I think it’s ok if this change means we need to get more MFC members.
1 Like
Here are my remarks delivered today. Thanks for your participation!
Hi, I’m Ed Klein, a member of the First Parish Brewster Board of Trustees and the sponsor of this bylaw amendment. I’m a middle-aged man, wearing glasses, with brown and gray hair, and white skin. My pronouns are he/him.
Like the earlier Business Resolution, this amendment grew out of my congregation’s experience with the MFC’s processes. As I spoke with other congregations and societies, I learned that our experience was not unique. Similar concerns have arisen elsewhere, and some people felt harmed by the process.
I’ve listened carefully to concerns raised at the mini-assembly and on the discussion board, about the current authority exercised by Congregational Life staff. Much of that discussion has focused on the Review Team process, which can result in a minister being placed on hold from search, through processes initiated at the end of a ministry, rather than through proactive support during the ministry.
Being placed on hold from search can have profound consequences.
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.
This amendment also aims to ensure that being placed on hold from search is not a routine consequence of a staff review process, but instead, while not asking for a fellowship review, the decision be made by the body entrusted in our bylaws to oversee the rights of fellowship, which is the MFC.
I appreciate the additional information the UUA has published since the May mini-assembly, describing the Review Team and hold processes – but those publications do not change the existing MFC Policies and Rules, which permit Congregational Life and other staff to place a minister on hold from settlement for up to three years.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on this bylaw amendment. Thank you.
1 Like
This file created by the UUA describes the current review process. It describes the review team as, “The Review Team is made up of senior staff from the UUA’s Congregational Life (CL) and Ministries & Faith Development (MFD) staff groups.” Unfortunately, I can’t link in comments, but you can search for the “impact statement” from the UUA staff to read more about the current staff involved in review.
As a former Catholic I’ve experienced clergy abuse up close. There are certain allegations (e.g. child sexual abuse) which do call for emergency action and an abundance of caution. If this proposal succeeds, how would we deal with such an eventuality be handled? Would the MFC need to develop an emergency process to enact such holds?
I haven’t heard an argument that is persuasive to me for why this specifically should be a bylaw amendment. I think the current review of ministerial fellowshipping processes should continue and will hopefully result in more global and holistic recommendations and reform, but I don’t think this bylaw amendment would meaningfully help that process along.
2 Likes
It is also important to know that there is no clear appeal process for anyone who has been placed on hold and attempts to get clarity often lead to process that take longer. The current process is allowing Ministers to be kept on hold for too long and during times when the search process is open allows Ministers to be kept from employment for an entire cycle. The current process is not clear or transparent in how it is applied when a Minister leaves their position and that is a major issue.
I would have preferred to vote on a way for the GA body to set requirements around how the process will work and the allowable timeline that a minster can be on hold without a first meeting and review of their case or a requirement for some form of financial support so we don’t financially destroy our ministers. But there wasn’t a way for this type of to be brought to this body.
So regardless of how you vote please understand why this is a deeply harmful process. Please think about how we can further engage with the support and ethical expectations of our congregations, congregants, staff, and religious professionals -including ministers.
4 Likes
I think it is very reasonable to expect that the MFC would be able to implement an emergency hold process.
2 Likes
I’d really like to hear clearly from the MFC that they would not be willing and able to create policies and procedures to handle this process in a timely manner, instead of letting everyone make assumptions about what they can and can’t do. I think if we need to make it bigger we should do that. I think being held from the ability to apply for jobs is the same level of punishment as being temporarily held as out of fellowship and I really don’t think that is a choice that is appropriate for the UUA staff under our current bylaws.
1 Like
The process addressed by this proposed bylaw amendment would not be used in egregious criminal cases such as sexual abuse. In such cases the MFC can suspend or remove a minister from fellowship by simple vote. You can view this in the Rules and Policies of the MFC which are linked from this page: Ministerial Fellowship Committee See both 20.C “Procedures in Cases of Criminal Charges” and the “Appendix to MFC Policies” section.
1 Like
Do not support this Bylaw change. This needs to be transformed into a procedure document.
The bigger problem is lack of resources. The MFC is too small currently. It needs money and more members to accomplish its existing work. Without that investment it would be cruel to give them more work. We also need to streamline the credentialing process. When I saw the MFC in 2007, my packet was 103 pages. Now the MFC packet has ballooned to more than 200 pages. Yes, their work was doubled, and their numbers have shrunk. Money needs to be allocated to do this well. MFC volunteers are overworked and under appreciated.
We have defunded credentialing for 15 or years now. We used to have a “Regional Sub-committee on Candidacy” in each region. The RSCC interviewed aspiring ministers and often caught candidates who maybe should not have been on the right path. Sometimes they helped focus someone’s program of credentialing path and emerge stronger. The RSCC process was eliminated. Then the MFC was given more work and less resources.
Investment of money and members can provide relief here. Please vote NO on this bylaw amendment.
RS
1 Like
Thank you Evan. There are a lot of contingencies to understand here.
1 Like
According to the UUA bylaws and legal team, the MFC has exclusive power over fellowship and cannot cede its authority to others. Yet, 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 at a difficult parting from a congregation to a “UUA Review Team,” made up of staff (but the composition is undefined in the rules) to pursue an assessment of the minister (what this looks like and its intention are undefined in the rules) and automatically place the minister on administrative hold until the Review Team completes its process (with the possible outcomes, undefined in the rules). Meanwhile, the minister is kept out of the search process, basically unemployed for an amount of time, described positively in the rule (and, I am being facetious here) as “for a period of not more than three years” ! During the Review Team process, the minister is unemployed and receives no compensation.
Although information about the Review Team process was published on the UUA website within the last two weeks—and this is appreciated-- the web page did not clarify that staff from Congregational Life and the Ministries and Faith Development themselves can put a minister on hold during the assessment. This bylaws change would make it clear that only the MFC has the power to put a minister on hold and ensure that authority over Fellowship and the attached right to participate in the search process resides exclusively with the MFC.
1 Like
Question: What if the policy and rule the MFC chose to carry out the responsibility of putting people on hold is to delegate it to UUA staff?
I acknowledge that the MFC may be under-resourced but I also question whether all the work they are doing (and are asking the aspirants and candidates to do) is constructive or necessary. The packets didn’t double through some natural law of inflation; they grew because the MFC kept asking for stuff. For what seemed to them good reason, I acknowledge. That is why I called for a full review of the whole process and not just studying parts. And for crying out loud, look at what other denominations are doing.
There may have been good intentions behind the RSCC but by the time I saw them they were not fulfilling those. Part of the issue was that no one was clear on whether the RSCC was meant to be doing a gatekeeping or developmental review. (And, no, that confusion was not due to aspirants “not using the process correctly”.) The other issue was under-resourcing - turns out that having two under-resourced fellowshipping bodies didn’t really solve any problems.
1 Like
Hi. UUA staff are not members of the MFC, so it would seem that would violate the spirit of the bylaw. I do see your point on the language, the clause you refer to was added by the UUA in March as a part of their review. The Amendment text we submitted in February was the following:
Only the UUA Ministerial Fellowship Commiee (MFC) or the UUA Board of Trustees (BoT) may
suspend or place a minister’s search on hold. This authority supersedes all prior rules, policies,
charges, or pracces granng such power to others.
According to the UUA bylaws and legal team, the MFC has the exclusive power and cannot cede its power to others. With holds following a difficult leaving of a minister from a congregation, even one that has been negotiated, the MFC has completely given that power over to staff from Congregational Life and Ministries and Faith Development via Rule 22. This amendment is put the MFC back in the driver’s seat.
I am not sure why a negotiated resignation is even considered to be a problem, unless either congregation (I guess in practice that means congregational leadership) or minister consider it to be problematic. Am I missing something?
From experience, negotiated resignations happen in conflicted situations. The conflict could be anything from “the minister and the congregation just couldn’t agree” to “the minister agreed to a departure to avoid accountability” to “the minister was pushed out by bullies”. I think it does make sense to make sure a negotiated settlement isn’t hiding a problematic situation.
1 Like
The amendment is a start. The Review Team system needs to be reviewed, revised and criteria established as to its intentions, what it looks like, with outcomes defined, etc.-- under the oversight of the MFC with rules approved by the Board of Trustees. Commenters are making up what “could” or “could have” happened. We should not need to do that; his process should not be a mystery.
1 Like
In our case, it was a mismatch; we realized it rather quickly and I believe that our minister agreed. Rather than try to make a bad match work, moving on seemed best for all. (I was not on the board at the time, so this is a member’s perspective, though from remembered discussions with those more directly involved.)