Subject: [uucf-info] Minutes of Special Meeting
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:02:17 EST
From: [Kurt Jensen]
To: [UUCF Info]
[Excerpts]
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax
Board of Trustees
Minutes of Special Meeting
December 5, 2000
Trustees in attendance: John Cunningham, President; Kurt Jensen, Vice President; Nancy Commisso, Secretary; Paul Kohlbrenner, Treasurer; Suzanne Weiss, Assistant Treasurer; Sheri Blanchette, David Heagy, Tim Wendel, Lynn McMartin, Mary Foster, and Nancy Rooney. Senior Minister Rev. Jim Nelson and Associate Minister Rev. Bill Welch were also in attendance.
[...]
In executive session, the Board discussed the findings and conclusions of a congregational assessment performed in October, 2000 by consultants Revs. Stefan Jonasson and Richard Speck, and presented in their report to the Board dated November 28, 2000. The Board considered the broad judgments regarding conflict as well as strengths within the congregation, and specifically considered each of the seven recommendations presented in their report. These recommendations concerned a Committee on Ministry, the UUCF chat list, models of liberal worship, large church dynamics, use of an outside parliamentarian at congregational meetings, the UUCF Nominating Committee, and pastoral care. The Board will seek clarification from Rev. Jonasson on some points made in the report and will consider various courses of action in response to the report.
The Board will continue this discussion at its regular meeting on December 12, 2000, in Building I.
Subject: [uucf-info] UUCF Board of Trustees Regular Meeting Minute-- December 12, 2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:05:17 -0500
From: "Mary Foster"
To: [UUCF Info]
[Excerpts]
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of FairfaxTrustees in attendance: John Cunningham, President; Kurt Jensen, Vice President; Nancy Commisso, Secretary; Paul Kohlbrenner, Treasurer; Suzanne Weiss, Assistant Treasurer; Sheri Blanchette, Tim Wendel, Lynn McMartin, and David Heagy. Associate Minister Rev. Bill Welch was also in attendance.
[...]
Recommendations from Reverends Speck and Jonasson: Mr. Cunningham noted that he had sent an email to Rev. Jonasson asking for clarification of certain issues, but had not yet received a response. The Board then addressed the seven recommendations made in the September 28, 2000 report to the Board from Revs. Speck and Jonasson:
Recommendation 1: Regarding a Committee on Ministry, Mr. Cunningham noted that both Reverends Nelson and Welch currently have committees on ministry. Rev. Welch said that his committee meets fairly regularly and serves as a confidential, advisory group. He values their support and ideas. Mr. Cunningham pointed out that the Board has a task force underway, with a mission to develop an evaluative system concerning the ministry. Task force members Ms. Commisso and Ms. McMartin noted that their task force efforts, led by former Board President Alison Eskildsen, are focused on the development of a more broad system of communication and feedback involving all aspects of ministry to the congregation, including worship, pastoral care, religious education, and lay ministry. Task Force recommendations to the Board, expected in January, 2001, will include clear statements of the purpose and function of this comprehensive committee, one function of which will be to provide reports to the Board that could be used in the Board's more formal ministerial evaluations. Mr. Jensen noted that the Arlington UU church describes their comprehensive Committee on Ministry on their web page, and urged the Task Force to consider their model. He also asked that the Board encourage Revs. Welch and Nelson to use their existing ministerial relations committees as a way to strengthen the feedback mechanism inherent in these support groups. The motion was made and approved unanimously that the Task Force's proposed committee be named the Committee on Review and Renewal of Ministry. The Task Force will work with the ministers on the development of Task Force recommendations to the Board. In the meantime, the Board noted that the existing ministerial relations committees for Reverends Welch and Nelson could continue, certainly, at the discretion of the respective ministers. The Board would not expect or need reports from those committees.
Recommendation 2: The Board accepted the recommendation that we continue to use an "outside" parliamentarian for our congregational meetings. On behalf of the Board, Mr. Cunningham has written to Mr. Rollie Winter asking that he continue in that role. Mr. Winter has agreed.
Recommendation 3: Following discussion, Mr. Jensen moved that in lieu of abolishing the chat list, the existing Newsletter and Editorial Committee(NOEC) develop new procedures with the assistance of the UUA Department of electronic communications. The motion was passed.
Recommendation 4: Regarding education of the Board and congregation on large church dynamics, the Board was in general agreement on the need for this information. Suzanne Weiss agreed to query the UUA on the possibility of financial and professional support for this education effort.
Recommendation 5: John Cunningham agreed to send a letter to Nominating Committee chair Kathy Birnbaum endorsing the recommended changes in the operation of the committee. In particular, the Board agreed that there is merit in the recommendation that committee consensus not be required for Board member nominations.
Recommendation 6: The Board noted that changes are underway in regards to pastoral care. The Pastoral Care Committee will report to the Board at its January meeting. Furthermore, the recommendation for a religious education director will be considered as part of the staffing assessment and budgeting proposals in 2001.
Recommendation 7: It was noted that any enhancements to worship, as recommended in the report, would be considered by the existing Worship Committee, composed of the three lay ministers for worship, Judy Harrison, Revs. Welch and Nelson, and Alison Eskildsen. It is expected that they will present a report to the Board after their next committee meeting in January.
[...]
Subject: Withdrawal of Membership
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:45:53 -0000
From: "Billye Stevens"
To: [Birds of a Feather], [numerous others]
Dear Friends,
This morning, I sent an e-mail to Pattie asking to become a Friend of UUCF, with no voting right.
As I said, it is not goodbye. Billye Stevens
Subject: We too have moved to just "friends"
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:43:02 -0400
From: Jane Anthony
To: [Community for Constructive Change]
Dear CCC:
We are sharing a note we sent to the Board this evening both by e-mail and hard copy. We will be trying out other options. Enjoyed UU of Reston last week.
Jane and Bob
* * * * * * * *
Dear UUCF Board:
Please change our status from "members" to "Friends of UUCF." We will be making the minimum pledge next year and do not plan to vote at the upcoming congregational meeting. Our hearts were with UUCF for over a decade, and we felt UUCF was a unique spiritual organization -- one of comparable size when Ralph Stutzman left to what it is today. However, we recognize from mediators' dismissal of our concerns as unrealistic expectations for a "large" church that this unique vision of a spiritual organization is no longer considered practical by either the current ministers and board or the consultants.
Disappointed and grieving the loss of this unique place and a majority of the people who made it unique, we have chosen to leave. We want you to know this now so you can make an accurate estimate of the number of supporting members for the upcoming decision about the proposed $3 million building expansion plan.
Sincerely,
Robert and Jane Anthony
Subject: Withdrawal of UUCF membership
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:06:15 EST
From: PMMore@aol.com
To: [Community for Constructive Change] [numerous others]
Dear Members and Friends,
In the spirit of renewal that comes with a new year, we are making clean breaks with the parts of our lives which are not working well.
Despite John Cunningham's 1/03/01 Newsletter spin on the UUA consultant's recommendations, we expect there will be little substantive change in church policies and procedures. Thus, we have withdrawn our UUCF membership effective immediately.
The best any of us can do in matters of the spirit is to search deeply, then follow our individual hearts. For us, ongoing support of UUCF is also support of the senior minister and related leadership & policies, which we truly believe are unhealthy and do not reflect historic UU principles.
Many of last year's 121 petitioners say they will not renew UUCF membership in the upcoming canvass. If you have decided to leave, you may want to officially withdraw now so the record reflects the Church's true membership status. This may enable the congregation to make a more informed decision in their January 21 vote on the proposed $3.1 million capital expansion.
Once again, we thank you for your support to return UUCF to its UU principles. Our wish is that our paths continue interweaving and that all of you have a new year filled with love, happiness and good health.
Warmest regards,
Pat and Robert Moore
Subject: A Friend after 25 year membership
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:15:36 -0500
From: "BillyeStevens"
To: "Birds Of A Feather"
HI,
Others have withdrawn in some manner from UUCF. A few long time members will or have withdrawn to attend orientation and join at UUCReston. Ten people from UUCF must have swelled the numbers there, as the Minister comment on how many were in attendance this past Sunday. Reston is a small church. The Minister spoke of urging the Reston church to build!
My heart is with an openness and lack of ritual in services I found at the Fairfax Unitarian Church nearly 30 years ago. I am acquainted with old-time members and new members. I could not withdraw totally. Sadly, I simply no longer fit with the decisions and ministry of UUCF.
A Friend to the church has little "squeaking room". I visualize the UUCF Leadership being glad that I am putting a muzzle on myself.
HA! But not entirely.
Max Brown told of the strife in their church, the split, ten year delay of the building campaign, and the minister no longer at any church.
The UUA Consultants Report referred to a high level of conflict in UUCF that has been allowed for too long. Our folks are going ahead without acknowledging or heeding to the advice in the report that the congregation should meet and heal. The Feasibility Study made a similar suggestion. Is that a wise decision? Do answer.
Buildings always exceed expectations. I earnestly hope that the Capital Campaign will succeed.
Billye
Subject: Membership Withdrawal
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:15:20 +0000
From: Alisa Joaquin
To: [UUCF Chat]
Let this be my final notice on UUCF Chat. I am withdrawing my memberhip effective Monday, January 15, 2001. I no longer can afford to be a member of Fairfax for the following reasons:
I will continue to be friends with those that I have made deep friendships with over the years. I do not wish to loose that. They are like precious gems to me. I will keep in touch through other means. You will still see me at annual picnics and gatherings at people's homes, but you will no longer see me at church or on UUCF Chat. I can no longer be a part of Fairfax's political and congregational strife. Until EVERYONE in the congregation sees the truth and stops denying to themselves that there is no strife, only then can the congregation move forward and begin to heal. I wish everyone peace.
Alisa Joaquin
PS: Since this is my last communication, please remove me from the UUCF Chat and Info lists. I can no longer afford to be on both.
Subject: Withdrawal of Membership
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:00:18 +0000
From: Alisa Joaquin
To: Birds of a Feather
Many of you who are on Birds of a Feather are also on UUCF Chat. I just sent a message to everyone on UUCF that I am withdrawing my membership from Fairfax. I wanted to let everyone know on here that I will NOT be withdrawing my membership on Birds of a Feather. In this way, I can still receive messages, at least in part, to know what is going on, but I will no longer be receiving two copies, since those on UUCF Chat often get the same messages.
I like being here on Birds. We are free to speak our minds. I have tried to be a voice of reason on UUCF Chat and it has either gone unnoticed, received warmly, or received with scorn, mostly (and lately), my words have gone unnoticed. I try not to take it badly when no reply is given but try to hope that my words have reached at least one person and taken to heart. I hope I can continue to share words of wisdom from the Tao with all of you. With the death of my friend Phillys Morrison and her memorial service being held tomorrow, I do wish to share with you these words:
To live life fully, first see it through the image of your own death. The ignorant squander their time on things that do not sustain the soul.
When you are really ready to embrace life, hold onto the assuance that too soon you will die.
Only after lying motionless at the bottom of your depths will you begin to perceive the shallowness of your life.
As you break the surface of the water, your first breaths will be full of inspiration.
>From this new vantage point, you will be more inclined to enjoy even the waves in you life.
Be as a knife cutting water: immerse yourself in life, and when it is time, withdraw, leaving no trace.
(From Tao Passages The Way home by Dorien Israel)
Peace, my friends
Crane
Subject: Re: To Be (lieve) or not to be (lieve)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:55:31 EST
From: [Pat Moore]
To: [Birds of a Feather]
Dear Marcia,
Your graph and statistics showing that UUCF membership has been declining for six continuous years and comparing it with growth in the other large UU churches in this area was included in our April 18 letter to the congregation.
In small group meetings (like prebudget forums where 20 members show up), some board members have acknowledged that your UUCF membership statistics are correct. However, in the larger congregational meetings and in the Newsletter, the senior minister and other board members seem to have distracted people from focusing on the real numbers. They do this by talking about a sometimes full parking lot on Sunday mornings or by including "friends," inactive members and RE children in their membership count.
Apparently, UUCF reported to UUA that they had 602 members on January 1 or 2. Assuming this is true, membership must now be less than 590. I know of more than a dozen members who have officially withdrawn (or changed from "member" status to "friend" status) since January 3.
If all the petitioners who say they are leaving do not renew membership in the upcoming canvass, UUCF may well become a "medium-sized" church (550 members or less). This, at a time when the board is encouraging the congregation to go forward with a $3.1 million building expansion.
I believe in the wisdom of "seeing the glass half full," but not to the point where it completely blurs my vision. When it's nearing empty, willing it to be half full will not make it so.
Pat
Subject: I'm Moving on.....
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:02:14 -0400
From: Jane Anthony
To: [Birds of a Feather]
Dear List:
I need to weigh in on my thoughts.
As an original signer of the April 18th letter I feel that it is wonderful that people are talking about reconciliation and let's just be friends and get over all this.
BUT the big BUT for me....is:
Where were all of those who think we should just get together and let
bygones be bygones - when the petitioners talked with the Board,
when we sent out our concerns as a group as individuals and when we
met with the Mediators.
I truly hope and wish some of our concerns are addressed and UUCF can learn from how we were all treated ...or dismissed.
But as for me I will keep the good memories of my 11 year membership and move on.
Jane
Subject: Bob Anthony adds his input
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:28:34 -0400
From: Jane Anthony
To: "Birds of a Feather"
Dear List,
I concur with my wife Jane. We have been members since 1989, and, over the years, came to love many people in the congregation. In the early 1990's, UUCF had already reached its current size. It was a spawning ground for small groups that interacted on an intimate level as well as creating a rich environment of grass-roots upward worship services, performances, and connections supporting all the congregation's activities.
Since the early 1990's, UUCF grew very little, and, in the last few years, it pained us to see many of our closest friends leaving. We would ask why and were discouraged by their answers. Somehow, the members of UUCF had lost their ability to listen to one another, so issues grew and compounded into real conflict. We had hoped that the consultants would have the vision to explain how issues were resolved in those earlier days -- by simply listening and encountering one another on a small group or intimate level. This didn't happen. It seemed as if the consultants also had not experienced a congregation as we had from the early 1990's -- the summary report we recieved from the consultants indicated such organization was impossible for a "large church."
I am glad to hear that UUCF is now recreating some of those processes that worked so well in the past. I believe you will all find that the personal connections these processes engender will be very fulfilling. However, I as a signer of the April 18th letter am still grieving that we petitioners were not heard in a way that connected with us when we held out our hands and needed that connection. I wish you well, but no longer feel welcome in your midst.
Good luck,
Bob Anthony
[Jane Anthony Resigns UUCF, 30 Jan 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: Report to UUCF Board
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:36:14 EST
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: "Community for Constructive Change"
To: [Rev. Stefan M. Jonasson], [Rev. Richard Speck]
Rev. Stefan M. Jonasson
Coordinator of Services for Large Congregations
Rev. Richard Speck
Acting District Executive, Joseph Priestly District
Dear Revs. Speck and Jonasson,
While I am writing only as an individual, I believe I speak for many in expressing my concerns about the consultants' report, authored by you, addressing the problems at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax.
It is my impression that most of the petitioners agree with a majority of the report's recommendations: a Committee on Ministry, an outside parliamentarian, majority vote within the Nominating Committee, increased level of pastoral care, and more diversity in worship.
In some cases, however, the authors appear to have heeded only one side of an issue.
First, the report cites growth in membership as a cause of much of the conflict. Recent growth in UUCF membership is a myth. The UUCF membership has not been growing in the past few years; it has been declining. (I assume that the Board delivered to you the data in membership and pledge income. In case they did not, I have attached a copy.)
For example, the report states, "Attendance and financial figures point toward general health, not decline." [Italics mine] The report does not add, "A careful comparison with the three other large UU churches in the DC area shows that UUCF membership is declining while the others are either stable or growing; and that UUCF's pledge income has kept up with inflation, while the other three churches all show significant increase." I'm sure you are aware that if one ignores inflation, then even a shrinking organization can appear to be growing.
Second, the report describes the official UUCF chat list as toxic and recommends discontinuing it. However, the report says nothing about the informal chat list started by one on the UUCF members. I think you would find that not toxic at all. The main difference between the two chat lists is that the informal one has no restrictions on freedom of speech.
Third, the report assumes that most of the disaffected members' concerns derive from two sources: (1) nostalgia for the church as it was fifteen yea rs ago, and (2) the usual discomfort when a church grows from medium size to large. Both assumptions are false. First, many of the petitioners joined UUCF eight to ten years ago, not fifteen. Second, the current disaffection has increased during the past five years, while the church's membership has been declining, not increasing.
Fourth, the report refers to UUCF congregants who "demonize the Senior Minister." It says nothing about the Senior Minister's demonizing some of his congregants not only in private but from the pulpit.
However, I am most concerned by what the report does not say. The report does not address the concerns of the many long time UUs who feel driven out of UUCF -- the church to which they have contributed much time, talent, and money. I see nothing in the report that offers any help to these 120+ people in their continuing UU journey.
Surely you are not suggesting that the UUCF petitioners try to "work things out" with the UUCF leadership? The petitioners have tried many times to work things out with the leadership. The response has been at best to belittle not only the message but also the messengers and their delivery methods. At worst, the UUCF leadership has thwarted all avenues of freedom of speech. Any point of view that conflicts with that of the Senior Minister is not allowed expression -- not at congregational meetings, not in the newsletter, not during Sunday Services, not on the chat list. Members who express conflicting views are blackballed by the nominating committee -- a committee that your report recommends work closely with the Senior Minister.
At this point, many of the petitioners feel abandoned not only by their own church but the UUA as a whole. I hope that this is not the best the UUA can offer to long time members driven from their church. If my hopes are misplaced, then I must seriously consider leaving the UU movement.
Sincerely, Marcia P. Helme, Ph.D.
[Contact information removed.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Membership figures for the 4 large UU churches in the Washington, DC area, as reported to UUA each JANUARY.
| Arlington | Cedar Lane | UUCF | River Road | |
| 1995 | 764 | 901 | 696 | 535 |
| 1996 | 761 | 909 | 672 | 548 |
| 1997 | 832 | 865 | 664 | 572 |
| 1998 | 870 | 917 | 648 | 584 |
| 1999 | 885 | 940 | 620 | 628 |
| 2000 | 943 | 908 | 605 | 689 |
| 2001 | na | na | 602 | 719 |
Total Operating Pledge Income, adjusted for inflation, in $1,000, as given in each church's annual reports.
| Arlington | Cedar Lane | UUCF | River Road | |
| 1995 | 509.7 | 482.5 | 457.2 | 314.2 |
| 1996 | 602.2 | 515.2 | 434.9 | 328.0 |
| 1997 | 569.2 | 530.4 | 438.9 | 357.6 |
| 1998 | 639.4 | 557.7 | 443.9 | 391.1 |
| 1999 | 640.8 | 558.9 | 448.5 | 418.2 |
Subject: Renewed faith in UU'ism
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:38:02 EST
From: Pat Moore
To: [Community for Constructive Change]
[This letter has been edited slightly as requested by the author.]
Hi to everyone,
After our dealings with the Nelson-Jonasson-Speck trio, and the UUCF congregational response to our concerns, Robert and I were seriously considering leaving UU'ism altogether.
However, a number of you, and especially Marcia Helme, kept saying you had had many experiences at other UU churches but never before dealt with a minister like Jim Nelson.
So, a lot of us have been trying out other churches. The Anthony's and I have gone to Reston UU a couple times. Sheila Barrows, Becky Trachtman and Audrey Van Vliet have already joined Reston. The Anthony's, Moores and Steve Clapp really like it, too.
Today, a bunch of us attended River Road. The minister, Scott Alexander, is truly dynamic. Marcia, I can see why you've joined. (Marcia Helme and Don Martel are River Road members.)
What a difference between these churches and UUCF. My faith in Unitarian Universalism is being revived. UU'ism appears to be alive and well everywhere except in Fairfax.
We've also heard from many who have joined or are attending the Sterling church--Al Swett, Mike Berger, Alisa and Gary Joaquin, Judy Gruner and E. B. Kirkbride. They are all very happy there.
Apparently, Marsha Swett and a couple other UUCF "questioners" are very much enjoying Bull Run. (I plan to attend both Bull Run and Sterling sometime soon.)
Arlington and Accontink (sp?) also get high ratings. I have friends at both places. Looks like we have lots of choices among UU churches that truly practice UU principles; and it feels good. I'm going to try them all before I land.
Unfortunately, it does appear we're headed in a lot of different directions on Sunday mornings. I hope the old UUCF'ers--and especially this group that's done such good work together in the past year--find ways to stay together as a group.
This and the birds chatlists help. Thank you, Alex.
Also, I've been told by Zeena and others that "Singles and Friends" is an ongoing option for us to get together. I've never been but will attend soon. Finally, we have started a first-Sunday-of-the-month breakfast bunch. (In addition, we have the option on the first Sunday, to visit other UU churches, and especially to visit our friends at other UU churches.)
We did that today. Jane and Bob Anthony, Steve Clapp, Tony DeCamp, Mary Lazar, and I all visited Marcia Helme at River Road. It was fun. After the service, we went to the Oakton Family Restaurant where we hooked up with Al Swett and Mary Matheny. We also got to visit with the UUCF breakfast brunch.
Let's keep the energy flowing.
Love you guys,
Pat
Subject: Craig Goff's letter re: concerns about Stefan Jonasson
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:51:37 EST
From: [Pat Moore]
To: [Mike Berger]
Dear Mike,
Here is Craig Goff's letter to the board outlining petitioner concerns. Nearly 60 petitioners signed a followup letter urging the board to respond to Craig's questions before bringing in Stefan Jonasson. (This was over half of the petitioner members in September, because more than a dozen petitioners discontinued their membership during the summer.)
John Cunningham provided a brief reply to Craig's letter, which I will locate and forward to you. John's letter essentially dismissed Craig's questions and ignored the petitioners' concerns about Stefan Jonasson.
Pat
PS: Also of note, the petitioners had previously expressed concerns about Stefan Jonasson on at least two occasions--the July 2000 board meeting and the May 2000 meeting with Jim, Bill, Alison and 10 of the April 18 letter signers.
Jim had met with Stefan on a number of previous occasions. Since the senior minister had a previous relationship with Stefan, there was a natural concern about Jonasson's ability to be "objective." In fact, Jim had championed Jonasson as the person who could do the job as far back as the May newsletter--the newsletter distributed to the congregation immediately after our April 18 mailing.
The petitioners' goal was to bring in a fair, objective and neutral mediator. If the board shared that goal, surely they would have ignored Jim's request for a specific person, honored the petitioner's concerns about Jim's naming of the consultant and instead, brought in someone both sides believed would be objective.
[Craig Goff's letter to the board that appears in Letter To Board on Facilitator, by Craig Goff, 16 Sep 2000 is quoted in full here.]