Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA
A diverse, welcoming community of open hearts and minds since 1948
Revising UUCA's Constitution
Welcome to a discussion about amendments to the UUCA Constitution that were proposed by the Constitution Task Force, then modified and approved by the Board of Trustees for consideration by the congregation at a special meeting March 21.
The Board created the task force in August, and appointed Juliet Purll (Chair), Henry Ernstthal, John Gunning, Barbara Hynak, Peter Overby and Tom O'Reilly (ex officio) as members. We since have been researching and drafting those proposed changes. Our work goes hand-in-hand with another proposal: to incorporate UUCA under Virginia law. The board is asking the congregation to consider the proposals at a special congregational meeting March 21.
Please read the brief description of the proposal below, then click on the links for a more thorough discussion.
- Current and Proposed Constitutions Compared - a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed constitutions, with the changes annotated
- Why Should UUCA Incorporate?
- Revising UUCA's Constitution: The Quick Read- a summary of the proposed changes and the process.
We hope this material will help you understand what’s proposed and why.
We need your feedback. Please make a comment on this page, visit us (the Constitution Task Force and Trustees) at our Table in the Fellowship Hall after Sunday services, and/or join a discussion in the Board Room after services on March 14.
-----------------
Here, in brief, is what’s going on:
Two Broad Goals
First, the congregation is asked, Should UUCA incorporate? Virginia only recently allowed churches to do this. So, for example, legal liability falls on UUCA trustees individually, not on the church itself. The board believes incorporation would help the business side of the church, with no effect on the faith side.
Second, the congregation is asked to adopt the proposed constitutional revisions, updating some provisions that are outmoded or ineffective, and eliminating others that are obsolete or no longer mesh with our governance system. We believe the revisions will streamline governing procedures, make the process more transparent and increase accountability.
(If the congregation adopts the revisions March 21, a handful of technical constitutional revisions would come before the annual meeting June 13. We believe they are non-controversial.)
Two Big Changes
1. The congregation would not amend the annual budget, but would still vote it up or down. The staff would be required to hold open hearings as it prepared the budget. Finally, if spending during the year went 5 percent over budget, the board would be required to notify the congregation, but the congregation would no longer vote on approving the additional spending.
2. Trustee terms would be two years, not three, a change intended to make the board more accountable for budgetary and other decisions. Trustees could seek re-election and serve up to six consecutive years, a change that we believe will improve effectiveness and reduce burnout among trustees.
Other Noteworthy Changes
- Minimum membership age of 14, not 16
- New transparency language
- Two-year terms, not one year, for Nominating Committee members
- More e-mail, less snail mail, for communications with UUCA members
- Deletion of a redundant article describing UUCA’s organization, and an outmoded article on hiring Religious Education directors.
Finally, we edited the constitution for clarity and consistency. We hope you find that the proposed revisions make it easier to read and understand.
Please let us know what you think about our proposal.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Juliet Purll on -
Thank you to those UUCA members who joined some Board of Trustees and Constitution Task Force members this past Sunday to discuss Incorporation and Constitution changes. Get involved!
-
Permalink Reply by Juliet Purll on
-
Our Constitution TaskForce continues to host multiple opportunities for Members to learn more:
We've held a Discussion and Informal Presentation on 2/21 after each service.
And we've spent two Sundays staffing seats at Fellowship Hall table after each service, including last Sunday.
We remain available all the way up to the big day: March 21!
As a result of questions presented to me, I have one overarching concept I want to make clear. Please consider the Constitution as a whole. The work of the Task Force in molding and crafting language for Constitution modifications was done on multiple levels. We detangled phrasing on a micro-level. We combined that effort with a holistic, macro-level approach. The language the Board finally voted to present to the membership is the revised Constitution in its entirety. As mailed to our UUCA membership, each amendment and section of the final recommended changes is to be considered together, with all the parts working in harmony. The agenda of the Board Chair for March 21 provides consideration of the Amendments one at a time, because the Board wants to be purposeful about the adoption process. But keep in mind that each part proposed is intended to smoothly fit with the other pieces, as revised.
-
Permalink Reply by Laurie Lindberg on -
Quick question regarding the change to the budget process. You say that taking away the congregation's ability to offer amendments to the budget and taking away our ability to vote on approving additional spending makes the process "more transparent and increases accountability." Hmmm, making it more difficult for us to influence the workings of our church at all points in the process sounds like a loss of freedom, less democracy, and more power gathered in the hands of fewer people.
My quick question is this: Is this the direction our Board, our Congregation, and our Church Staff really want to go in? I don't think we should.
"The congregation would not amend the annual budget, but would still vote it up or down (WOULD AMENDMENTS BE ALLOWED AT THAT POINT?). The staff would be required to hold open hearings as it prepared the budget. (DOESN'T THE STAFF ALREADY HOLD HEARINGS OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE BUDGET? IF NOT, THEY SHOULD, BUT NOT AS A QUID PRO QUO FOR NOT AMENDING THE BUDGET AT LATER POINTS IN THE PROCESS) Finally, if spending during the year went 5 percent over budget, the board would be required to notify the congregation, but the congregation would no longer vote on approving the additional spending (SO WHY WASTE OUR VALUABLE TIME BY "NOTIFYING"US? IF WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME? ).
With sincere concern, Laurie Lindberg
-
Permalink Reply by Bennett Minton on -
Our budget is our vision expressed in dollars: mortgage and other fixed costs to keep our doors open; salaries for staff doing the work we collectively want done; and discretionary spending representing perhaps 12% of the total.
Laurie suggests the proposal to limit the consideration of the budget at the Annual Meeting to an up-or-down vote means a loss of freedom and less democracy. I think the question is: What is the nature of our church democracy?
Should these choices be made by a majority of an Annual Meeting quorum (as few as 38 members, but typically about 75, out of more than 900 on our roles), shifting priorities under circumstances of limited debate?
Or should they be made in a process grounded in the principle that we call ministers to create a vision and elect a Board of Trustees to represent our broad interests?
Our budget is guided by that vision and bound by Board policies, in consideration of views expressed over months by individuals and constituencies.
The process begins in January with the budget committee. These dedicated church members consider multi-year funding requests from various church groups and individuals. The staff presents options through the spring. The budget hearings, in May, are a formal chance to comment on the near-finished document. Under existing policy, the Board holds a hearing before it adopts the annual budget proposal.
But now is the time to influence the outcome. I encourage all members to suggest priorities -- don't wait for the budget hearings. Talk to the ministers and the trustees about your concerns.
If we don’t trust our leaders to listen and to lead, why are we members of a church? How can we expect to be an effective religious community?
In survey after survey, year over year, our members express a desire for focused leadership, direction, and vision. Ours is a faith institution. We want our leaders to weigh carefully the options before them and act with courage and creativity.
The revised budget process will help them do that.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacomina De Regt on -
I will not be able to attend the congregational meeting as I will be out of the country. Unfortunately, this one does not allow for absentee balloting. I would have voted for the proposed changes.
First, I would vote for the incorporation. Just imagine what could have happened if someone had sued the church during the mold crisis and the liability had been beyond the church's insurance policies and the invididual board members had been held liable. I shudder to think about that.
Board term: It is an interesting balancing act between the need to be on the BOT for a while (the learning curve) vs. the need to be held accountable. JPD is proposing to change its by-laws at the annual meeting to make a board term 3 instead of 2 years, because they feel that they need the longer commitment due to the steep learning curve. But the JPD district is a much larger and more diffuse entity than UUCA. At UUCA, with monthly board meetings, the learning curve can be pretty short. Standing for re-election, however, is not the same as accountability. While we do not want individual board members to have to run a political campaign and boast of achievements, the BOT may think very seriously about making transparent what the annual board goals are and how much was achieved. This would indirectly/directly link to performance of the board members standing for re-election.
I am very pleased about the age of membership going down to 14. This will allow all high school age youth to be members and might lead to the emergence of a youth caucus as in many other congregations.
-
Permalink Reply by Juliet Purll on
-
I am sorry to hear that you will not be available for the meeting, but your thoughts are helpful for members who are available to attend. Thank you for posting!
Regarding the Trustee learning curve, I understand that one of UUCA's long-term visions is for leadership development. By members self-identifying as interested in potentially serving as a leader someday, our members can ensure that they learn broadly about the workings of UUCA. Thus, if one day they feel called to serve as a leader - on the Board or elsewhere - they will be able to hit the ground running. This development is possible in our community that is closer-knit than your example of an over-arching community such as JPD, consistent with your description above.
Also, by expanding the potential for Board Trustees to stand for re-election, the membership may have the opportunity for increased choice among Trustees when we vote. Further, Trustees who run for re-election will have a track record that members can reference when considering whom to chose as our leaders.
Regarding incorporation, it is an important step that will largely be unnoticeable on a day-to-day basis. Membership as a whole will have the same loving community and welcoming sanctuary here in our organization. We will not become CORPORATE, as some of us know the term. Rather, by becoming incorporated, as other UU churches are across the country and even locally, we will be more legitimate in the eyes of outside organizations. One example is that incorporation will open doors to additional grants and funding sources for our social justice causes.
The meeting on March 21 is a call for membership participation and support. Here is where the long-term interests and goals of members can be brought to form the future paths of the church. I know the proposed budget process language is raising concerns. This is not an interest in quashing the voice of the members, those voices need to be heard year round, not just on one day. To provide context, it is important to understand that the constitution is the base document from which our organization's actions spring. A constitution needs to be clear enough for guidance, but sparse enough to stay constant for many years to come. If we look to other organizations as models, we see that frequently the budget process is not described, and where it is, the budget is conceived for the whole, not to be hijacked by one or a few at the last minute. Our proposed language, although perhaps on a subject best left out of a constitution, is consistent with a celebration of our 60 years serving our membership, our friends and the larger community. The best way for our church to stay true to our nature, to stay on course, is to be able to support long-term goals, which is a challenge if those goals can be threatened in an instant at one Annual meeting. Being involved, participating, letting leaders know our priorities, and supporting our community. That's consistent with the proposed language.
To all, other than Jacomina, come to the Special Meeting on March 21 and vote for incorporation and the polished Constitution language!
-
Permalink Reply by Diane Ullius on -
It's always exciting to see people engaging in discussions that are relevant to our life together in the UUCA congregation. I hope that this online discussion will continue vibrantly in the remaining week until the Congregational Meeting on the 21st. Even more, I hope that lots of members will attend that meeting--and that we will use this discussion about the constitution as a jumping-off place for ever-more-engaged discussions about all the things that matter to us.
I, for one, look forward to a continued thoughtful discussion about how the congregation's budget can best serve the many needs and interests of our congregation--a discussion in a multi-setting format that can include anyone and everyone, and in a setting that will alllow for meaningful adjustments to the big picture--as well as to the details--as needed. Let's do that in the open budget meetings that will be scheduled throughout the spring; let's not wait for a few people to try to do it in snippets at the annual meeting.
That's not the only hope, of course. I hope that our budget for 2010/2011 will be abundant for all our needs, thanks to the commitment of all of us. If UUCA is important in your life, in your family's life, then give generously and participate in planning and implementing.
-
Permalink Reply by Gerda Keiswetter on -
Gerda and I would like to support Laurie's comments. The proposal not to allow amendments of the budget at the annual meeting is an overreaction to the events at the annual meeting in June 2008 concerning the priority of the dance program in the recommended budget. In my view this is an example of democracy that worked.
Discussions with the ministers, points made at the budget hearings and discussions with the Board produced no change what so ever. No one responded to several possible compromises. Amendments to the recommended budget were provided in writing beforehand as requested by the Board of Trustees. It was not a case of the budget discussion being “hijacked by one or a few at the last minute.”
Because of this tin ear, a substantial majority – not a 38 minimum - overruled the budget recommendation on dance, and members at the Annual Meeting increased their pledges to meet the additional cost ($3,000 out of a budget of more than a million dollars). The majority approving the budget change included former Board chairs and members and a large number of the most active leaders in the Church. While inconvenient for the then serving Board and leadership team, it was a direct reaction to their decision to entertain no compromises. In short, democratic checks and balances worked.
Thus, I propose the last two words of the following language proposed for Article IV, Section 4, should be stricken:
The Board of Trustees shall recommend a budget to the Congregation at the Annual Meeting for its approval without amendment.
As the language now stands, it would require voting against the whole budget, and if a motion of disapproval were successful, then the holding of another Congregational meeting to approve a revised budget.
There are much better ways than a constitutional change to assure careful congregational consideration of the budget. Foremost among them is the procedure suggested by the Board itself in 2008 to require budget amendments to be presented in writing at least two weeks before the Annual Meeting. The current Board should propose such changes for the Annual Meeting to adopt in June.
Sometimes it is necessary to have ear training for the politically tone deaf. The above amendment in the constitutional revisions preserves that possibility at a time when policy governance has disenfranchised the Board, overwhelmed the staff and disempowered the volunteers. Allen
-
Permalink Reply by Diane Dorius on -
Friends: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments. Knowing me as you all do, I have some serious concerns about this amendment.
I do not believe the proposed constitutional amendment to delete the ability of the congregation to amend a proposed annual church budget is a good idea. During my 30 years at UUCA, there have not been many occasions when members of the congregation have offered an amendment to the budget at our annual meeting. In fact, when I asked the members of the Constitutional change committee how many times such amendments have been offered in the last 10 years, they did not know. If the people who spent the last year examining potential changes to the constitution did not know, how big a problem could the current provision be?
Over the last 30 years, there have not been many times when the congregation has taken the time to discuss with each other an issue affecting the budget that has been of great concern to a number of members. But each time this has occurred, the discussion has been reasonable, heartfelt, and balanced. In some cases the amendment passed, in some it failed. The amendments that have passed have been fully consistent with the then current goals and vision of UUCA. I have never seen a meeting "hijacked" by people offering amendments as one commenter imagined might happen. We need a quorum to conduct business at an annual meeting and sometimes that quorum has been small in numbers. We should not belittle the impact of a small quorum since it is composed of those who took their responsibilities seriously as voting members of our congregation, took time to gather to listen to each other, weigh the pros and cons of an issue, and vote. At least those who felt their concerns had not been heard by the ministers or by the board of trustees or felt no efforts at compromise or reconciliation had been tried, had an opportunity to take the issue to a wider audience, all of the members of the church who attended that meeting.
One of the principles of the UU faith is "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations...." Our church is not a corporation, it is not a state, it is not a representative democracy governed by political parties. As Larry pointed out, as a church community it is important that the minority voice is not drowned out by the majority. This is voluntary congregation of people gathered together to help each other live out the principles of our faith. We should model the best ways to listen to each other and find common ground when we disagree. Through our constitution we delegate some powers to the board of trustees and we reserve others to a quorum of voting church members. As Allen so articulately pointed out, limiting the congregation to an up and down vote on the whole budget severely limits the power of the congregation's vote, and complicates and extends the time needed to resolve budget disagreements.
Frankly, I believe the amendment renders meaningless the congregation's vote on the budget and undercuts our efforts to live out the democratic principle of our faith. Historically, I think none of the amendments previously approved during the annual meeting has modified the budget by more than several thousand dollars. It is highly unlikely that a congregation would disapprove a $1.5 million budget over a matter affecting less than 1% of the total budget. However, I believe the few budget amendments that have been considered in the past have preserved programs that are very meaningful to a substantial group of our congregation, have assured our employees are treated equitably and respectfully, have persuaded the board eventually to fully fund its commitment to the UUA, and have stimulated creative and collaborative problem solving.
Please join me in opposing this amendment to UUCA's constitution.
Diane
-
Permalink Reply by Robeert Brent on
-
I fully agree with Alan's excellent comments. I have been a member of this church for 54 years. I strongly believe in the democratic process and see the proposed changes about budget process as diminishing that value. By the way, how do we select a Director of Religious Education. Shouldn't the entire congregation have a role in that process?
Robin Brent
-
Permalink Reply by Sue Browning on -
As I consider these changes, and particularly the budget up/down vote change, I've tried to figure out what will guide my decisions. At least as of this morning, these questions feel important...
1) Does the change move us toward providing voice...a voice grounded in the mission and evolving vision of our church...to those not yet part of UUCA, or to those new to UUCA, or those here and not yet finding authentic connection? Will the proposed changes help me and the church (members=church) listen more closely for messages from outside the dominant culture and be truly open to the change?
2) Over time (say 2 budget cycles), will the proposed change drive us toward a stronger process where more feel part of choices that need to be made? Will the change strengthen or weaken the opportunities for most (more?) to feel the budget is an open process with true room for many voices? Will there be room for disagreement and conflict to be reviewed in love and caring under the covenants of the church? Will the change help shift (drive) our focus on possibilities, and resource allocation, and accountability to one another on the other 364 days? Or not?
3) Are the proposed changes workable? (Not are they perfect?) But if adopted as the choice of the congregation, and we move forward with the intent to make them work, is there a reasonable assumption they can?
For now, the questions are helping me form my view. Thanks for the many who have worked and weighed in on the issues.
Sue
-
Permalink Reply by Diane Ullius on
-
Here's what I hope we can accomplish by revising our Constitution--and it's not just about the budget, though certainly that's the issue that is drawing the most heat.
I hope that we can take on, seriously and whole-heartedly and in large numbers, the ongoing business of creating church for each other. I hope that we can engage regularly in dialogue about what matters, that we can use the differences in our viewpoints and our needs to help us understand each other. I hope that we can listen--throughout the year--to everyone who has an idea. I hope that we can each take many opportunities to speak our truth.
I hope we can look at the big picture, that we can address concerns with love and curiousity and faith. I hope that we can get more and more people involved in considering how our various ideas might fit together. I hope that we can pay our ministers and staff fair wages AND make our dreams come true!
There's more than one way of engaging the democratic process that we hold so dear. To me, the Annual Meeting resembles a Town Hall. Yet we also have a form of representational democracy, in that we elect our official leaders from among those who express interest in taking on the responsibility of decision-making. How are we using our elected leaders? Do we bring them ideas regularly? Do we offer support for tasks ? Or do we just take issue? Whether we agree on everything or not, let us remember that no one in this church is the enemy. We are together in covenant and in congregation.
Diane Ullius
Blog Posts
Being PK But Not PC?
Posted by Cynthia Adcock on July 29, 2010 at 12:00am — 1 Comment
Dear Abby
Posted by Rev. Michael McGee on July 28, 2010 at 8:49pm
A Renewed 10 Commandments
Posted by Rev. Michael McGee on July 29, 2010 at 8:29am — 1 Comment
Wear Your Papers
Posted by Madelyn Campbell on July 27, 2010 at 1:22pm — 2 Comments
From the Board Chair-Talking About Talking
Posted by Natalia Averett on July 27, 2010 at 4:00pm
Sign-up for Look Cool for School Now
Posted by Laura Dely on July 27, 2010 at 3:46pm
V.O.I.C.E. 2010-2011 Organizing Priorities
Posted by Robert Buckman on July 2, 2010 at 1:30pm — 3 Comments
Packing my bags
Posted by Rev. Mary McKinnon Ganz on May 30, 2010 at 6:46pm
Sermon Theme next year?
Posted by Rev. Michael McGee on May 13, 2010 at 5:37pm — 11 Comments
Good time with immigrant pre-schoolers and their parents; bad time with some of their helpers
Posted by Joe Adcock on July 26, 2010 at 2:50pm — 4 Comments
Photos
Help & Getting Started
Getting Started Activities
For members, friends and inquiring friends: Please, pick up your keys, or Sign In credentials, on Sundays after each service or contact Sarah Masters, for them.
Please also read the following:
• Online Community and ministry: A blog
• Our Congregational Covenant: We embrace a diversity of opinions, viewpoints, and beliefs. By participating here, you agree to uphold our covenant. Continue reading
HELP
• Ask the Website Admin Questions and request help.• Help Each Other: Post Questions to a Discussion Board
© 2010 UUCA, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA
