[Fuusm-l] Let's have open meetings where everyone can participate.

Thu Aug 17 13:07:15 CDT 2023

Ted, I often find your comments presented with a bias, but I usually agree
with the main points.
I feel that your attack on the Board's reaction to Chris Keller's "forced
retirement" is a bit harsh.  Chris Hoke, President,  and I called an
"Executive Session" to seek advice on how to move forward.  You were very
vocal to accuse the two of us as "over-reacting", responding with too much
sympathy for a disgruntled employee who received a poor evaluation", not
having "facts", etc.  You more or less demanded that I get several "signed
statements" from members who had observed Kat's obuse of Chris and/or been
the recipient of Kat's abuse.  I got 10 such statements and much more
information than I ever wanted.

First of all, the "dialogue sessions" have revealed concerns from many
members ...not just Chris.  I hope you can recognize that Chris is not the
center of much of this unrest.  I request that you cease referencing her in
your comments.
 Annie did so much work on Homecoming, which was the most successful
outreach program we've had in years.  Not only did she not receive support
from Kat, Kat was not cooperative.  You may ask Annie for first-hand
information.

I understand that you believe all of those who made statements should have
had a direct, loving and respectful conversation with Kat.  You may not
accept their reasons for choosing not to confront Kat directly, but they
exist.  I want you to ask yourself why our minister did not show love and
respect for these individuals when confronting them.

I am asking you to have an open mind, listen to the hurt which burdens many
of our members, and channel your energy into some positive ways to help our
Society function better.

Nancy Luthy

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Ted Goertzel via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org>
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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fuusm.org/pipermail/fuusm-l_fuusm.org/attachments/20230817/3bd8b7c6/attachment.htm>