[Fuusm-l] FUUSM Congregational Feedback Meetings

[Ted Goertzel]

Shari, I am also frustrated with developments both in our church and in the
UUA nationally, but I hope you will stick it out.  Marietta needs FUUSM and
FUUSM needs you.  We're all good people and we should be able to work
things out.

      It is customary for the person being discussed to leave the room
during personnel discussions, and it reflects poorly on Kat if she is
unwilling to do this.  When a small community like ours gets caught up in
using Robert's Rules of order to evade difficult issues it is a bad sign.

In my view, the more fundamental problem is that we don't know how to
rebuild the denomination and attract young families with children, so we
vent our frustrations fighting over tangential issues. The UUA spent years
arguing over rewording its statement of purpose when ChatGPT could do a
better job in five seconds. The issue in the UUA seems to be a fight over
ministerial jobs in a declining market, the minorities want preference over
white people who have theology degrees. They forced the president out
because he had the temerity to hire a white man for a regional job,  then
passed a resolution declaring that the UUA was a "white supremacist"
organization.  I volunteered to be a voting delegate to the UUA, since we
had a slot that went unfilled, but the Board turned me down, preferring not
to send anybody.

I am not going to leave the church, but I am resigning the treasurer job,
which I took temporarily in a crisis.  I found it frustrating to be
treasurer when the Board overruled my recommendation, and that of the
Finance Committee, and insisted on sending $7500 a year to the UUA. But we
all have our issues and sometimes we have to put them aside for the greater
good.

Ted

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 1:27 PM Shari Miller via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org>
wrote:

> Dear friends, I can not understand why as the core of the church has no
> say in what we want. While I don’t have any issues with Kat , it saddens me
> that she feels the need to bully her way into this. How strong do I feel
> about this? I am currently considering dropping our membership. As most
> people that know me, I am not one to pussyfoot around with a problem. I
> face it straight on. And Kat, my question to you is that what you want?
> Peace to us all, Shari
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 15, 2023, at 12:59 PM, nwolske17--- via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Thank you, Darryl.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_>
>
> On Monday, May 15, 2023, 11:06 AM, Darryl Ting via Fuusm-l <
> fuusm-l at fuusm.org> wrote:
>
> Dear FUUSM Community,
>
>
>
> At the end of the annual congregational meeting in April, (under “Other
> business for the Good of the Order”), I made a motion that there be
> “congregational style” meetings for the purpose of congregational feedback
> on the minister’s performance and specifically excluding the minister.
> After discussion, the motion was passed.
>
> To learn more about why I made this motion, what I proposed, and what has
> happened since … please read on.
>
>
>
> Why this motion …
>
> Prior to this, the method of congregational feedback was through
> congregational surveys.  I pointed out that the survey approach had some
> significant flaws, notably that the survey questions limited the scope of
> the feedback, that survey feedback is one way and isolated (no dialogue for
> clarification and no benefit of hearing other people’s feedback), and that
> everyone’s feedback counts the same regardless of the amount of interaction
> they have.  The cumulative impact is that despite the surveys, there is a
> significant level of frustration within the congregation from people
> feeling they have not been heard.
>
>
>
> What I proposed …
>
> Special congregational meetings to allow the congregation to provide
> feedback.  That approach would provide better, clearer feedback by
> eliminating the above-mentioned flaws of surveys.  More importantly, it
> allows people to express themselves directly … in their own voice, and
> unfiltered.  And it allows us to form a more informed collective view
> through the sharing of our individual views.
>
> Why exclude the minister’s attendance?  I wanted to encourage feedback,
> and it is not uncommon for people to be reluctant to give or receive
> negative feedback.  It is just an emotionally difficult thing to do.  The
> absence of the minister would make it easier for people to speak up.
>
>
>
> Follow-up …
>
> At the May 8th Board meeting, the Board determined that it could not call
> a congregational meeting and exclude the minister.  The minister declined
> to voluntarily exclude herself.  Therefore, the Board could not implement
> the motion.
>
>
>
> Following the Board decision, a steering group (Karen Binkley, Nancy
> Luthy, and myself) was formed to develop a plan to implement the motion.
> Our target for communicating the details of that plan is the end of May.
>
>
> Thanks for reading to the end,
>
> Darryl Ting
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230515/3344805f/attachment.htm>