I am not seeing a UUA staff report on the GA website. Is it here: Annual Reports to the 2026 General Assembly?
No, it’s “Governance at General Assembly” under Board of Trustees. https:// www.uua. org/uuagovernance/board/ga-governance (remove the spaces, I still can’t post links)
It is listed as NEW under the relevant business item. Basically, and oversimplistically—it is just a couple of pages, so please read, especially if you are a delegate—it says that the staff have more day-to-day relationships with ministers and that the volunteer MFC already is at capacity. I am still a little unclear about the 2 review teams and about independence. Staff obviously works for the UUA; the board of review is elected by GA delegates, so theoretically more independent, but I am not sure of criteria or credentials.
Per UUA bylaws, the BoR consists of 3 ministers who have held full fellowship for 7 years, a religious educator with the highest level of credentialing, and four non-ministers who have been officers/board members of congregations for at least three years.
1 Like
I can post links now! The memo is available here. It is short, as Sally mentioned, and I recommend reading the whole thing.
The Review Team is staff from Congregational Life and Ministries & Faith Development. After reviewing documentation, they can place ministers “in care,” which removes them from search. The bylaw amendment would force the Review Team to operate differently and would put more responsibility on the MFC. The rationale for the process being governed by CL and MFD staff (vs the MFC) is that those staff have ongoing relationships with ministers across contexts and time. There’s no system to provide MFC members with the necessary information for the Review Team process.
I think it’s important to note that most Review Team processes do not go to a Fellowship Review, and are resolved in months with appropriate professional development. Fellowship Reviews are done by the MFC. If an unfavorable determination is made by the MFC, then ministers can appeal to the Board of Review.
2 Likes
From your description, the board of review elected by GA delegates are not actually involved in most of these situations, correct? In which case, independent review does seem to be missing, or at least more theoretical than real.
Thanks for posting about this, I wasn’t aware of the memorandum being posted on the UUA’s website. I’m surprised there was no notification to delegates and that it wasn’t posted on the delegate platform.
The UU Ministers Association (UUMA) Board of Trustees posted their opposition to the Amendment: 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 vote to support our 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 on the GA agenda for Monday 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 the Business Resolution is focused on Interim and Development Ministries, I see no issue with the UUA expanding the scope to 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 also be included in the scope of the Business Resolution for a Task Force, as the Review Team Processes are a part of the MFC’s Policies and Rules.
It would be great to have more in depth discussion on some statements in the memorandum, though that won’t be a part of Monday’s Business Session:
-The memorandum states that the Amendment could increase the timeline for ministers on hold - that’s certainly not something anyone wants, and though changes may be required, they should be with a goal to minimize the amount of time a minister is on hold.
-A rule change to MFC Rule 22 could result in elimination of the Review Team entirely - that’s not in the text of the Amendment.
-The memorandum states that “A minister can be placed on hold by the Ministerial Fellowship Committee
(MFC) itself or by the UUA’s Review Team”. They fail to mention that MFC Rule 22 also includes a clause that permits MFD or CL staff themselves to place a minister on hold: “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.” The UUA will say their practice is that it’s the Review Team that places ministers on hold, not CL staff - if that’s the case, the Rule should be modified to align with practice.
-The memorandum states that if the bylaw amendment passes, the MFC would take on the Review Team’s responsibilities - that’s not what the amendment mandates.
-The memo concludes by stating that it could require substantial investments in internal systems and volunteer capacity - given all the problems with these processes, I believe it’s clear the UUA needs to invest in improvements!
-Absent from the memorandum is any statement about a change to the appeals process for being placed on hold by the Review Team - the only option currently is for a minister to request a fellowship review, which no one wants.
Thanks for the robust discussion and links. They’ve been very helpful in clarifying the context and meaning of the amendment. One thing that I’d like to mention is that a minister under review is an HR issue. And, just like if you or I were under review by our employer’s HR Department, said minister is entitled, under U.S. law, to complete secrecy. That means, only the person(s) who filed said complaint and HR can know that said minister is under review and why. Even if said minister is removed, the congregation that said minister served, legally cannot be told the reason for removal.
Now, what if said minister, entitled by U.S. law to full confidentiality regarding both their status of being under review and the reason why, was under review due to being accused of sexual harassment, alcohol or drug addiction, racist behavior, anger management issues, or, what sooooo many Catholic priests got away with because U.S. law requires full confidentiality unless a criminal complaint is filed? What are the ethics, in this situation, of allowing said minister to search for a position at another congregation, who by U.S. law, can not be told that said minister is under review or the reason?
I have experienced this scenario firsthand at the Protestant congregation to which my family belonged. The congregation replaced our progressive, peace-loving, Jimmy Carter Era minister with a more traditional man that appealed to the Reagan Era zeitgeist. Unlike our former minister, “Brother Bob” felt called to lead youth ministries, where he proceeded to sexually assault at least 8 boys between the ages of 9-13 for over 5 years. At criminal trial, it was revealed that he had been under review at least once before, but, because it was an HR issue, U.S. law prohibited any mention of his then alleged behavior.
Yes, that was 35 years ago, but not for those 8 boys, who continue to be haunted by PTSD, behavioral challenges, and/or saddled with addiction through self-medicating against their nightmarish childhood. Not allowing a minister under review to apply for a new job may seem “unfair” to ministers but it protects unknowingly uninformed congregants, especially our most vulnerable members. My UU ministers are beacons of light, who I love, respect, trust, and depend upon for spiritual guidance. So, it’s impossible for me to believe that any one of them could harm anyone or anything. The truth of that beautiful and regenerative kind of spiritual relationship is assured by such UUA policies as prohibiting ministers under review from applying for positions at other congregations.
1 Like
It seems like some clarification and review of MFC rules, policies, and practices around the Review Team is needed, as the UUMA memo indicates.
I’m concerned that this change would both protect bad ministers and make it harder for ministers who have made mistakes that don’t rise to the level of misconduct to go through restorative/developmental processes. I think more consideration is needed to determine what changes would promote fairness and transparency while keeping congregations safe and maintaining the integrity of the ministry.
2 Likes
But the memorandum also says that “the Review Team is made up of senior staff from the UUA’s Congregational Life (CL) and Ministries & Faith Development (MFD) staff groups.” Then the members of the Review Team can place a minister on hold, do I have that correct? Is the problem then with them doing this as a Review Team?
In my view both the Review Team placing a minister on hold - which removes a major right of fellowship, and CL/MFD staff (independent of the Review Team) placing a minister on hold, exceed the authority in the Bylaws, which state “The Ministerial Fellowship Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction over ministerial fellowship except as otherwise provided in these bylaws.”
the HR relationship is between congregation/fellowship/society and minister, not minister and UUA nor minister and MFC (or minister and any review team, for that matter). A suggestion of the UUA giving a minister barred from search a contract job was rejected to ensure that an employer/employee relationship was not created.
1 Like
Question about Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Am I understanding correctly that if this Bylaw Amendment passes, the volunteer MFC will be the only group that can place a minister on hold? If so, what will be the benefit of this Amendment?
Hi. You’re correct. The benefit is the correction of policy/rules to be in alignment with bylaws.
The UUA’s Ministerial Search system is one of the core rights of Ministerial Fellowship. The UUA Bylaws state that “the Ministerial Fellowship Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction over ministerial fellowship except as otherwise provided in these bylaws.” – the bylaws do not include provisions to delegate authority to UUA staff. This amendment clarifies that.
When I read the Memorandum from the UUA staff, it sounds like the workload will increase further for these volunteers, resulting in delays in notifying ministers of their status and a loss of volunteers. Do you see these concerns as valid?
Hi. As a volunteer myself I’m always cognizant of the workload placed on volunteers, and support for our ministers is critical. There may be supporting changes and investment required to get policies right.
I see no improvement, and it seems like forcing what should be a procedure into the Bylaws, which is always a bad idea. For the record I always want bad ministers - ineffective, misconducting, or those simply unfit for service - to be weeded out of our membership. What we could use are resources for the MFC to help train and expand their membership so they have more ability to react quickly.
Please oppose this amendment.
RS
1 Like
What does the current 'staff" authority really mean? the whole UUA staff? a majority vote of the ministry staff to place a minister on hold? a subset of UUA staff specifically charged with this authority? Can someone please clarify what “staff” means in regard to the present concern.
1 Like
As a lay person who has seen ministers with underrepresented identities get stuck in this process for a long time without adequate recourse to speed up the process. I am very surprised and concerned that we reserve decisions about Ministerial Fellowship to the MFC, but we are allowing UUA staff members to place ministers on hold and remove them from access to apply for positions in a way that punishes them as if they are out of Fellowship without a Fellowship decision.
I urge you to vote yes on this amendment. Please remember it gives the MFC the authority to establish the policies and rules to carry this out. Those could be done in such a way to easily differentiate those Ministers who have had a positive or neutral separation from their congregation and as such I do not believe it will automatically make the process take longer and could in fact make it faster.
1 Like