congregation wanted. Participation by others in services I have led has increased and the variety of services has been great. From last Jan through June, there were hardly two weeks in a row which were the same. I have never intruded on the structure or content of any lay-led service. On the one occasion my standing invitation to be a resource was accepted, I made some suggestions. Some were followed; some were not, but the decisions were made by those leading the service.
I neither edit nor censor the newsletter. I am part of an editorial team which is set up to address concerns. Currently, the editing of the newsletter is done by space; there is not always enough space to fit something in or nor enough additional material to add space. On one occasion I did decide not to print something - it contained personal and private information about another person. On three occasions, I had concerns that submissions contained inaccuracies or would be hurtful to others. I asked the people who submitted them to withdraw the articles or edit them. In each case I consulted with the President. One chose to edit; two did not and all three were printed.
It is true that there is no ministerial liaison committee and that is by my choice. There are good reasons for this, much too long to go into here. I would be more than happy to explain that to any one who so wishes to hear. In any case, the Board each Sunday invites people to address comments or concerns to them. These comments have been faithfully reported at Board meetings.
I hope that in the future we will at least get the facts right so that we can then decide upon their meaning.
I am sorry if members feel I have not heard them. Except for one person, no one whose comments appear in the list-serve exchanges has come to me with these concerns and that one person did it in written correspondence only. My door has always been open and will continue to be so; I have never refused to meet with anyone nor would I. I am sorry that no one thought it important to speak with me, because I would have welcomed the opportunity to work to clarify things.
It is a dangerous business to claim things about any large group. One of the old saws from the 70s was that we should use ‘I’ statements, and that remains good advice. No doubt some people feel, or think, that things are not well at UUCF. That does not make it so, only that an ‘I’ holds that opinion. I would urge everyone to use those ’I’ statements. I, for example, think that democracy is alive and functioning quite well at UUCF and I think that the congregation is in excellent shape and quite healthy, not wounded at all. I do not think the congregation needs healing. I believe that there is great diversity both expressed and honored at UUFC. I also believe we can be far more than we are today. I think some people’s relationships with the congregation may need healing. I also believe that some people are unhappy and I hope their concerns can be addressed and even met. No minister can satisfy everyone. I believe the ministry we all share is being well attended to and that we should be proud of where the congregation is headed. I also believe we can do much better and I hope others will join me in serving this community as best we can.
Rev. Jim Nelson
The one thing God desires for you is a peaceful heart.
| Meister Eckhardt |
Subject: Re: Clarity
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:10:06 -0400
From: [Tom Livingston]
To: uucf-list
Good message Jim-
I'll help in any way I can, including strategizing if that is helpful. I think the anti group is probably pretty small, and there is a larger group that could go either way depending on how we handle it. With the exception of Lola, I think the board is solidly behind you too (since we are included on the "bums" list, maybe more than ever - I expect there will be some nervousness).
In the course of doing other business with her, I had a good conversation with Ginny Blair about this. If we do a survey, she suggests we include the unhappy ones in survey design and she volunteers to screen it for consistency and bias as a last step before it goes out.
Her advice with the presentation of the group at the board meeting is to practice active listening. Make sure they feel heard. Don't be defensive, reactive, etc. I told her I might encourage Craig to give her a call before the meeting.
Assuming we can deal with it constructively, In the end it will probably be good this is out in the open. All the same, the personal nature of it is hard. On behalf of our community I am sorry this group is plotting in secret and that you get singled out.
Mark Waser occasionally gave me fits during Bill's search, and I can't say I'm sorry he's giving the Ed, Joaquin group fits now. (there, I feel a little better).
Big marks in my tounge from biting it,
Tom.
Subject: Re: Clarity -Reply
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:08:20 -0400
From: Gary Joaquin
To: uucf-list
Tom,
I've never had any reason other than to express respect for you. Was
this message really meant for public consumption? Is this really
how you feel about our genuine concerns?
Gary
[Clarity, by Tom Livingston, 28 Aug 1997 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: Facts & Meanings
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:02:39 -0400
From: Hatfield Bob
To: [uucf-list]
A few random thoughts (well, not entirely random):
There can only be one set of truly factual statements about a given event. Facts are inherently bereft of meaning, requiring the whole complex of human understanding/comprehension/emotion/predispositions and intent to supply those facts with meaning - which is, of course, wholly unique to each individual. Were that not the case, the classic tale of Roshomon would not have been possible.
As a careful reader (and occasional contributor) to our email tsunami of the last few weeks, it was not until today that I felt as if I was getting a good, solid chunk of FACTS; I got that feeling, first, after reading Bob Tripp's direct, positive and authentic statement (UUCF Then and Now) of his experience at FUC/UUCF over a long period of connectedness. And, next, my appetite for FACTS was further satiated from reading Jim Nelson's clear and direct response (Clarity) to the several themes that have been the grist for the recent e-mill.
Ah, but you say, what about the meaning of all those "facts"; well, as far as the points covered by Bob and by Jim, it all rings true for me.
The smallest good deed is better than the grandest good intention.
Duquet
In our faith of compassion, optimism and diversity,
Bob Hatfield
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:35:57 -0400
From: Kurt /Carol Jensen
To: uucf-list
Subject: semi deep thought
What if you were just mad and told someone to "go to hell" and they actually went? You wouldn't feel so great then, would you?
Subject: What needs healing?
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:14:23 -0700
From: [Bob Tripp]
To: uucf-list
I want to thank Jim Nelson for his "Clarity" e-mail. It is excellent.
I especially like the sentence, "I think some people's relationships with the congregation may need heeling." Frankly, it helps me articulate what I have been feeling ever since this barrage of e-mail began a few weeks ago: if anything is causing untoward division within the congregation it is the strange and vague assortment of charges that suddenly erupted from a few people. What the Quakers call "creative conflict" is healthy. Unspecified charges and allegations are not healthy. For example, Gary's comment in a recent e-mail in response to Mark that we should "be patient as this process unfolds," not only does lend itself to the kind of open deliberative discussion of concerns that might actually be useful, but has a melodramtic tone that actually would be funny if I did not feel that Gary is serious.
So, lighten up, folks. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, to quote someone even older than the Beatles. The sky is not falling. Democracy and spiritualy are alive and well at UUCF.
Or is all this an ominous portent of the end of the millennium? If so, may the god of our choice protect us. Sigh. Signed, a wounded but spiritually quite healthy parishioner (all things considered). Bob Tripp
Subject: Re: Clarity
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:49:29 -0400
From: Tom Livingston
To: uucf-list
I've just discovered I sent a message to the entire mailing list that I thought I was sending only to Jim Nelson.
My apologies to all.
I own everything I said, including:
That I support Jim,
That our job as a board is to be open, and listen exceptionally well,
That I think the next task is to do a survey so we can know better what the
whole congregation thinks,
But I did a disservice to Jim, the process, the board and those I mentioned by name by handling my communication carelessly.
I am sorry Tom Livingston