PAAM Minority Report from GFT2's Second Meeting

A Minority Report
September 16, 2008

PAAM participated in GFT2 because we love our Church. As many of us come from a long tradition of the United Church of Christ, especially its Congregational roots, we are not convinced that a single governance body is good for our church. It became clear that there are no checks and balances for a single governance structure. Since the interpretation of the task of GFT2 was to work on a single governance structure, the major issue became one of representation—whether two or three HUGs would sit on the Executive Council. Who is going to insure that the missional focus will be maintained—whether it be in the areas of “justice and witness,” “local church,” or “wider church”? For example, the Justice and Witness Ministries board passed a resolution asking that the planning committee of the 50th Anniversary of the United Church of Christ place the theme of the Year of Jubilee as a central focus of the general synod. This was largely ignored for the sake of a “celebrative” general synod. Once the task of the GFT2 was decided to work on proposing a single governance model, besides the issue of whether two or three HUGs representatives would sit on the Executive Council, the only remaining issues of importance were: 1) What is the role of and who would be seated with vote at General Synod? and 2) How would the total church participate in missional structures of the church, and what would these structures look like?

The present structural change is too important in the history of the United Church of Christ for PAAM to agree with the present proposal.

Sincerely,
Ronald Fujiyoshi
PAAM representative on GFT2

UBC Minority Report from the GFT2's Second Meeting

September 12, 2008

It is essential to the integrity of the Governance Follow-up Team process that the representation of COREM groups and historically underrepresented populations find place and honor on the proposed United Church Board. Conversations in the United Church of Christ over many years, particularly at the national setting, call the church to conversations and decision making that includes all voices.

The presence of constituency groups and COREM is a clear result of self determination grown and nurtured by the constituency groups and should be valued as the primary voice for those groups and ministries. To say, suggest or even hint that constituency groups and COREM don’t matter in the official conversations that happen nationally or that they are somehow not representative of the groups that bear their name is an insult and an affront. Through difficult and costly struggles, these groups have earned the right to speak for and on behalf of their constituencies. To filter and diminish the voice these groups bring, suggests that the culture of the United Church of Christ undervalues the constituency groups the UCC helped to bring into being and are now willing to jettison them, in part or wholly, in favor of persons or emerging groups that are more palatable to the dominate view.

The COREM and historically underrepresented groups have earned a seat at all ministry team tables. Their voices represent their communities. This right should be respected.

United Black Christians of the United Church of Christ cannot support a governance proposal that does not include 3 representatives on the United Church Board, i.e. one for each ministry team.

Carol A. Brown, UBC National President

Representative to the Governance Follow-up Team 2

(*MRSEJ, PAAM, and CHM have also endorsed the documents)

Report from the 1st Meeting of the GFT2

Report from the First Meeting
 of the Reconstituted Governance Follow-Up Team
Cleveland, Ohio
July 30 to August 1, 2008

 The newly reconstituted Governance Follow-Up Team (GFT) met in Cleveland July 30-August 1.  Directed by an action of the Executive Council at its April meeting, the GFT was called upon to: 

1. “Respond to the concerns raised in the document entitled ‘the Urgent Call’ . . . 
2. consider concerns raised about the size of the proposed United Church Board, 
3. explore the role, function and authority of the Executive Committee . . . 
4. take seriously the additional questions and concerns that have been raised by the Covenanted Ministry Boards,
5. and . . . bring, if possible, a new proposal to the meetings of the Boards and the Executive Council in the fall of 2008.”

The GFT received a number of communiqués prior to and during our meeting which were given careful and respectful consideration. These included: The report of the special meeting in June of Historically Underrepresented Groups (HUGS) authorized by the Executive Council; letters from Pacific Islander Asian American Ministries and United Black Christians written prior to the Joint meetings in April as well as a letter from a current and a former assistant moderator of the General Synod, also received prior to the Joint meetings; letters from Ministers for Racial Social and Economic Justice and the Council for Youth and Young Adult Ministries received during our meeting; a letter signed by twenty-six of the thirty-eight Conference Ministers following their retreat in late June; and responses from nine Conference Boards of Directors as part of an on-going process of reflection by Conference leaders on governance.

The two overarching themes which served as the group’s organizing principles were identifying and establishing best practices of good governance for the whole of the church, and claiming and re-affirming our deep commitment to the diversity of the church. The most significant amount of the GFT’s time together was spent carefully listening to and in dialogue about the UCC’s commitment to be a multi-cultural, multiracial church, open and affirming and accessible to all, and what that means both historically and in moving forward.

No formal action was taken during this meeting, but there was an emerging consensus around some of the issues before the group. Among them:

• Support for a single board governance, with a board membership of fewer than 100 persons.
• An Executive Committee of that board, with 15 to 20 members.
• Concern for good governance will be a driving force in the decision making.
• Embracing the full diversity of the church, with an understanding that the richness of our diversity is expressed and can be represented in several ways, including the voices of the members of the organizations representing in formal ways the historically under-represented groups, as well as persons of various racial/ethnic backgrounds from across our conferences.

The GFT will meet again in Cleveland on September 5-7, and will at that time work on completing a proposal that will be submitted to the Boards of the Covenanted Ministries and the Executive Council for consideration at their fall meetings. The GFT will provide on-going communications in an effort to maintain transparency in its work.


Governance Follow-Up Team Roster


Jim Antal, Council of Conference Ministers* William Land, MRSEJ*
Phyllis Baum, OGM Martha Mendoza, JWM*
Deborah Blood, WCM Bob Molsberry, Disabilities Ministries
Carol Brown, UBC Rich Pleva, Council of Conference Ministers
Elizabeth Clement, OGM Phil Porter, Coalition for LGBT Concerns
Sylvia Ferrell-Jones, UCF Cally Rogers-Witte, Collegium
Yvette Flunder, JWM Curtis Rueter, WCM
Ronald Fujiyoshi, PAAM Steve Sterner, Collegium
Jean Golden, LCM John Thomas, Collegium
Edith Guffey, Collegium Esther Rendon Thompson, CHM
Brian Holeman, Executive Council Libby Tigner, Executive Council
Linda Jaramillo, Collegium Hattie Walker, CAIM
Barbara Kershner Daniel, Pension Boards Carol Williams, LCM

Don Clark, Nationwide Special Counsel
Harold Massey, Organizational Consultant
Kimberly Whitney, Staff

* Unable to attend the first meeting
Council for Youth and Young Adult Ministries representative yet to be named.

Response to PAAM and to UBC

**The following was sent to PAAM and UBC as two seperate letters.  The content, however, is exactly the same which is why they share one posting.

July 31st, 2008

Dear PAAM Leadership,/Dear UBC Leadership,

We, the members of the reconstituted Governance Follow-Up Team are sending this letter to let you know that we are very aware of the concerns that have beenr aised -both by your group and by voices from among other constituencies and individuals of the United Church of Christ, related to our work in recommending a new governance model for the UCC.

We want you to know that your concerns about adequate representation on a new board structure of members from the Historically Under-represented Groups and about an ongoing commitment to being a Multi-Cultural, Mutli-Racial; Open and Affirming; Just Peace; United and Uniting, Accessible to All church are our concerns, too, as we represent many of these groups and hold these values.

We acknowledge that there has been great pain and disappointment felt by some members of our church related to experiences of racism, injustice and marginalization.  Please know that it is our deepest desire that the United Church of Christ move into a future that is characterized by an end to institutionalized racism and inustice and in which God's peaceable realm and passion for justice for all are lived out in all of our lives.  These concerns have been lifted up numerous times in our deliberations.

Simply put, we want to say, "We hear you."  We also acknowledge that the healing of the wounds that many have suffered and the repair of relationships is something that cannot be accomplished overnight, but rather is part of the ongoing work of the church, as we live into the redemption that God's love has made possible for us.

Letter to CCM from Rev. Steve Camp

To CCM
April 18, 2008

Why I Did It!

I am sure the question is being asked, among CM leadership and among the aware, how could and why did he do it? That is, why did he work so hard for the defeat of the governance plan before the Executive Council last weekend? How could he go against the work that had been developed over two years? Why would he challenge the good work of the governance committee, when they developed a workable process for the future of the national setting? The short answer is that I just don’t believe this direction being offered is in the best interest of the whole church. I have been consistent in saying that very thing. Obviously, given the fact of last weekend’s meetings, several agreed with my assessment. Otherwise my voice would have been a single voice in the wilderness. Surprisingly, even to me, it was not. It was a number that is growing, wide in support and will not be denied a voice, in my estimation. 

The fact is the attempt to restructure the national setting of the church has been attempted twice since the year 2000. Twice a plan has been developed and twice the plan has been rejected by first LCM and this last time, by OGM. Twice this group, led by our GMP, GM and a narrow but hard driving governance committee has attempted to say that our system will not go forward with any sense of vitality unless this particular plan, essentially the same plan each time, is adopted. I disagreed. 

The fact remains that the reason given for developing and forwarding this plan has been that OCWM has continued to plummet, but in reality OCWM has begun to turn upward. I suspect it will nose dive if we stay on this current path of conflict. It has been suggested that we need this change because LCM, JWM and WCM can not survive without consolidation and no meaningful and substantive ministry will happen going forward without one group, with a near majority of executive leaders, managing the affairs of the three and controlling the assets. Again I disagree. The fact is that LCM, WCM and to a lesser extent JWM has done fairly well in these challenging financial times, much better than many might have expected. It has been OGM that has not met budget and OGM that has needed serious and real attention. It is interesting that OGM is the board that the two collegium members who are most direct in leadership are managing with less success, yet are calling most loudly for control of all the other assets and ministries of the national setting. The 2000 restructure has not been the problem or has not shown itself to need to be scraped because of performance, yet we plow ahead. I agree with many that the “mission planning table” has been a joke, that OGM needs a close look and likely elimination, that EC need serious re-visioning, that some central functions need to be thought through, but still the reason for this kind of suggested and twice voted change offered, seems tinny rather than crystal clear as some might suggest. The national setting is losing its gifted “colored” workers in amazing numbers, particularly in the GMP office, gifted staff members are jumping ship across the building, and many are coming to work only to be escorted out the door without any notice. Change is happening but in ways that are not healthy. 700 is a battle zone, plain and simple. The national center of the UCC has never found its center since 2000 or not found a common goal, except for still speaking (another staff loss) or never figured out how to work together as hoped in the last restructure. Why not work on those things that can matter, than change the whole system and spin wheels restructuring. 

We are suggesting by this push of the GFT plan that those who served the church and serve in the national setting recent past leadership in recent history, were somehow without gifts that merit honor or just did not know how to bring the varied parts of the church together and they, with this plan can rectify that recent history. No. It seems the message is that the just past generation of leaders blundered in their service. No again. This generation can somehow fix the deep problems that the just past generation of leaders have left for us. Let’s remember that these leaders left us a hotel, a chapel, a surplus and a continued determination to do justice. They gave up 6 instrumentalities and agreed to become four. It took 25 years to do so. Even more insulting is the notion that some current leaders like me are somehow high-jacking the orderly process and making life for the national setting horrific. Are we who disagree, not faithful too? 

It should be said that the Conference leaders just spent 5 days together in New Mexico. It was a meaningful time, but please remembers that we spent only 45 minutes on this plan that went to our boards. We gave no advice or consent. As far as many thought, it was a done deal. There was precious little conversation about it and little engagement in this enormous change proposed for our life. People keep saying that most people are for this plan (single governance) as if said enough it would and will be true. The plan was shared with the executive council with a week’s time to digest and with the conference ministers with three to five days of lead time. Again this is a plan to change the whole structure of the church. WOW. Is it any reason that people of color and others said stop, we want time to digest and to comment on this plan. We want time to find ways to buy in to this plan. We want time to even reject this plan for reasons that are faithful and reasons that are thought out. We owe our leaders, all of our leaders, that much and they owe us that much too. 

I would hope that John Thomas would understand that there are many who will work right up and through General Synod, to stop this plan in its current form. I remember him saying to the Southern Region CM’s that if this doesn’t happen this time, it would be over. Its not, it goes on. Some of us simply believe that this single governance board is a Presbyterian model and beyond congregational understanding.  

Now I will work hard to meet the July 15 deadline and then report to the committee our findings. I ask your prayers as I attempt this work. I ask your prayers as the future unfolds and the unknown becomes clearer with time. I hope this gives some insight into my motivation. I do not seek approval, but to be a colleague in a challenging time. 

Steve Camp

The Results of the HUGs Meeting at Mystic Lake

June 23, 2009

To: the Executive Council, the Collegium, UCC Coalition, UCC Disabilities Ministries, Youth and Young Adult Ministries, CCM and COREM

Meeting in Minneapolis MN on June 16-18, 2008, those present (see groups represented below) prayerfully make the following recommendation and statement. We hope this recommendation and statement will be taken with seriousness and responded to with the gravity these words hold. 

We thank the GFT for their work on the previous restructure documents. Yet we believe that our mandate to be a just peace church that is multi-racial, multi-cultural, open and affirming, and accessible to all, requires that more attention be paid to issues of representation and justice. We also believe that there are many unanswered questions that should be addressed without any further delay. 

After three days of prayer and discernment, we have realized that the reconstituted GFT process is in effect a consolidation of power in the church. The experience of many of the marginalized groups in the church has been that whenever streamlining takes place our voices, presence, history, and humanity are diminished. As a result of our meeting in Minneapolis, we request that the Collegium, the chairs and vice chairs of the Covenanted Ministries and Executive Council suspend the GFT process. We further request that the collegium, chairs and vice-chairs convene sacred conversations across the church so that we can re-establish trust and be reconciled to one another before moving forward with any structural change. We further request that the Collegium, the chairs and vice chairs of the Covenanted Ministries and the Executive Council convene a process that will address the issues raised about restructuring forwarded by the Covenanted Ministry Boards, Executive Council, and offered by HUGs and Others group. We ask that these concerns be addressed before any configuration of the reconstituted GFT commences its work on a restructure proposal. 

Present at the June 16-18, 2008 Minneapolis MN Meeting: COREM Bodies, UCC Coalition, UCC Disability Ministries, Youth and Young Adult Ministries, two members of CCM, and a vice moderator of the General Synod. At the time of the vote of affirmation to this statement two people had left to go home. All who remained agreed to the statement. There was no dissenter to the statement. 32 leaders were present at this historic gathering. 

List of Issues Raised at HUGs Meeting

Issues about Restructuring Raised by HUG Representatives 
at Mystic Lake Meeting June 16-18

1. What processes will be put into place to address and heal the pain, anger, mistrust and broken relationships between [some HUG organizations] and the collegium that have been exacerbated over the course of the restructuring process?

2. What procedures will be put into place in the new proposed structure to ensure transparency of programming necessary for the board to carry out its fiduciary and supervisory responsibilities?

3. HUGs have been felt that the process of considering restructuring has not been sufficiently transparent.  

a. What are the specific rationales for restructuring? How does the proposed restructuring address each rationale?

b. What have been the costs to date for the restructuring process? What are the estimated costs by specific line item for the process of developing and implementing a restructuring?

c. What cost savings will be achieved by the restructuring process?

d. What procedures will be set in place to ensure fair and accurate reporting of board meeting discussions about restructuring and discussions with the HUG organizations?

4. What effect will restructuring have on the management and distribution of unrestricted funds?

5. What specific protections are in place to protect historic legacy funds?

6. What are the biblical and theological rationales underpinning the particular structure proposed? How does the proposed structure arise from these rationales?

7. How will the responsibilities of and reporting relationships for the GMP change under the proposed restructuring?

8. How will the responsibilities of and reporting relationships for the executive ministers change under the proposed restructuring?

9. How will the proposed new structure ensure that the executive ministers will be able to better coordinate their ministries with one another?

10. What will the reporting relationships between the GMP and executive ministers be?

11. What will the budgetary authority or control of the GMP and each of the executive ministers be? Over what areas of the budget? Will the GMP and executive ministers have independent budgetary control over the spending of any restricted or unrestricted endowment funds?

12. What specific programs will be set up to facilitate the continued engagement of local churches at the national setting if the number of persons serving on national boards decreases? How will these programs be funded?

13. What are the expectations of the time commitments required for members of the boards in the proposed restructuring?

14. How will the restructuring process ensure that voices from outside the GFT will be considered and incorporated?

15. How will the function of the Mission Council be filled in the proposed new structure?

16. What is the underlying mission and vision for the church that the governance structure carries out? How does the governance structure relate to the stated mission and vision?

17. How will the role of conferences, associations, and local churches in setting policy for and participating in the life of the national setting be affected by the proposed restructuring?

18. If an Executive Committee in the new proposed structure has extensive authority as in previous restructuring proposals, how will its composition, role and processes be consistent with anti-racist principles? What bylaw or constitutional provisions will be in place to ensure that its membership is racially and ethnically inclusive?

19. How will the proposed plan address the problem of racism within the church and adequately lead us to becoming the anti-racist, multi-racial, and multi-cultural church to which we aspire?

20. How will the policy and priority setting role of General Synod be affected by restructuring?

21. How will the composition of General Synod be affected by restructuring?

22. What is the plan for ensuring that we will continue to be a board-driven not a staff-driven church, as called for in the unanimously passed 2002 Covenanted Ministry board resolutions?

23. If board members are expected to have broader responsibilities in the new structure, what procedures will be established to prepare them for those responsibilities?

24. How will the proposed new structure ensure that people with a passion for a particular area of ministry serve on a program committee or area that reflects their passion?

25. If the amount of work to be done by each board member increases due to board responsibilities being divided among fewer people, how will the proposed new structure ensure that students, workers, and other persons with limited available time can continue to serve on a board in the national setting and that the diversity of persons serving on a national board will not thereby be reduced?

26. How will the proposed new structure ensure that the racial and ethnic diversity within each HUG organization is represented at the national setting if the number of total persons representing HUG organizations on national boards is reduced?

27. Why won’t less radical measures including more frequent joint board meetings address the problems that a new structure is intended to address? What administrative measures have been put into place to date to address these problems?

28. How will the proposed new structure contribute to the concern over the sharing of OCWM and other funds between the national setting, conferences, and local churches?

29. If the proposed new structure maintains separate programming corporations, what plans will be made to ensure that those separate corporation will be more effectively governed by three subcommittees of a single board than by three separately constituted boards?

30. How will the proposed structure ensure that there is representation on the board of both members of historically underrepresented groups and the organizations that advocate on behalf of those persons?

31. How will the proposed structure better equip local churches, conferences, and the national setting to address our ministry priorities within our own communities and beyond?

32. How will the proposed structure facilitate coordinated planning, programming, and funding of programming among local churches, conferences, and the national setting.

Statements of Affirmation of Single-Board Structure by HUGs

- Separate boards make it hard for executive ministers to coordinate fully
- Current structure does not require boards to negotiate over priorities