Check out two new links on the Links Page:
http://www.generalconvention.org/ccab/roster/513
(CCAB - list of UTO Board Membership)
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18043#.Uj0GLZjyFCj
(VirtueOnLine - The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism)
Friday, September 20, 2013
A GRANT STORY – FIVE SMOOTH STONES
HIGHLIGHTING
SOME OF THE WORK OF THE 2012-2015 UTO BOARD
THE JOHN
E. HINES SOCIAL JUSTICE AWARD:
A
Triennial United Thank Offering Grant
The first John Hines Social
Justice Award has been given to the United Thank Offering Grant titled "Five
Smooth Stones."
"Five Smooth Stones"
is a film created by St. Anthony's Episcopal Church in Winder, Georgia; Diocese
of Atlanta. The film was created
to address the issue of bullying; an issue frequently in the news and that effects
all of us.
Here is the description of
the film from the producers: "Bullying is a major current societal problem
wherever children are present. This film is by children, for children. It is to
be used primarily as a tool for children, educators, religious, administrators,
group leaders, etc. to learn and understand how, where and why bullying takes
place and to create an awareness of the various situations that can lead to
this type of abuse."
The grant funding will
be used to fund the initial publishing of the film on bullying "Five
Smooth Stones" and its companion Facilitator/Study Guide, for
distribution, marketing and sales for the purpose of anti-bullying education.
There has long been a desire
to celebrate the powerful memory of the Women of the Church supporting
Presiding Bishop John Hines request that the United Thank Offering support his
initiative titled "The General Convention Special Programs of
1967." In that year, the
women changed their grant focus for the 1967-1968 granting seasons, and gave
the entire UTO offering to the Presiding Bishop's proposal to address the
critical issues of Social Justice facing the United States during the years of
Civil Rights struggles—a total of $3,000.000.00.
The Most Reverend John Elbridge Hines
John Hines asked the women of the church for help, and was
required by the women to apply for their grant money, through the regular
granting process. He honored this
request and in turn, his request was granted. The Women of the Church are proud to this day that they, who
were not seated at General Convention at that time, were not seated on
Vestries, and were not able to be ordained, were able to support the efforts of
a courageous leader of the church during the dark days of civil unrest.
Hines Announces the General Convention Special Program - 1967
Loueta
Bailey, a soft spoken southern belle doctor's wife from Atlanta heard the plea
of a young Presiding Bishop who could see the world around him burning. Yet Loueta challenged the PB--telling
him he must apply for a grant like everyone else, and then the women would
consider a request from him. View
video of Loueta telling her story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiFT78zh5LY
Loueta Bailey, ECW National PresideNT, first woman seated as a deputy to
The General Convention
Special Programs was one of the most controversial concepts undertaken by the
church and many say the church has never been the same!
The John Hines Social
Justice Award has been created to honor the history of the relationship between
the Presiding Bishop and the Women of the Church, still a relationship celebrated
by The United Thank Offering Board.
Each General
Convention the plate offering received at the General Convention United Thank
Offering Ingathering Eucharist is be used to fund a grant application that
presents a grassroots, innovative and creative project that addresses
significant issues of social justice and how to change unjust structures in a
community. This award will include
the entire plate offering. The amount of the General Convention United Thank
Offering Ingathering Eucharist 2013 was $34,280.91
Thursday, September 19, 2013
More of what does this mean?
(by Jim Tinder)
More of what does this mean…
More of what does this mean…
Refer to the 9/12 screen shot on the 9/18 “What does this
mean?” post.
Evidently they forgot to add one of their staff to the UTO
board on the 9/12 list
(The Rev. Canon Dr. Michael Barlowe)
Let’s see the UTO board now consist of:
2 - Ex
Officio
3 –
Appointed
3 – DFMS
staff
--
8
7 –
Currently elected UTO board members.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
What does this mean?
(source:
Episcopal Church Web site | CCABs | Agencies/Boards | United Thank Offering
Board)
Wonder what this means?
- The 9/9/13 screen shot shows the United Thank Offering board listed under CCAB (Committees, Commissions, Agencies, and Boards) instead as a board autonomous and interdependent, reporting to Executive Council.
The CCAB Handbook
Annotated Table of Contents
The CCAB System (Page 1)
- Role of CCABs in the generation of policy, and the topics discussed by CCABs
- CCABs do not participate in the production of resources or in the carrying out of policy.
- Types of CCABs, along with the source and scope of their authority.
Members and Officers (Page 3)
·
Appointment of new members at the beginning of the
triennium. Convenor named to organize the first meeting and conduct an election
of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. Each officer has specific duties.
·
Expectation of members. Members must attend all meetings;
unexcused absence from two meetings can result in members removal [Canon
I.1.2(b)]. Consultants can only be hired under special circumstances.
CCAB Operations (Page 5)
- Chair’s duty to prepare an agenda for each meeting. Agenda will be circulated to the members and to the General Convention Office for posting.
- Chair and Secretary responsible for maintaining records and meeting minutes in collaboration with the Archives. Documents need to be preserved, including minutes, correspondence, E-mails, substantive drafts, and information disseminated at or between meetings.
- CCABs will file a triennial report which include General Convention resolutions. Reports will be compiled into a document commonly known as the Blue Book, which is produced before each General Convention. Blue Book reports must be submitted on time and prepared according to specific guidelines.
No UTO
president or finance officer?
Vacant
board members positions will be filled how?
Does
this mean the UTO “board” will no longer participate in developing the design
of the Blue Boxes, Face-to-Face training, or Granting Criteria and granting procedure?
- The past-President is listed as “Chair” instead of “President”. Under CCAB there are no Presidents only Chairs.
So does
that mean that past-President & UTO board is already identified as being
under CCAB’s of General Convention instead of Executive Council?
- The Executive Council member is listed as a member. The United Thank Offering by-laws identify the Executive Council member as a member of the board (as recommended in INC-055). The official notice received from the General Convention Office identified the member as a liaison.
Clarification
is needed and has not been completed.
So what
is the role of the liaison and the Executive Council as they relate to the UTO
board?
Is it
still and will UTO continue to be a
board?
The 9/12/13 screenshot
- The four members resigned are removed from the list.
- The UTO President’s office listed as “chair” in the 9/09/13 screen shot is now listed as a “Convener”.
So does
this mean the Vice President that would be the President, per current by laws,
of UTO upon the resignation of the past-President really isn’t President or
even “Chair”; but instead already just a “Convener”?
Is the
UTO already considered as part of General Convention?
Does
this mean this change is already in place as proposed by the DFMS by
laws regardless of the INC-055 and the Executive Council’s approval?
- Two new entries on the 9/12/13 “board” list are: The Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Shori and The Rev. Gay C. Jennings. The two added are listed as “Ex Officio” with voice and vote. Per CCABs Handbook – revised 2013 (? What were the revisions since the 2012 General Convention?)
What does this mean to the United thank Offering’s
ministry of thankfulness?
1) Is
the United Thank Offering Board a Board created by General Convention as
defined by the requirements of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal
Church?
2) What
process is used for this kind of decision?
3) Has this process been one in which the United
Thank Offering governing board has participated??
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
UTO Board Structure 2012-2015
An ongoing discussion regarding UTO
Board representation
We have made absolutely no judgment
statements regarding how members are selected to be on the United Thank
Offering board. No person is diminished by how that person arrives on the
board. All members are equal according to the 2012 Bylaws, therefore all
members, elected or appointed have policies and procedures to follow and
responsibilities for committee service
.
This particular United Thank
Offering board has faced a demand for adapting to transition unprecedented in
the history of the organization. Every board meeting has included new
members arriving, and old members no longer present. The death of a president has never happened to any Episcopal
Church Board; there were no precedents about how to cope with this event. And it is certainly true that the
"core" group is still grieving.
What might be called the
"core group" of the 2012-2015 Board first met each other and
met together in Indianapolis at the 2012 Triennial meeting. That group
included the 9 elected province reps and the three at large reps elected from
among the sitting reps to serve another term as At-Large members. Since
2000, the United Thank Offering committee/board had been a twelve member board;
the INC-055 bylaws of 2012 required that an additional three members be added;
two to be appointed by Executive Council and one to be appointed by the PB, the
POHD and the President of the United Thank Offering Board. The three appointed members were
appointed in April of 2013, almost one year after the Board first assembled. (The United Thank Offering President was
not included in the decisions as expected.)
One of these members was able to
attend all but two days of the May meeting; one was able to attend four days of
the meeting; one was unable to attend at all. Two of these members were
able to attend the one-day special meeting in July with the PB. This has
meant that although all three have some level of knowledge of the United Thank
Offering Board, none of them have had long experience of the working of the
board prior to this tumultuous time. They were appointed in the midst of
it all. It is assumed that anyone
coming on the board has some knowledge of the United Thank Offering; the first
meeting of the 12 member board in September was an orientation session, with
time spent reviewing the bylaws and the policies and procedures of the
board. The members of the UTO
board, all of whom served in some capacity on the INC-055 study committee, have
not participated in an orientation
sessions, or even a session that included introduction of current board members
and their backgrounds and interests.
The elected members of the board,
most of whom had been working together for a year, chose to discuss some of the
issues presented in the draft documents received from DFMS as a separate group,
as they were and are the members directly affected by the change in the
election process described in the proposed bylaws revisions. The
"elected" members of the board are the nine representatives elected
to serve a particular constituency and they have very specific responsibilities
to those who elected them; these tasks are different from those of at-large and
appointed members. That does not mean one group is more important than another.
Three provincial members chose to protest and resign; five members have
chosen to object, but continue on the board; one, the Province 9 rep, who has
still other responsibilities, has chosen to abstain until the September
meeting. The thinking was that those elected from Provinces needed to talk among themselves regarding what impact these documents had on them. or example, province responsibilities involve recruiting and training the diocesan coordinator networks that actually use the Blue Boxes. There is concern about how this process will proceed without the relationship with ECW.
One at-large member has chosen to
see the issues from a different perspective than the rest of the elected
provincial reps who have chosen to continue on the board. None of the
board members, current or former, has denied her right to disagree. As
stated above, the at-large members of the board do not have provincial
responsibilities; they do have board responsibilities.
The appointed members who have come
on board in the midst of this "crisis" all have some history with
United Thank Offering, but have not been part of the year long process of work
that has been done. As a group, they have yet to participate in depth in the
ongoing conversation around the table. One member did attend and
participate in the recent Face to Face diocesan coordinator training program in
July. As a group, they come from a different perspective than the elected
members who have emerged from diocesan leadership. All three appointed members
are clergy, each with different Professional experience. The integration of
these different perspectives offers an exciting opportunity for growth and
direction for the United Thank Offering Board that everyone has been looking
forward to, but the opportunity for this integration has not yet been
available.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Statement from elected Province Representatives serving on United Thank Offering Board
Most of you are aware of the conflict
between the leadership of The Episcopal Church (the Domestic and Foreign
Missionary Society—DFMS) and the United Thank Offering
Board. Four key UTO board members including the president/grants convener, the secretary, the
communications convener and a respected long-time member of the Board have
resigned from the board as a protest, citing irreconcilable differences with
those of the senior leadership of DFMS.
Background:
·
2007 The
Presiding Bishop called for a study to learn about Committees, Commissions,
Agencies, and Boards (CCABs) and their relationship to the institutional
church.
·
2008 The
United Thank Offering Committee sought approval from the Executive Council to
incorporate as a 501(c)(3) status. Executive Council felt this would undercut
the church’s connection to UTO so they called for “a serious and extensive
study….” INC-055 resulted.
·
2011 The
Executive Council, meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, in October received the
report of INC-055 Ad Hoc Task force and in their minutes stated, “Resolved, That the Executive Council
receives and approves the newly developed Bylaws for the United Thank Offering
Board….” The minutes also stated, “Canon Harris reported that DFMS’ counsel
had reviewed the proposed Bylaws and approved them.” The Very Rev. Stacy Sauls
was present at that meeting.
·
2013 Work that had begun on Memorandum of
Understanding came to a halt with the death of Sarita Redd, UTO president in
January.
·
July 2013 The UTO board drafted a Memorandum of Understanding
between the UTO board and DFMS. The board was invited to New York by the
Presiding Bishop to discuss “issues of governance and oversight.” And to create
jointly new documents to define the
relationship between DFMS and UTO. (specifically revision of the Bylaws)
·
August 2013 Paul Nix (legal council for DFMS) sent Robin Sumners
(communication convener and UTO member who was supposed to work with Paul Nix
on the Bylaws revision) a revision of the Bylaws created solely by DFMS.
·
September 2013 Four UTO board members resigned in protest because
they felt the trust that they had put in DFMS had been betrayed and that the
Bylaws under which UTO had been operating (AD Hoc INC-055) had been
eviscerated.
Important Changes Under the Proposed
Bylaws by DFMS
·
The proposed Bylaws will sever the
relationship between UTO and Episcopal Church Women (ECW). The
provinces, not the provincial ECWs, will elect UTO provincial representatives.
There will be no presence of UTO at the Triennial, except by a member of the
DFMS staff.
·
The
board will no longer be autonomous.
·
Granting
will be done by DFMS, not the UTO board.
·
No UTO Executive Committee This committee sets program and policy.
It had been working on revisioning and revamping the committee structure in UTO
to be more effective.
·
No Communication Committee This committee was responsible for
revising and instituting a new electronic granting process that was faster and
more equitable, for assisting board members to become more computer literate
and electronically engaged, having UTO go paperless by 2014, posting the Face
to Face training program on YOU
tube, to name a few of its accomplishments. The committee was responsible
for providing education on the UTO network, planning communication strategy and
providing tools and materials. (This will now be under DFMS)
·
No finance Committee This
committee has not been able to operate effectively because it has not received
a financial report from DFMS for 18 months.
·
Most
importantly, the core value of UTO is no longer in the proposed Bylaws. Gone is
the statement, “UTO as a daily ministry
of prayer and gratitude for blessings received for tangible support for the
work of the church throughout the world.”
It has been replaced with, “raising
money to support mission.”
The
remaining members of the UTO board hold fast to the INC-055 Ad Hoc Study Report
that recommended that the UTO "should
continue to be an autonomous and interdependent Board under the Executive Council". We
feel that we have adhered to all documents of the Episcopal Church and the
Constitution and Canons of TEC and the Policies and Procedures of the DFMS. We
feel that understanding our finances; taking responsibility for the offerings
given by our thankful people; the decision making of granting these funds; and
being able to communicate and tell our story are vital to the continuance and
well being of The United Thank Offering.
We
are continuing to operate under the Bylaws established by the INC-055 Ad Hoc
Study Report and will continue to do so until we are able to compromise on the
proposed Bylaws.
If
the proposed Bylaws are passed, it will bring a close to a very important
“grass-roots” ministry involved in mission.” That would be a great loss and
very sad!
If
you do not want this to happen, here are some suggestions:
1. Contact
your Bishop and tell him/her what is happening. Explain that under the proposed Bylaws:
a. The autonomy of the UTO board as
outlined in Ad Hoc committee report INC-055 is in
jeopardy.
b. The historical relationship between
the ECW and UTO is dissolved.
DO IT THIS WEEK.
(Bishops meet in
Nashville beginning September 19, 2013. There needs to be a conversation
there.)
2. PRAY and PRAY some more that this
difficulty can be resolved for the best for the United Thank
Offering
and the mission of the church.
Each Elected Province Representative signed this
statement: the continuing board members offered to send this statement to Provinces
I, IV and VII, and have done so.
Province II: Lois
Johnson-Rodney
-- Finance Officer (Resigned as Finance Officer, but has remained Province Rep)
-- Finance Officer (Resigned as Finance Officer, but has remained Province Rep)
Province III: Dena
Lee
Province IV: Marcie
Cherau
Province V: Peg
Cooper
Province
VIII: Barbara Schafer, Vice President, now President
Friday, September 13, 2013
The Truth
I believe that unarmed truth and
unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right,
temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I have to say what’s on my heart, and I’m going to say it straight— the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I was never any good
at bootlicking; my Maker would make short work of me if I started in now! Job 32:14-16 (The Message)
The clever use of IRS requirements, which makes
everyone quake in their boots, to imply that this group of "old
women" just do not understand that some of these things have to happen,
accomplishes the goal of taking control of UTO because the law say that DFMS
has to bring the UTO under compliance.
This sounds so very logical; of course we all have to comply with the
IRS!
This is reminiscent to me of how biblical quotes
are often used--to prove women should not be ordained; to prove being gay is a
"cardinal sin;" to prove marriage can only exist between one man and
one woman. We can now use the IRS regulations to prove that all money
belongs to the part of the Episcopal Church living in the edifice of 815--which
the United Thank Offering primarily built.
Ponder this quote from the press release
describing the dedication of that great edifice called "815," on
Monday, April 29, 1963.
NEW
YORK, --- The new, national Episcopal Church Center, 815 Second Avenue, was
dedicated Monday, April 29.
Presiding
Bishop Lichtenberger laid the cornerstone. Also taking part in the dedication
ceremonies was the Church's highest ranking layman, Clifford P. Morehouse,
president of the House of Deputies.
The
ceremony took place under the arcade that runs the full length of the Second
Avenue facade. In the cornerstone the Presiding Bishop placed six foundation
symbols: a cross, the Holy Scriptures, the Book of Common Prayer, the
Constitution and Canons and the Journal of the 1961 General Convention, the United Thank Offering Box which
belonged to the founder of the special women's offering, and the lists of
memorials, thank-offerings, and other gifts in addition to lists of
contributors to the building.
The sadness is that it is true that the thinking
and dreaming of the women who began the United Thank Offering has been a main
source of innovation in the church. The possibility of international
women missionaries; the idea of health and retirement benefits for those who
have served faithfully without the option of building personal resources-the
forerunner of the Church Pension Fund--a gift to the church from the women who
serve; the establishment of The Church Building Fund to allow the building of
small churches through out the world--all made possible by a grass-roots effort
of women understanding that every penny counts. Under the oversight of the
Chief Operating Officer, this process will cease to exit as it has been known.
The Institutional Church is not the hot-bed of imagination or
innovation--and that is one of the reasons the church does not acquire
membership among those of the digital age. The Chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, recently said,
"Innovation never comes from established institutions." One of the things that makes the United
Thank Offering work is that it never becomes institutionalized because the
board responsible is ever changing, sending out trained church leaders and
bringing in new brains and new ideas.
Mark Harris said to me that one of the problems
is that the women of the church have not created a power base; servant
leadership is not about power--it is about service. Therefore, even the
faithful women on the current board who have not resigned have stayed because,
although they have experienced the same treatment and acknowledge that, they
still can't believe that the clergy and bishops whom they serve really mean
what they have said--they have said it, and done it, but don't mean it.
I will be sad if DFMS wins the battle of saying
that the four who left just did not understand the need to be in compliance
with the IRS; that is a story crafted to make us look incompetent at best.
And sadly, one day, the options of input from a group of people, for it
is not only women, who seek to encourage innovation by the process of the granting
program, will no longer be part of the Church.
There is this constant option of UTO becoming a 501c3, but UTO is a
very different organization than ERD. It is not a fundraising ministry,
it is a life discipline--it provides for a lifetime awareness of thankful
living and it belongs central to the church, if the church is living its
mission, for it is a movement and not a fundraising body. The people in
the pews feel a relationship to the people who receive grants--to me UTO is the
viable, extraordinary example of the Body of Christ at work--reaching out with
love to provide for miracles. I hate that this may come to an end on my
watch. Nowhere in the revised bylaws presented to us was this theology of
a life discipline of thanksgiving central to the original bylaws ever
mentioned. So while I might now advocate for a 501c3 to protect
the life of UTO, I have always agreed that walking within, beside, above, and
below the church was where we belong.
Robin ( and barbi and georgie and renee in spirit!)
Monday, September 9, 2013
The Purpose of the UTO Four
On September 2, 2013,
four members of the 2012-2015 United Thank Offering Board resigned from the
Board, and from their leadership positions, in protest against a process begun
by the Episcopal Church Officers at the Church Center at 815 2nd Avenue to
develop documents of governance for the United Thank Offering Board. Three of these members had been part of
a working group created by the Presiding Bishop to develop these documents
jointly. There were four members
of the United Thank Offering Board, and three members of the staff at 815 and a
representative of the Executive Council. (Three lawyers, and ultimately three
priest; see how that adds up to four—or five!)
When the drafts of these
documents were received, based on the content and the message which accompanied
them, the working group of UTO had an immediate and visceral reaction. The conversations undertaken regarding
the process and the critical points identified by the United Thank Offering group
were not represented in the documents; the four items stated by the UTO
representatives as critical were eliminated completely, and the structure of
UTO changed dramatically. The
message transmitting these documents said:
Attached is our
revisions to the MOU and Bylaws for the UTO Board’s review. We have given this
project significant time and thought and believe that these revisions best
embrace the reality of the UTO Board being an integral and very important part
of DFMS and a CCAB of The Episcopal Church. We also believe that these
revisions will work to maximum the viability of the UTO Board for many years to
come.
Per my
conversation with Robin yesterday, we can convene upon my return to the office
to discuss these revisions at a time suitable to all of us.
This did not to appear to invite restorations to
the revisions of the critical points defined by the UTO working group of the
items defined in the earlier discussions.
The telephone call between the legal counsel of DFMS and the UTO
communication convener did not invite the option of discussing significant
changes; the statement was made,
"We have removed the treasurer position on your board, as the
finance of UTO will now be completely handled by DFMS." The staff at DFMS, including the Presiding
Bishop has repeatedly told the UTO Board that UTO has no money; all the money
belongs to DFMS. Although almost
all of the women of the church know absolutely there is money that belongs to
UTO.
When the
elected members of the board, those immediately affected by the changes, were
given the draft documents to read, all but one of the elected members were
shocked and devastated by the structure the documents established; those on the
working group, and a board member who had been part of the internal
conversations concluded that the evidence put forth by the DFMS office was not
created in good faith, would not be revised in good faith, and resigned in
protest of the new direction forced upon the United Thank Offering by these
documents. The UTO Four, as they
are being called, doubted that, based on their experience with DFMS during the
entire last year, that there would be little integrity in any process.
Other
elected board members decided to stay to try to change the minds of the DFMS
leadership. One continued to
insist that there was nothing wrong with this process at all.
All of the
documents made public from both UTO and DFMS regarding this sad and traumatic
situation are available here. The
list of pages is found to the right; we who resigned have made our joint and
our individual statements. We have
each done this in order to do our best to protect the integrity of the of the
United Thank Offering within the Episcopal Church.
Robin Sumners, UTO Four
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)