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

[Tom Cunningham]

Annie,

Thanks for your email on the Board's proposed new Policy and Procedure (which I'll call the P/P). You say that you "object to 10 people being required to petition (what does that mean?) to have their issues heard." In response, I'll offer a little more explanation on two points -- first, about the type of meetings (congregational meetings) addressed by the P/P and Bylaws (versus other types of meetings which may very well involve many or even most FUUSM members but are not 'congregational meetings'); and second, about the 10 person written petition requirement.

First-- The petition by 10 voting members of FUUSM is not a requirement "to have issues heard" - it is a requirement for one of two methods our FUUSM Bylaws provide for calling acongregational meeting, the P/P's topic. "Congregational meeting" as used in the P/P and in the Bylaws has a very important and specific meaning -- the kind of meeting provided in the Bylaws, at which FUUSM voting members can vote on congregation business. A corollary is that decisions properly voted on at congregational meetings are official decisions of the congregation (the "Society" - the "S" in FUUSM) and have binding effect on it.

"Congregational meetings" in this important sense do not include meetings which have not been called in the manner provided by the Bylaws. Note I am not saying that other types of meetings can't occur, which may in fact include any number or even all or most FUUSM members -- it is just that any such meeting is not a "congregational meeting" (in the Bylaws sense) and any decisions made by that body is not a decision of the congregation, no matter how many FUUSM members are there. (I do not mean to sound spiteful or challenging by saying "no matter how many FUUSM members are there" - it is just a fact of governance.)

Certainly, decisions can be made at the Dialogues Sessions, even if they are not decisions "of the congregation." As noted in my email a couple of days ago, I urged the organizers to consider making some type of recommendations to the Board as an outcome of the Dialogue Sessions. The decision to make or not make certain such recommendations, along with deciding any number of other things, are clearly the types of decision that can be made at the Dialogue Sessions. They would be decisions of the Dialogue Sessions (i.e. of the attendees at those sessions). Although they would not bind the congregation, any decisions from the Dialogue Sessions (including any decision to make recommendations) may certainly be considered by the Board or by the congregation in later taking some action that very well could be binding on the congregation.

As I said above, the 10-member requirement is not a requirement "to have issues heard" - it pertains to calling congregational meetings. I trust that resolving conflicts is at least a very significant piece of what you mean by "having issues heard." As others have pointed out over the last few weeks in discussions about the Dialogue Sessions, our FUUSM community seems to place great importance on the use of "clear direct, honest and loving communications with the parties concerned" to resolve conflicts. That language comes from Par. 1 of our 2003 Conflict Resolution and Grievance Procedure. Par. 1 makes clear that the "grievance procedure" that follows it (in at least, Pars. 2 through 12) should have to be used only after [in cases where] "such communication [clear, direct, honest and loving communications with the parties concerned] fails to bring satisfactory resolution." FUUSM's Congregational Covenant (also established in 2003) contains identical language. So again, the 10 member petition, and other procedural items covered in the P/P, are specifically, about "congregational meetings" if and when they convene. Significantly, though, congregational meetings aren't the only way (or even the most important or effective way) to "have issues heard," especially when the issues are conflicts. I respectfully suggest we may want to consider stepping back, taking a breath, and trusting in the structures FUUSM has had in place for resolving conflicts for at least 20 year. Such structures are not infallible, nor are those following and engaging with them, but I believe they are an essential starting place.

Second-- the 10-person written petition requirement is not made by the P/P. It comes directly from the Article IV.B of the bylaws (and incidentally, not from the bylaw changes enacted by the congregation at the 4/23/23 congregational meeting -- this language appears to have been in the Bylaws from at least April 2000). It is one of two ways the Bylaws provided for calling a "congregational meeting" in the sense I outline above. The other method is a meeting the Board calls on its own initiative.

You ask "what does that [petition] mean?" The relevant dictionary definition of "petition" is (in my Merriam-Webster) "a formal written request addressed to an official person or an organized body." Part 3 of the P/P is intended to clarify that process of "written petition" to call congregational meetings, following what is already in the Bylaws. As the P/P explains, the written petition should include "the business" that those 10 persons want to be conducted at the meeting, because the Bylaws require the Secretary to specify the "business to be transacted" in the notice of the meeting the Secretary is required to give to the congregation. The Secretary is an officer of the Board of Trustees (Bylaws Article VI) -- so the P/P clarifies that the "written petition" should be addressed to the Board, which the P/P makes clearmustthen call the meeting as long as the petition is in order.

Thanks,
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've changed my email address -- please use: HoldtheG at proton.me
Thanks,

Tom

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, August 17th, 2023 at 11:52 AM, Annie Warmke via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org> wrote:

> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fuusm.org/pipermail/fuusm-l_fuusm.org/attachments/20230818/beb0fe09/attachment.htm>