However, timing matters tremendously; there are set times of year when search happens, and if that is missed, there are few if any opportunities for the rest of the year. There must be solid reasons and evidence to put a minister on hold during that period especially.
1 Like
@JudyUU Where did you find out about this team? Do you have a link we can follow?
While I’m in agreement that staff should not have the authority to place a minister’s search on hold, I question whether or not this should be in the bylaws. Would it not make more sense to make it a policy adopted by the Board of Trustees and implemented by the MFC?
2 Likes
Thanks. Only a bylaw amendment compels the Board of Trustees/MFC to make the change. The alternative, a GA Business Resolution, would be a recommendation to change policy, but up to the Board/MFC to decide - to date, they have not offered to make the change. And, it’s the UUA Bylaws and Rules section 11.2 that specifies “The Ministerial Fellowship Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction over ministerial fellowship except as otherwise provided in these bylaws.” The Ministerial Search system is an important right of Fellowship.
Where is it stated that Cong Life Staff can place a minister on hold? And what does this mean? Any member of CL staff for the region in question? Or by vote of all the staff members? Or the UUA body that oversees CL for all regions?
Hi. In the Rules and Policies of the MFC, here’s a link on the UUA website: Rules and Policies of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee - Google Docs
See section 22, Administrative Hold from Settlement: “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.” MFD = UUA Ministries and Faith Development Staff Group; CL = Congregational Life staff
This seems a remarkably punitive bylaw proposal in a year we’re set to discuss abolishing punishment everywhere.
I don’t understand - please explain how this is punitive compared to current policies & rules.
I understand that a GA Business Resolution wouldn’t have the same weight but I still believe this is a policy issue and not a by-law issue. Has the MFC given their rationale for not making the change you seek?
I don’t have a summary from the UUA or MFC beyond what was emailed May 23rd (from a General Assembly address), stating their lack of support for the amendment: “The Board believes there are important governance, accountability, and ministerial fellowship considerations that delegates should weigh carefully as they consider this proposal.” The UUA would have to provide their rationale.
If you ultimately maintain the view that this should be addressed as a policy change, I ask that you support our Business Resolution, for a Task Force on Ministerial Fellowship Committee Policies and Rules. Thanks!
As the current bylaws do assign that responsibility only to the MFC, then it would seem appropriate to include the clarification to ensure that there are not misunderstandings leading to improper delegation, so I support this.
1 Like
At the May 28th mini-assembly, someone with the UUA offered to provide data/trends on ministers that have been placed on hold. Where will that data be made available?
One question was about the number of Interim Ministers that had been placed on hold, and whether there’d been an increase.
1 Like
Also at the mini-assembly, UUA staff mentioned providing a report (of potential impact, I believe). I hope any new information will be provided in advance of the GA Business Sessions, to give delegates due time to comprehend and discuss (on this discussion board). The UUA is allowed unlimited time during the sessions, but sponsors and delegates get 2 mins 15 secs each, per item (Pro or Con line) - limiting opportunity to comment and discuss.
1 Like
I am a member of the Transitions Review Task Force. We have not been charged with examining the review process. While we are very aware of and informed about the review process, and certainly our work is informed by ministers’ experiences in the review process, it is not part of our charge. There is another task force that will be focusing on the review process.
1 Like
Dave, I am a member of the Transitions Review Task Force. See my comment below.
1 Like
Ministers and credentialed Religious Educators who have been removed from Fellowship or credentialed status revoked have the ability to appeal to the UUA’s Board of Review. While the Review Team is UUA staff and acts early in the process, the Board of Review is a committee in Article 3 of the UUA Bylaws and its members are elected by the General Assembly. There are two candidates running at this General Assembly. The Board of Review acts only in the event of an appeal.
Because the Board of Review is elected by the General Assembly and not appointed by the UUA Board of Trustees, they are independent of the UUA Board.
2 Likes
Thank you I am looking for why we are doing this. Your best guess helps. Thank you
Does the process uphold engagement with the minister fairly in a review process and have due process before for the punitive part. Does the BOT have a covenant and ethics to follow before we give them veto power over folks closest to MFC review?
The UUA staff report is enlightening - I can’t post a link, but it’s available on the GA business page on the UUA website.
1 Like