Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Authority to Suspend or Place a Minister’s Search on Hold

General Assembly 2026 GA Business
,
1

PURPOSE: This proposal is for amendment of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) Bylaws and Rules, Article XI Ministry, Section 11.5. Termination of Fellowship and Administrative Suspension, to limit the authority to place a minister on hold from settlement, interim, or contract searches to the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) or Board of Trustees (BoT).

TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Section 11.5 of Article XI of the Bylaws shall be amended by adding the following sentence at the end, stating:

9   “Notwithstanding Bylaw Section 11.2 that reserves to the Board of Trustees the exclusive power
10   to approve proposed rules of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee governing ministerial
11   fellowship, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee shall have the exclusive authority to suspend or
12   place a minister’s search on hold, and may establish policies and rules to effectuate this authority.”

IMPACTED RULES: UUA Rules and Polices of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, Section 22, Administrative Hold from Settlement:

When a minister experiences conflict or a difficult parting with a congregation or other institution, UUA Ministries and Faith Development Staff Group or Congregational Life staff (collectively, “MFD or CL staff”) may refer that minister to participate in a process of assessment by the UUA review team. MFD or CL staff may also refer ministers who show a pattern of conflicted ministries and/or inability to maintain positive congregational, collegial, staff, and/or community relations for a process of assessment by the UUA Review Team. MFD or CL staff have the right to place the minister on hold from settlement until the assessment process has been concluded, or for a period of not more than three years.

EXISTING BYLAWS TEXT Article XI, Section 11.5:

1417   The fellowship of a minister may be terminated by the Ministerial
1418   Fellowship Committee for unbecoming conduct, incompetence or
1419   other specified cause. Full fellowship may be terminated only after
1420   notice by the Committee and opportunity for a Fellowship Review
1421   before the Committee. During an investigation or the pendency of a
1422   complaint, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee may suspend a
1423   minister until a final determination can be made on the minister’s
1424   fellowship status.

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

REFERENCES:

GA 2026: Business Complete — Thank You!
2

Could someone please provide context for this proposal

3 Likes
3

A key issue not addressed by this proposal is: How a decision to suspend or defellowship a minister may be appealed? I’m thinking of the need for something like an Appeals Court - not beholden to the current UUA power structure - but to fundamental rights, requiring well-established legal procedures.

In recent years there have been too many actions by the MFC based on ideological or procedural disputes, or even personality conflicts, things that are better addressed by other means than suspension or defellowshiping.

3 Likes
4

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

Background

•MFC Rules and Policies describe that, when a minister experiences conflict or a difficult parting, or shows a pattern of conflicted ministries, UUA MFD or CL staff may refer that minister to participate in a UUA Review Team process – and place the minister on hold.

•Congregations are discouraged from hiring any minister who is not applying though the Ministry Search system. (1)

•Compensation is not available to ministers that are unemployed due to their search being placed on hold. [This was the subject of another proposed amendment, which has been replaced by a resolution for the UUA.]

•The Review Team: “Does not determine or change Fellowship status” (2). Yet, they’re delegated the power to revoke one of the major rights of Fellowship, access to the search system; which is in effect a change in status.

•The appeal process is for the minister to request an MFC Fellowship Review – at the April '26 UUA Board meeting, it was stated that this never happens, the minster would risk losing fellowship. So, effectively, there is no appeals process.

•There are approximately 2% (or more) of ministers on hold (2).

  1. UUA Settlement Handbook Revised 12/2024.
  2. Presentation to the UUA Board of Trustees, April 2026, “Information About the Review Team _Presentation to Board”.

UUA Review Team and “on hold” for Transition Ministers

•Placing a Transition Minister on hold from search, especially during the April/May congregation matching period, can cause a minister to miss opportunities, and effectively suspend them for months or more than a year, even if they’re later exonerated, or successfully complete their Personal Development Plan. [Settled Ministers may not be as impacted by a hold from search; it’s up to their congregation whether they continue to serve.]

•This can conflict with a presumption of innocence, equity, inclusion (full opportunity), dignity, and due process.

•The UUA Review Team’s goals include structured care, and developmental support. The Review Team process moves forward when they receive exit interviews from Congregational Life, and a written reflection and Personal & Professional Development Plan from the minister. (1)

•The Review Team’s processes are not aligned with Human Resources’ best practices, which emphasize regular check-ins, with prompt feedback and timely intervention, not episodic reviews. The Review Team’s processes are initiated at the end of a ministry - potentially putting the congregation at risk, and not observing congregational polity, and limiting the minister’s opportunity to address concerns.

•Restorative care could be completed prior to the end of a ministry – with a goal to avoid placing a minister on hold - and hold status could be authorized by a request to the MFC, not directly by the Review Team.

•There are mechanisms for Congregational Life staff to protect future congregations other than placing a Minister’s search on hold. These include the “Research Calls” with UUA regional staff, and reference checks. (2)

•This amendment ensures the Review Team processes do not include routinely placing a minster on hold from search.

  1. Presentation to the UUA Board of Trustees, April 2026, “Information About the Review Team _Presentation to Board”.
  2. UUA Leader Lab, December 8, 2025, Checking References: A Guide for Search Teams.

Bylaw Authority

Congregational Life staff’s authority to place a minister on hold is stated in the MFC’s Rules and Policies, and the UUA states that “the Review Team operates under the authority of the MFC” (1). However, this delegation of authority is not provided for in the Bylaws. Section 11.5: “During an investigation or the pendency of a complaint, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee may suspend a minister until a final determination can be made on the minister’s fellowship status.”

The UUA’s Feb. 2026 legal review of First Parish Brewster’s proposed Bylaw amendment (2) stated, regarding Termination of Fellowship and Administrative Suspension: “…the last sentence at Section 11.5 already appears to reserve to the MFC the sole power to suspend a minister during an investigation, thus making it unclear whether the Bylaw amendment is necessary.” i.e. the UUA Bylaws only grant hold authority to the MFC.

1. Presentation to the UUA Board of Trustees, April 2026, “Information About the Review Team _Presentation to Board”.

2. Memorandum, February 22, 2026, From Foley & Lardner LLP, To UUA Secretary; RE: Legal/Parliamentarian Considerations for Proposed Business Resolution and Bylaw Amendments.

2 Likes
5

I am wondering why a minister would be suspended before a complaint is resolved. It seems to me that, short of criminal activity (in which case I would expect criminal charges), all parties would be expected to continue on, and if a conflict is severe enough, either party might be looking for other options. Unless there is a pattern of successful complaints, which once recognized should be addressed, suspension for an undefined term seems improper. Admittedly I am new to this area, so would be interested in hearing more.

2 Likes
6

Parts of this missive from Ed Klein are confusing, but it does bring up some key concerns:

(1) A complaint about a minister can lead to a UUA “Review Team process” that places a minister “on hold” immediately. That is, without due process. This adversely affects a minister’s ability to search for a new position, not just his or her fellowship status, even if he or she is later found innocent or there is a successful conflict resolution.

(2) Although there is an appeals process in the UUA bylaws, it is never used, apparently because it is viewed as unlikely to have a positive outcome.

I conclude that the UUA is in dire need of both better legal and management consul, but it also raises moral and ethical issues.

1 Like
7

So, if I understand this correctly, as things currently stand, The Review Team, which operates under the authority of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, is able to suspend a minister - limiting their access to the Search system. This amendment would restrict that ability to only the UUA Board of Trustees and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee itself.

Given that the Review Team works under the authority of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, what do the proposers believe the impact of this amendment will be?

It seems as though the context Ed Klein provides, raises an array of issues - e.g. the lack of a meaningful appeals process - that the amendment does not attempt to address.

3 Likes
8

I believe that it would prevent the full committee from delegating its authority to a subcommittee. An improvement, as more people involved are likely to have a few more diverse viewpoints, but ultimately I believe that there should be a robust appeal process outside of the committee.

2 Likes
9

Hi. The UUA states that the Review Team operates under the authority of the MFC, but the MFC Rules and Policies only mention “Review Team”, with no description of its composition, procedures, or how the MFC exercises authority or oversight. A recent post on the UUA’s website mentions that the Review Team consists of UUA staff members. This amendment addresses the statement in the MFC Rules and Policies that the UUA Ministries and Faith Development Staff Group, or Congregational Life staff, have the right to place a minister on hold - the MFC is a UUA Board Committee, not a part of the UUA MFD or CL groups.
You’re correct on the lack of a meaningful appeals process - that could be something the Task Force on MFC Policies and Rules (the Business Resolution) looks into. Thanks!

2 Likes
10

The interim ministry process is important to both the congregation and the interim minister, and it can be delicate and challenging. It seems clear that this process needs some work. When I was attempting to inform myself about the proposed changes, I discovered that the UUA created a team that is charged “to design a constituent-driven process of both listening and assessment that will lead to the reimagining of our ministerial transitions system”. They are openly soliciting input for their process and are charged to report to GA next year. I think that providing them with details about this issue might be a preferred course of action.

6 Likes
11

Hi. We did consider the UUA Transitions Review Task Force - their summary page has: “As part of the ongoing effort to implement the recommendations from the Widening the Circle of Concern report, the association is seeking to address and dismantle the barriers preventing full inclusion in the religious leadership of Unitarian Universalism.” Which is an important, but different focus than our Bylaw Amendment and Business Resolution.

1 Like
12

FYI, I’m now able to post a link to the slides I’ll present at the mini-assembly. There are two sections, 1st is the Business Resolution, scroll to the 2nd section for the Bylaw Amendment. Slides are at the First Parish Brewster UU website: https://fpbuu.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/FPBUU-GA-Resolution-and-Amendment-May-27-2026.pdf

2 Likes
13

Ed, thank you for your explanations on the background issues and the intent of this proposed change in the bylaws.

In the original post on this topic, under “Purpose,” it says that the Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the Board of Trustees can place a minister’s search on hold. But under “Text of Proposed Amendment,” it says that only the Ministerial Fellowship Committee can place a minister’s search on hold. The Ministerial Fellowship Committee has the “exclusive authority” to do so. The text of the proposed amendment does not mention the Board of Trustees except to override their authority to approved proposed rules with regard to this issue.

It may be that the Board of Trustees never, in practice, puts a minister’s search on hold. Nevertheless, my question is, does the Board of Trustees currently have the right to place a minister’s search on hold, and would this amendment remove that right from the Board?

1 Like
14

Thanks. The discrepancy is a result of modifications made to the Amendment based on the UUA’s legal review in February, but is inconsequential. Their suggested language, which I agreed to, dropped mention of the Board of Trustees. It was a miss to not also modify the statement of purpose.

I’ve come to learn that the Board of Trustees does not place a minister’s search on hold, so there’s no consequence or change for the Board. The UUA’s summary of the review team (a link was posted yesterday at the mini-assembly) has this statement “Two bodies currently have the power to place a minister on hold: the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) and the UUA’s Review Team.”

15

They’re not suspended, they are just not allowed access to the ministerial search system. If they are not changing congregations it has no impact.

I have no inside knowledge, but I assume it is done to make sure a congregation does not call a minister who may not be able to serve.

1 Like
16

Hi. The intended meaning was suspend a minister’s search, or place a minister’s search on hold - I can see how it could be interpreted as you describe. I provide more information in the slides posted at First Parish Brewster’s website: https://fpbuu.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/FPBUU-GA-Resolution-and-Amendment-May-27-2026.pdf

And yes, the most important impact is to ministers changing congregations - in particular during the April/May congregation matching period - a key period for Interim ministers, but applicable to all types.

I believe the right to participate in the Ministerial Search system is a key right of Fellowship, and that the MFC’s Rule/Policy that allows Congregational Life staff to unilaterally place a minster on hold from search conflicts with the UUA Bylaws, that state the MFC shall have exclusive jurisdiction over ministerial fellowship.

17

If someone is moving, that suspension from the system effectively prohibits them from looking. That seems extreme without serious due process. If the minister has not actually been removed from fellowship, there is a big problem with prohibiting them from the search process.

3 Likes
18

There are two systems being conflated. Complaints go to the MFC to assess if a minister needs to be reviewed for fellowship to the UU ministry. Ministers being on hold is a way to engage a minister in further professional development before returning to ministry. (At least that’s the intention).

2 Likes
19

Except none of this is legal. It’s ecclesiastical.

1 Like
20

This is a major concern that many of us have right now.

1 Like