Proposed Business Resolution: UUA Task Force on Ministerial Fellowship Committee Policies and Rules for Interim and Developmental Ministers

General Assembly 2026 GA Business
,
1

1   PURPOSE: This proposal asks the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) to charge a task force with
2   recommending updates to Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) policies and rules for Interim and
3   Developmental Ministers.

4   BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) shall
5   establish a task force to:

6   (a) review the policies and rules relating to Interim and Developmental Ministers, and

7   (b) make any recommendations to the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) for modifications to
8   the policies and rules relating to Interim and Developmental Ministers.

PROPOSER: Ed Klein of First Parish Brewster Unitarian Universalist in Brewster, MA

REFERENCES:

GA 2026: Business Complete — Thank You!
2

Could someone explain what difference this addition will make?

3

Here’s a summary of the rationale. Sorry for the format, the discussion board doesn’t allow uploading of slides or links.

Motivation

•The MFC has jurisdiction over all phases of ministerial credentialing, including fellowship removal, and the authority to disallow participation in the UUA’s ministerial search process.

•A complaint to the UUA Office of Ethics and Safety can result in the MFC Executive Committee conducting a Fellowship Review, placing a minister on Administrative Hold (suspending a minister from search), and potentially removing a minister from Fellowship.

•Expectations of Transition Ministry (Interim, Development, Contract) (quotations from the UUA’s Ministry Search Handbook (1))

•“Interim Ministry helps congregations process transition, address unproductive practices, and prepare for new leadership”

•"Developmental Ministry serves congregations with repeated short ministries, chronic conflict, or systemic issues, requiring more time to make structural or cultural changes"

•“It is better to use an interim time to deal with these frustrations in a period of purposeful disequilibrium… Additionally, congregations may have areas of neglect and/or unproductive patterns that need attention.”

•And, from the UUA’s *Interim Ministry Appraisal Guidelines (*2), "Is the interim minister courageously raising the needful issues in the congregation?"

  1. UUA Ministry Search Handbook: the unified guide to transitional and settled ministry searches, January 2026.
  2. UUA Transitions Office Interim Ministry Appraisal Form, from UUA Leader Lab, December 8, 2025, Overview of the Interim Ministry Partnership.

What’s Needed

With these expectations and guidelines, Transitional Ministers aim to guide a congregation successfully from one settled ministry to the next, often through necessary—and sometimes difficult—change.

Because such change can spark conflict, and difficult circumstances, MFC processes need to account for the unique purposes and challenges of Transitional Ministers – Interim, Developmental, and Contract - but they don’t.

There’s no mention of Interim or Developmental Ministries in the MFC’s Rules and Policies for complaint intake and evaluation; none for fellowship review; none for placing a minister on Administrative Hold; and none for procedures to terminate fellowship. (1)

Neither the UUA Bylaws Renewal project (launched in 2022), nor the UUA’s Transitions Review Task Force (2025) will address these needs - the Policies and Rules of the MFC are not within their scope.

  1. Rules and Policies of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, as amended July 2024.

The Task Force

Some possibilities for the Task Force to consider:

-Ensure the MFC Committees include accredited Interim and Developmental Ministers.

-Include the Board of Trustees of the Minister’s (most recent) congregation in any review or investigation.

-MFC Policy and Rules modifications that reflect the challenges of transitional ministry.

-Changes to reflect the range of code of conduct violations in the UUMA Guidelines.

-Restore a safeguard, such as an independent audit, to help protect ministers against complaints made in bad faith (without requiring complainants be subjected to a 2nd full review). [Until 2022, MFC investigations included a 2nd independent review of a complaint investigation – it was removed out of deference to the complainant. (1)]

-For continuity, it’s recommended that the submitter of this resolution (or their delegate) be included on the Task Force, and that they be involved in selecting members. Members of the Task Force should include experienced Transitional Ministers, and Congregational Leaders with Transition experience.**

  1. uua website, March 23 2022 Draft Updates to MFC Rules regarding Termination of Fellowship**
2 Likes
4

I think that this is important; Interim and Developmental ministers have different roles from settled ministers, and are likely to engender controversy—in some situations, if they do not do so, they are not truly fulfilling the purpose. My UU society had a developmental contract minister, originally for 3 years, I think renewed once, and it was very beneficial, but was far from business as usual, lots of rethinking and revisioning. Independent review of a complaint is certainly warranted, and only the respondent, who is the subject of the complaint, not the complainant, who makes the complaint, should be able to waive it.

Any accusation that cannot stand up to independent review should be considered deficient. Of course, such an independent reviewer should be unknown and unaffiliated with either party, even if that means going outside UUism (highly unlikely).

4 Likes
5

FYI, I’m now able to post a link to the slides I’ll present at the mini-assembly (posted on the First Parish Brewster UU website): https://fpbuu.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/FPBUU-GA-Resolution-and-Amendment-May-27-2026.pdf

1 Like
6

Here is why I think a task force is needed to look at rules around Interim and Developmental ministers and modifications considered. Here is one example (I am sure there are others). One disgruntled member or staff member, upset by an Interim Minister’s attempts to help the congregation fix systemic problems can ruin a career if their complaint is taken up and the Interim put on hold. It is a timing issue. An Interim is only at a congregation for 2 years. If the complaint is lodged and accepted somewhere between October and February of the second year of the Interim’s term, they are automatically put on hold. The term for an investigation is not defined; can take months with the Interim minister missing the opportunity to participate in the spring search process so they do not have an employment gap and have a new congregation in the fall. Their next opportunity to search/match with a UU congregation is almost a year away. Of course, if the Interim is cleared, they can wait and participate in the following year’s search—although, at this point I’d think they’d be pretty banged up and discouraged, either leave the UU ministry or, if they stayed, be careful not to make waves at their next Interim church—which totally undermines the value of interims to address “chronic conflict, or systemic issues”…in a period of “purposeful disequilibrium.” A participant in the GA Mini Assembly on May 28 stated that her research shows the number of Interims being put on hold has increased recently. This should be a concern to all churches. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail—creating a task force to look at rules vis-a-vis Interims and Developmental ministers is a great idea.

5 Likes
7

Thanks; I share the concern about making ministers employees of the UUA, so I am pleased that that portion was withdrawn, but it does clearly show the need to limit the number of ministers put on hold especially during search time. I am also concerned about the reference to Human Resources best practices, as that also seems to make ministers employees of the MFC or CL, not their specific CFS (congregation/fellowship/society).

8

Hi. My mention of Human Resources best practices was in reference to the required Personal & Professional Development plan that ministers provide as a part of the Review Team process, and efforts to provide structured care and developmental support. It was not intended to describe, nor promote an employee/employer relationship. For clarity, substitute the words “Human Resources” with “Personal Development Plan” (best practices).

1 Like
9

If I understand this correctly, at present, the rules allow staff from Congregational Life (CL) and Ministries and Faith Development (MFD) to refer a minister who fits into a catchall of situations (“pattern of conflicted ministries and/or inability to maintain positive congregational, collegial, staff, and/or community relations”) to a “UUA Review Team,” also made up of staff (undefined, but probably from CL and MFD, including the same people who referred the minister?) to pursue a process of assessment (what this looks like and its intention is not defined in the rules) and automatically puts the minister on hold from search (which could significantly impact their career, especially if they are moving and the hold is in place in March/April)?

If one result of the Review is supposed to be some level of “restorative care” or professional development—it is unclear that allowing staff from the CL and MFD to automatically put a minister on hold, threatening to impact their career is restorative or an effective tool to develop ministerial skills …rather, it seems punitive. My take is that the whole process needs review and transparency; meanwhile, this amendment at least makes it clear that the MFC (a UUA Board Committee) is the only one to make the important decision whether to put a minister on hold from search.

1 Like
10

My question is why another task force when there is the Transitions Review Task Force and why?

1 Like
11

Hi. This is an important question! The Transitions Review Task Force scope does not include the Rules and Policies of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee - which is the focus of the Task Force proposed by this Business Resolution.

Although there’s some relation, and both mention terms such as Ministerial Transition, the Transitions Review Task Force’s focus is the “ministerial transitions system”, AKA the Ministerial search system, and in particular, “to implement the recommendations from the Widening the Circle of Concern report…”

To your question “why?”, the MFC Rules and Policies have no mention of the expectations for Interim and Developmental Ministers described in the UUA’s Minister Search Handbook, and in the UUA’s Interim Minister Appraisal Guidelines. This task force is intended to offer positive improvements to the MFC Rules and Policies in support of the very important service Interim and Developmental ministers provide, in often difficult circumstances.

2 Likes
12

Thank you so much. This has clarified quite a bit for me.

Many thanks,
Kat

2 Likes
13

The review process is not in the charge assigned to the Transitions Review Taskforce. We are charged with assessing the current transitions process for connecting congregations with ministers. There are plans to charge a separate task force with assessing our current review and hold process for ministers leaving a congregation in a conflicted situation.

14

Thank you so much for the update.

1 Like
15

Thanks. I haven’t seen an announcement about a task force assessing the current review and hold process.

16

Echo independent review outside of UU system for objective review. Also giving the accused fair voice time to clarify is important. Factors like grief state are important. Treating people like vending machines and not like human people should not be allowed in uu spaces. Fragile people who are easily upset and pearl clutching with kid gloves needed or narcissist that blame everyone else must be mind read. This is an important topic to address the mind reading expected of ministers.

1 Like
17

I want to connect this discussion topic with some content recently provided in a statement by the UU Ministers Association (UUMA) Board of Trustees, and a memorandum from the UUA VP for Programs & Ministries, and Executive Secretary of the MFC.

The UU Ministers Association (UUMA) Board of Trustees posted their opposition to the Bylaw Amendment on hold authority: Weekly News June 13, 2026: UUMA Statement on GA Bylaw Amendment - UU Ministers Association

Although the UUMA Board opposes the Amendment, I encourage delegates to read the statement, and to vote to support this Business Resolution, for a Task Force to review MFC Policies and Rules. The UUMA board states that the current system poses real challenges in conflicts of interest, issues of transparency, clarity, equity, consistency, and harms. The Business Resolution is a vehicle for what the UUMA asks you to join in advocating for - the creation of a collaborative and timely process to develop an effective, equitable, and just system that will reduce the precarity of the ministerial profession, reduce the harm, and align processes with our values. Although this Business Resolution is focused on Interim and Development Ministries, I would support the UUA expanding the scope to include all types of Ministers.

The UUA’s Memorandum on the Amendment, Impact Statement for Bylaw on Hold and Review Team.pdf, mentions that the new Director of Ministries and Faith Development, Rev. Dr. Savage, is prioritizing a review of procedures and practices to increase the effectiveness and timeliness of the review process. I applaud this initiative, it could be included in the scope of this Business Resolution for a Task Force, as the Review Team Processes are a part of the MFC’s Policies and Rules. Including the work as a part of the Task Force would realize the goal stated in the memorandum, “…to improve the review system going forward to meet its goals”, and the Task Force could include the mentioned stakeholders.

1 Like
18

Procedural question: Is the UUA/Board of Trustees allowed to expand the scope of a Business Resolution, or are they limited to the scope as written + voted on by delegates?

19

Hi, thanks for your question. Amendments to the Business Resolution are not permitted, the deadline for that has passed. I don’t see an issue with expanding the Task Force’s scope (after it passes at GA) to all types of ministers. I of course would not support the opposite, a narrowing of scope, in violation of the vote.

1 Like
20

Thanks for your responses Ed. I remained concerned about this Business Resolution because it still seems slanted against ministers particularly transitional ministers (interim and developmental), who are in conflicted congregations with members who are resistant to change. The phrase that concerns me most in your earlier post is “Restore a safeguard, such as an independent audit, to help protect ministers against complaints made in bad faith (without requiring complainants be subjected to a 2nd full review).” It’s the “without requiring complainants be subjected to a 2nd full review” that concerns me. Why wouldn’t the task force be able to look at that policy in addition to every other current policy? It’s my understanding that there is a shortage of UU ministers currently. If ministers know that going into a congregation as an interim or developmental minister could result in their fellowship suspension if not removal from fellowship, then they probably won’t do it, no matter how courageous they are. I hope that any task force will examine the power imbalances in the system as it stands.