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

Thu Aug 17 18:56:53 CDT 2023

Ted -
“Spreading gossip” is a term you’ve used more than once to describe the Dialogue Sessions (hereinafter “DS”). By definition, a person who spreads gossip is a “gossip monger”, one who engages in spreading rumors or hearsay. An ugly term. 
Those who spoke at the DS were limited to first hand experiences with the minister.  That was to preclude accusations of hearsay, or, as you say, “spreading gossip”.  But here we are, at least in your mind. I don’t know if other people think that.  I will add that trying the victim(s) is a tried and true courtroom tactic. 
Meanwhile, this particular “gossip spreader”, along with Chris Keller and many others from both “sides” of this issue, worked our rears off yesterday preparing for the annual UU yard sale. We did it again today and will do it again tomorrow, culminating in the actual sale on Saturday.  I fell into bed at 9 pm last night, exhausted, but happy to still be able to do this at almost 73 years of age with a recently replaced shoulder.  This is the true spirit (I like to think) of the UU congregation, ie, working together regardless of any differences. 
I had a cordial exchange with Kat yesterday while at the fellowship hall. I’ve had many brief encounters with her since the incidents I described when I spoke at the DS. I’ll never understand why those bad things happened, and the humiliation and hurt I felt were deep and very real. But life goes on, and I, unlike many others, don’t have decades of my life invested in FUUSM. Perhaps it’s easier for me to move on because of that. Kat is just a blip on the radar, as am I. 
When you call people names, you are referring (with a couple of exceptions) to fellow congregants alongside whom you’ve worked and socialized for years. You are basically saying that they’re people whose word can’t be trusted, that they’re liars with nefarious motives. I wonder why you are comfortable with that, but then I don’t know you well.  On the other hand, I’ve heard no name calling from any of the DS planners or speakers against anyone who spoke on Kat’s behalf.  I’m glad I can say that.  

Nancy Lee 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, August 17, 2023, 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.meThanks,
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 aneditor. Policies and procedures are often written is such a way thatthe average person has difficulty understanding what is being said, when in fact they need to be written in clear and concise, simple andunderstandable language. I am not a writer or an editor, so this isn'toffered 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.meThanks,
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/20230817/0e3124ba/attachment.htm>