[Fuusm-l] Let's have open meetings where everyone can participate.
Annie Warmke
annie at bluerockstation.com
Thu Aug 17 10:52:44 CDT 2023
Tom et al; Everyone deserves to be heard and to live in a safe
environment. Telling the truth doesn't often feel safe, and we could
see that on July 23rd at the congregational meeting. While all of this
back and forth, and policy changing seem to be rooted in the current Kat
situation, I believe it is important to recognize that we are a society,
and legally responsible for every decision the board makes. The board
works for us and we need to have the right to vote on board
recommendations, including whether to renew contracts. I object to 10
people being required to petition (what does that mean?) to have their
issues heard. Our issues are your issues and we are a free society
called "FUUSM". It does NOT feel like some parts of this new "written"
policy that supposedly mimics the culture of FUUSM is outlined well
enough to feel like it represents a more democratic way for sharing
grievances, or even changes that people need or want to make.
Annie Warmke
On 8/17/2023 7:17 AM, Ted Goertzel via Fuusm-l wrote:
> Thanks, Tom. Now I understand what is going on with the new rules.
>
> I'm particularly interested in the provision for Zoom voting and
> participation. This apparently does not apply to the dialogue sessions
> which have not been on Zoom. I asked for the next one to be on Zoom
> because I will be out of town that day. Our minister is also excluded
> from these sessions, or has graciously agreed to "step aside" and not
> attend. The refusal to to use Zoom, despite all the money we spent to
> make that system work very well in the sanctuary, may be related to
> fear that Kat might be able to hear what people are saying about her.
> Actually, Zoom sessions aren't necessarily open to the public, people
> can be excluded on Zoom too.
>
> Our principles for resolving disputes hold that people should _first
> _try to resolve them face to face. But when the disagreement over
> Chris Keller's retirement came up, the board refused to do that,
> holding meetings where Kat was excluded. We even had an "emergency
> meeting" where the Board members (including me) couldn't find out in
> advance what was on the agenda. I actually came back from a trip to
> Miami early believing that the church was having an emergency and I
> had a responsibility as a Board member to be there. I could have done
> that meeting on Zoom as well. All this was done to keep from having to
> talk to Kat face to face. This wasn't Kat's fault, she even arranged
> for a mediator from the UUA, which the Board turned down, and showed
> up at our Christmas meeting prepared to talk, but the Board members
> (other than me) said they didn't want to hear from her.
>
> Spreading gossip behind people's backs can be destructive to any
> organization. I'm glad that at our congregational meetings everyone
> will be able to participate, including those who must do so on Zoom,
> and the agenda will be announced in advance. No more "emergency"
> meetings with secret agendas! One might think that respect for our
> principles would be enough, but I can see why you feel the need to
> codify it in formal rules.
>
> Ted
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tom Cunningham <HoldtheG at proton.me> wrote:
>
> Here is the further explanation Ted invites about the proposed
> Policy and Procedure on Congregational Meetings that I sent out
> yesterday. (I have attached a copy to this email.)
>
> Mainly I will talk about the part of the document called
> "Procedure" -- parts 1, 2 & 3, then I will say something about the
> "Policy" part of it.
>
> _Part 1_of the procedure began as a request from some FUUSM
> members that future congregational meetings should not include a
> vote on any business items that the congregation did not know
> would be brought up at the meeting. That was a reaction to
> Darryl's motion (at the April 23 annual meeting) for the types of
> meetings that resulted in the Dialogue Sessions going on now - it
> was raised under "items for the good of the Society."
>
> The concern was, members who choose not to attend a certain
> congregational meeting might have decided otherwise, if they knew
> that a specific piece of "business" was at issue.
> (E.g. Ted, as I recall, you and Linda left part way through the
> April meeting -- if the agenda had let you know about the motion
> Darryl was going to make, and if you were sufficiently concerned
> or interested, you might have stayed to the end. Just an example.)
>
> _Part 2_ of the procedure simply puts in writing, what has been
> the practice (as long as I've seen) for Zoom attendees at
> congregational meetings -- that if they are voting members of
> FUUSM, their Zoom attendance lets them count toward a quorum as
> well as vote in that meeting.
>
> _Part 3_of the procedure is to make clear that under our bylaws,
> there is another way for members to call an actual congregational
> meeting, instead of the "congregational style" meetings that
> resulted in the Dialogue Sessions. That other way is the "Special
> Meetings" that can be called by a petition 10 or more members.
>
> Between the April 23 meeting and the first Dialogue Session,
> questions came up about with the Dialogue organizers about whether
> the April vote on Darryl's motion was itself, a petition
> sufficient to make the Dialogue Sessions a "congregational
> meeting" (at which business binding on the congregation could be
> transacted). I explained to the organizers why, in my view, it
> was not -- with the result that the Dialogue Sessions cannot
> decide any business issues binding on the congregation. (On the
> other hand, they can result in recommendations, and I have urged
> the organizers to have some kind of a report to the Board as an
> end product of those sessions).
>
> So, Part 3 clarifies how the "Special (Congregational) Meeting" by
> petition works, which in turn might help those who feel strongly
> enough about the dialogue sessions issue that they have a way to
> call a congregational meeting - if they want - in which specific
> items of business might be decided with binding effect on the
> congregation. On the other hand, they may choose (at the dialogue
> sessions) to just make recommendations to the board, or choose to
> do nothing at all.
>
> The_Policy_part of the document was put there because our FUUSM
> ground rules (the 2003 "Policy on Policies" that we on the Board
> look at when we are considering something like this) says that the
> Board can adopt a "procedure" by itself (with 2/3 vote of the
> board) -- but_policies_ must first be sent out to the
> congregation, to let them know that board intends to vote on the
> matter at its next meeting, and that we invite congregational
> input. We on the Board felt that the things we were proposing in
> the above procedures were important enough that we should invite
> congregational input. So it made sense to also put in the
> relevant Policy language (what we believe, what we want to
> accomplish) as well as the procedure (how we want it
> accomplished). Those "what" and "how" statements come directly
> from the 2003 "Policy on Policies" that, as I said, the board
> follows on these things - our ground rules, which this board
> didn't invent, but which have been there since 2003. (You can
> find it on FUUSM's website).
> Thanks for inviting more input, Ted. There you have it.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> /--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /
> /I've changed my email address -- please use: /HoldtheG at proton.me
> /Thanks,
> /
> /Tom/
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Wednesday, August 16th, 2023 at 3:59 PM, Ted Goertzel
> <tedgoertzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Tom or someone could begin by explaining why they are
>> proposing this. Is there some perceived fault in the way we have
>> conducted congregational meetings? Is there something that we
>> haven't considered that someone wants to bring up? Does this have
>> something to do with the recent concerns about the minister's
>> performance? Or is this just Tom being a lawyer and wanting to
>> formalize everything? I have a vague feeling that something is
>> going on that isn't being discussed. Why is changing the rules
>> viewed as a priority?
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 2:33 PM Teresa Hayes via Fuusm-l
>> <fuusm-l at fuusm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Tom and other members of FUUSM,
>>
>> The proposed Policy and Procedure on Congregational Meetings
>> seems to need an editor. Policies and procedures are often
>> written is such a way that the average person has difficulty
>> understanding what is being said, when in fact they need to
>> be written in clear and concise, simple and understandable
>> language. I am not a writer or an editor, so this isn't
>> offered as a service. It is offered as an observation after
>> reading the proposed policy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:51:38 AM EDT, Tom
>> Cunningham via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear FUUSM congregation,
>>
>> Attached is a proposed Policy and Procedure on Congregational
>> Meetings. If adopted, its purpose would be to strengthen
>> FUUSM's process of democratic governance by promoting
>> efficient congregational meetings, in which voting members
>> have an informed and meaningful opportunity to vote on FUUSM
>> business.
>>
>> At our meeting last evening, the Board of Trustees decided
>> that we want to move forward with adopting this. To do so, we
>> decided we will discuss and vote on a motion to adopt the
>> Policy and Procedure at our next meeting, Monday, September
>> 11 at 6:30.
>>
>> As always, anyone interested can attend that Board meeting.
>> Or, if you prefer, please let any trustee know your thoughts
>> or questions on this proposal anytime before. (The seven
>> trustees are cc'd individually on this email.)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Tom Cunningham
>> President, Board of Trustees
>>
>>
>> /--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> /
>> /I've changed my email address -- please use: /HoldtheG at proton.me
>> /Thanks,
>> /
>> /Tom/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fuusm-l mailing list
>> Fuusm-l at fuusm.org
>> http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/fuusm-l_fuusm.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fuusm-l mailing list
>> Fuusm-l at fuusm.org
>> http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/fuusm-l_fuusm.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fuusm-l mailing list
> Fuusm-l at fuusm.org
> http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/fuusm-l_fuusm.org
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fuusm.org/pipermail/fuusm-l_fuusm.org/attachments/20230817/a3b4df0a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Fuusm-l
mailing list