Date written unknown
Comments from Davida Foy Crabtree
I saw this petition online earlier today, and was astonished at its assertions. I do not think it is accurate overall, and think the portrayal of the rationale for the new concept is way off base. It almost seems as though those who prepared it have not read the proposal nor listened to the presentations.
The design is prompted largely by missional issues: the challenge with separately incorporated boards (used to be 2 out of 9 or so; now is every board!) is that there is virtually no way to achieve strategic priorities in concert. Each one is so focused on its own narrow and historic mandates (many of which are still apt for our time; some may not be) that cooperation is rarely achieved in a time frame that enables rapid response to changing and challenging situations, particularly justice and missional issues that cut across mandates.
The concept of a unified board with the ability to harness the varied mandates and mission commitments of the several incorporated entities is not uncommon in our life. Here in Connecticut, our Board serves simultaneously as three boards: the Conference, the Missionary Society of CT, and the Trustees of the Fund for Ministers. Each is honored in its mission, and all are engaged to serve the good of the whole in a united and strategic way. This structure has been in place for decades and has served us well, allowing us to create innovative staffing and program that interplays the missions of each entity.
There is no question that financial issues now loom large for all of us. That was not the original premise for this design, but in this moment in time, we'd be crazy as a denomination not to be looking for every possible way to coordinate, eliminate duplication, and ensure that we are using all our resources in the most faithful and effective way possible. To be able to reduce administrative costs for the sake of the wider mission seems to me a high benefit!
I know that there are individuals and communities who worry that they will not be represented on such a board. I cannot imagine how anyone can say the concerns raised by the HUGS have been ignored. Serious dialogue has occurred at every point along the way; each of the groups has been represented on the various governance teams. That the teams have listened deeply and made changes to the plan several times has not been enough for a few people and they have cried foul because the teams didn't automatically adopt their every desire. It is certainly true that not everyone can be present and this will result in a reduction of numbers of persons participating. However, the new design specifies that this new United Church Board will include a much higher percentage of persons from the historically underrepresented groups than formerly. And they will be engaged in strategic decision-making of significant consequence for the whole church.
The petition says that staff will vote at the board meetings. It is my understanding that only the executives of the four covenanted ministries, officers of the Church, will have votes. Their leadership is expected and for them to have voice and vote only makes sense. That hardly makes the design "staff-driven". If anything will make the design staff-driven, it is the size of the board, but that is just as true now. I don't buy this business about elitism either: do we want a board that can make faithful and effective decisions, or do we want a lumbering lummox of a system that cannot? Board meetings will be as effective as the leaders are; and as long or short as that effectiveness.
The issue of there being no checks and balances is a red herring. What is General Synod, to which each covenanted ministry and the new Board will continue to be accountable? In the restructuring of 2000, however, the members of the covenanted ministries boards were made voting delegates to General Synod. Now there is a check and balance issue -- having those who are accountable to the Synod making its decisions!
As one who has lived the recent history of the UCC for the past 37 years, I take issue with the assertion that this proposed new plan forgets our history. On the contrary, I believe it is the maturing spiritually and organizationally of a denomination that will see amazingly faithful witness into the future -- IF we will stop bumbling along as though our context and the world's need has not changed in that time. As the Body of Christ, we are forever changing in light of the world's need. The world has a great need of our witness, but it is impeded by our failure to create a unified and winsome way of being the Church. Evolution is the nature of the Church, and has been since its very beginning. Within the UCC, we have constantly worked and reworked our
The work of the various govenance task forces has not had all the outcomes I've wanted. But I am convinced that this is a step we must take because of our UCC vision of a transformed world. Without this step, we risk losing our shared prophetic voice; indeed, we lose the ability to speak of ourselves as a Church and succumb to the siren song of a loose coalition of separately incorporated, redundant and wasteful mission agencies -- which is what we will be without this new governance model. That model is not rooted in the Body of Christ but in the ways of the world that value competition over cooperation.
So that's my take on it. Not one some people want to hear, but a take that is just as committed to justice work, to empowerment and to engagement in the mission as theirs. I'd appreciate your sharing this with those you sent the petition to.
Rev. Dr. Davida Foy
Crabtree Conference Minister Connecticut Conference
No comments:
Post a Comment