UUA Board of Trustees - Latest Comments

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Alan Coffey — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:31:25 -0000

Maybe dealing with this kind of conflict is why every single UUA staffer gets sabbatical leave? I jest, somewhat.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Alan Coffey — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:29:52 -0000

John, I advocate separation of governance and GA. Let GA be a celebration and maybe a social justice event. Bring our UU's together to make an impact on some issue.

Governance should be democratic and via electronic means. I'm sure we are smart enough to figure out how to make that engaging for the folks who want to pay attention to governance. And that $100,000 would go a long way towards supplying our congregations with whatever devices are necessary. $1000 to 100 of our most financially challenged congregations might do the trick.

Re: Joint Statement on Ends Consultation

Alan Coffey — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:24:49 -0000

The UUA should, in my humble opinion, be funded via endowment proceeds. Let the moneys from the congregations stay in the congregations or at the Regional level to provide services to congregations. Free the UUA from providing services to churches and allow them to work with Covenented Groups. http://uucrm.org/blog/2013/...

While we are at it, perhaps the UUMA could pick up the transitions office too. Then the UUA would be able to focus on what it does best.

Re: Route to Regionalization Reveals Flexibility and Innovation

Alan Coffey — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:20:47 -0000

Perhaps it is time to test the limits of our creativity in governance and service provision: http://uucrm.org/blog/2013/...

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

john lawrence — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:13:07 -0000

Thanks for your response to my question. To me, much of the UUA output is not too far removed from the medieval "angels on the head of a pin" debates. Amazingly out of touch with the way many "real" people live is my perception of the leadership "so called". John Lawrence

Re: Joint Statement on Ends Consultation

Mineola — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:45:41 -0000

As a pledging member of a UU congregation for whom dues is paid to the UUA on the basis of my membership, I"d like to know what the cost was to develop this statement. That is, how many person-hours, at what rate of fully built of payroll cost, was paid to UUA staff to draft this statement? The statement is a whitewash and means nothing. It is more evidence of how our dues are being wasted. Stop sending money to the UUA.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Mineola — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:40:59 -0000

Thank you, John. In fact, look at any of the UUA agendas - whether for the the Board Meetings or GA. Then we should all ask ourselves. How does an investment of time and money in these agenda items "make the world a better place"? Answer: It doesn't. It just "makes work" for UUA staff and allows them to enjoy discussion and debate and being "in their heads" on the dime of the strugggling congregations. How do we change this? Certainly not through more agenda items!! How do the Congregations get shaken from the naive belieft that "the UUA" is serving their values? How do we get them Motivated to effect change at the UUA?How do we make them aware? We need to use our Congregations' resources to reach out at the local level and change real people's lives in our "parishes" - the area around our churches where we can reach real people, connect with them, and change even our own lives for the better in the process. What to do ?

Re: UUA Board Volunteer with UU Urban Ministry

john lawrence — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 20:19:44 -0000

Your squabble sounds as if time should be taken to reflect on a few principles of UUism. Skip the 100k consultant and read Robert Fulghum.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

john lawrence — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 20:14:25 -0000

Please explain what $22 million is used for? In 23 years as a UU I have seen little evidence of that level of expenditure benefiting me or others around me.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

john lawrence — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:58:35 -0000

I think you're being too polite. I think it stinks. Thanks for your comments with which I agree.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

john lawrence — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:55:15 -0000

Thank you. I totally agree.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

john lawrence — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:50:47 -0000

Thank you, Amanda. I agree with your concerns and statement

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Jim Kepler — Wed, 29 May 2013 01:19:18 -0000

The way I've read the limited accounts of the Boston Battles indicates, to me at least, that this board and its leadership are totally out of control. It appears the administration has been trying to do whatever it is that the board has asked it to do. It's the board and the moderator who can't seem to decide what that "whatever" is. I think the board has stuck us all with the results of its disastrous decision to adopt the Carver Model. Now the board has convened in (illegal!) secrecy to work out a solution to the problems it caused, and the best it can come up with is a plan to drop a hundred grand on a consultant to clean up its mess? Give me a break.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

PatrickMcLaughlin — Sat, 11 May 2013 23:04:59 -0000

I am trying to understand why I reacted to the news of the $100,000 funding as I did. I think it's because it appears that the board went into executive session -- which is a red flag. This is usually limited to things like discussing personnel matters, or legal (and related) matters that need not to be accessible to the public, for obvious reasons. Yet it's hard to look at the statements about what resulted and even begin to understand why it was deemed necessary. Wary of projecting onto a blank scree here, I still find it hard not to see it as a powerful indicator of something being very wrong. And yet, somehow, the application of $100,000 is an appropriate response to those unidentified concerns. It having been executive session, the board members are obliged not to talk about it. Yet it's what went on inside that meeting that is exactly what might clarify what all this is about and would have soothed concerns (one hopes).

*IF* I understand what happened, Peter Morales was excluded. Yet, as an ex officio member, the president *should* have been included.

http://www.flparliamentaria...

I find it all very troubling, and I know and admire a number of the people involved, and it pains me.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Mineola — Thu, 09 May 2013 19:43:14 -0000

We need to stop supporting what has become a bloated, bureaucratic power center. The only way to do so is for Congregations to stop sending money to Boston. the UUA staff are wasting our money for a comfortable pay package (we must be "Fair" after all!) . And now it turns out that for at least FOUR years the Board has been unhappy with the Administration and now all the two sides could agree on was to spend MORE money (a LOT more of it - $100,000) so that no hard work had to be done by them? For Pete's sake. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the warm/fuzzy staff of ministers-without-portfolio are not able to quantify results. They won't be able to do that AFTER we spend $100,000 either. They (UUA Administration) are failing us in so many ways. The Congregations are at a complete disadvantage because the volunteer leadership circulates in and out too quickly and have their own congregations to manage (and their own lives - they are not full time UU leaders like the UUA staff). Who has time to "organize" the congregations? So the UUA continues its ways by default, with no pressure coming from the "bottom" The power struggles the UUA had with the Pacfic Coast District, Clara Barton District in the past two years are shameful (google them). The UUA is not supposed to BE a power center. But they forget that and the Congregations do not provide an adequate power counterbalance. In fact, by continuing to send in ever increasing "dues", it nurtures it. But maybe awareness of $100,000 for a "consultant" will cause a rethink at the congregational level.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Alice Diebel — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:26:34 -0000

Perhaps the problem is policy governance. I guess we could find some way to measure that we are 10% more spiritual or 12% more active in our communities as a result of the actions of the association, but good grief. Much of the organization is about learning as we go, developing ourselves based on our values and principles. Yes, be accountable, but your evaluation will not likely be effective if it is about metrics. And I agree with Amanda O'Karma Esko about spending $100,000 on a consultant. What a waste when we continue to face financial hard times and the commissioning of a new headquarters. There's a metric for you!

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Amanda O'Karma Esko — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:15:44 -0000

I think the most concerning piece of this letter is right at the beginning, that the board and the administration cannot even agree to which reports are needed? So we're spending $100,000 to figure this out? Really? Let's start talking about things that matter, as in how to help congregations and our communities, not bicker over reports. How many meals would this 100,000 pay for? How many people could they sponsor to go to GA? Apparently the UU Board and Administration is as effective as our federal government.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Old_Boh — Tue, 07 May 2013 11:25:39 -0000

It came up in our Church discussion of GA that a number of members simply cannot afford the $1000 it takes to attend ($380 registration; 2 travel days, 4 conference days @ $150 each) -- If we want to think inclusiveness, we'd better lower the costs -- University dorms, perhaps? Lower fees / more scholarships? More communications about WHY folks should come? ---From Knoxville, TN

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Steve Buckingham — Tue, 07 May 2013 00:17:57 -0000

I was baffled by today's email message on the recent Board meeting. Until now, I was too busy with events at the state and congregational level to be aware of whatever was going on at the national UUA level. I was not involved in any outreach on goals or "ends statements," and I am not conversant with the lingo of "covenanted" networks or communities. I work with metrics on a regular basis, but I cannot find anything on the UUA website indicating what measures are being used and what they are measuring. I would be interested in learning what the issues are and perhaps contributing to solutions, but the information available so far is not very enlightening.

Re: Letter to Congregations – May 2013

Tim Bartik — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:42:21 -0000

The Board should be aware that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the vast majority of the members of the UUA to even figure out what you guys are fighting about.

Are metrics and indicators of success important, even for a non-profit organization? Yes, to an extent.

Can metrics truly measure the causal impact of everything an organization does on its bottom line goals? No.

I have no idea what metrics the Board is asking the Administration to produce. And I've perused various documents at the UUA website and been unable to find any details on this topic. The devil or God is in the details. (Or maybe it's the "Spirit of Life" is in the details.) I would have to know those details before I could reach any reasoned judgment as to which side has the better of the argument.

I personally find it difficult to believe that you're really fighting over metrics. It seems more likely that there is some disagreement over goals. But who knows -- maybe this is truly a fight over metrics rather than a submerged fight over goals.

Whatever the disagreement, I would urge you to reach for a reasonable compromise. Whatever the goals and whatever the metrics, it is hard to see how this in-fighting is contributing to the greater good.

Re: Route to Regionalization Reveals Flexibility and Innovation

Charmayne Harper — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:19:43 -0000

I am seriously hoping for some discussion regarding the behaviors within my own UUA congregation and have attempted to discuss this situation with Graham Kreicker two times in the past few years since we initially met. I am hoping that as a UUA Trustee, he will indeed respond now to help clear the situation and address the abusive problems in our own congregation that have gone unaddressed for a long number of years.

Re: Building a Web of Relationship: Two Stories of Repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery

Leah — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:17:34 -0000

that the European nation doesivcring land in the new world would decide how to deal with the people who were already there. This lead to many treaties of which were broken. The spanish invaded and conquered the Indian lands in several places and did not uphold the treaty agreement that the indian people would have special rights to the land.The U.S. Doctrine of Discovery was said that Indian tribes would be federally recognized, settlement of land and subsistence resources. These two definitions of the Doctrine of Discovery I see as the core root of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The statements today in ANCSA is basically the same. The oil people saw money and the pipeline needed to be built which would cross on native allotments and lands. In order for this to be settled they came up with ANCSA purchasing the land for $963 million and 44 million acres distributed to village and regional corporations.

Re: Transforming UUA Governance: The UUA Board and Nominating Committee

Shirley Bond — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:31:43 -0000

reat idea to reduce size of Board. Also great idea to have more diversity of Board members. All one has to do is look at the pictures and see that the boards configuration has not changed in 200 years.

Re: What’s Going On?

Debra Greenwood — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:37:21 -0000

Nancy,
Your eloquence is moving. You have touched upon the human piece of the whole immigration debate. I am very concerned that this human piece is missing when many talk about "getting these illegals out of our country." Jesus taught us to 'Welcome the Stranger.' I think our Christian friends would do well to remember this lesson.

Re: The Wind on My Face

John Hawkins — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:45:53 -0000

Hi Abigail! Thanks for your comment. "Policy governance" is a model that asks the Board to articulate the difference our organization makes in the world ("Ends"), and delegate the work of achieving Ends to our President (as head of UUA staff). "Monitoring" is the process by which the Board ensures that the President is indeed working toward the Ends we identified, and that the methods used to achieve those goals ("Means") fall within policy boundaries the board has set. You can find more information at http://www.uua.org/aboutus/.... We'll try to be as transparent as possible, but it may take a little conversation.