The following is a running list of board accomplishments that the UTO board has achieved in the short time since the INC-055C report and the establishment from the UTO being a committee to that as a board. A note to make here was the UTO committee was instructed not to make "any" changes until the study committee complete its INC-055C report. Therefore the UTO board achievements listed starts only since September 2012. Since it was not planned to have to go through the cycle of events leading up to this point in time the document is not entirely listed chronologically, by category of the events, nor does it always separate the accomplishments versus obstacles.
However you should see that this board was not "a bunch of do nothing old ladies". Likewise it should also be clear that the obstacles was solely those perpetrated by DFMS and continuously unjust. Yet the UTO board trusted, hoped, and continued to succeed to complete 3 of the 5 (and working on the 4th) recommendations contained in the INC-055C study report.
The key to interpreting the obstacles placed by DFMS on the UTO board and its officers is it represents:
- That the By-Laws DFMS thrown back into the face of the UTO is not a single even but a pattern
- The behavior of DFMS is sadly a culture of power and control by:
example: repeated request for financial information
result: "report not available"
b. Delaying
example: Purchasing of Apple products for the UTO board to meet the 2013granting
result: Multiple follow up required and still ignored for 4 weeks sitting on the desk of the Deputy COO for a signature.
c. Denial of services
example: Software for the 2013 granting.
result: The board was told that the software used for the 2012 granting was being replaced with a new system. The system would be up by November and the UTO grant associate at 815 would be trained. In early December after repeated inquiries as to the status of the implementation of the new system the then President of the UTO board was told "It and the previous software would not be available". Additionally the Church Center would be closed for the last two weeks of December for the Christmas
Holidays and there would be "no support" available to UTO. With plans in place for the opening of grants submission starting January 1, 2013; the women having just 2 1/2 weeks put together a system that is now viewed as one of the most successful granting cycle in the history of UTO. So much for achieving an "interdependency" noted in the INC-055C study report.
d. Usurping
example: unilateral and unauthorized cancellation of a meeting
result: The meeting between the DFMS financial staff person assigned to UTO, the UTO financial officer, the President of UTO, and a past UTO financial officer to assist with the transition of the UTO finance duties was cancelled WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE NOR A NOTIFICATION TO THE UTO MEMBERS. The UTO members only found out the meeting was cancelled when the prior UTO finance officer who was to attend call the UTO finance office to ask why the meeting was cancelled. The President then call DFMS to ask if the meeting was in fact cancelled and got an answer of "Yes". The President then ask "Why" but received no response. Next the UTO President ask about the airline and hotel registrations and the response they were already cancelled.
e. Ignoring
example: The DFMS By-Laws and MOU
result: Complete disregard for the UTO By-Law, MOU, and the 6 years of independent study and the report INC-055. Eventually DFMS has chosen to ignore the work and input of anyone or group outside inter-power structure at the Church Center.
The REAL issue is not only about the UTO as an autonomous board, the dedication of volunteer women, the service provided by UTO for almost 125 years, the in-gathering and designated trusts
funds (the money); it is about the CULTURE at the very heart of the management style at OUR Church. A culture that concentrates power and control to a cadre of individuals who style is to bully or ignores anyone or any group that gets in its way. This cancerous growth of power is not unique to the Episcopal Church. Look through the history of mankind and the number of organizations and government that has similar experiences. Sadly until those both internally and externally stands up to stop this centralize power and control culture we will be doom to have history to repeat itself.
Directly below is a summary of the recommendations from the INC-055 study report and the corresponding accomplishments (shown in blue text) by the UTO toward those recommendations. The summary section is followed by a more detail account of the recommendations and accomplishments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore we seek to provide the United Thank Offering support,
visibility, autonomy and connection.
In an effort to do so, we offer the following recommendations for Board
follow-up:
Theology of Thankfulness
• That thankfulness continues to be at the center of the United Thank
Offering; and
• That the Theology of Thankfulness document should be published as a
separate short piece (i.e. as a Forward Movement Pamphlet) for wide
distribution.
Published
and available beginning with General Convention 2012. The document is in
pamphlet form and available from the Episcopal Media Center.
History of UTO
• That The Board should find ways to honor and celebrate regularly as a
church the history of the UTO and the accomplishment of women in ministry; and
Planning started in spring 2013 to celebrate 125 years of the
United Thank Offering with activities to kick off in 2014 and culminate in a
celebration at General Convention 2015.
• That the Historical Society be approached to consider publishing the
History of UTO.
Anglican Communion
• That the Board approach granting in a proactive, strategic
way—establishing strategic giving in line with missional priorities of the
church; keeping in mind key leverage points in the communion; and
A new granting process was created, put in place and utilized
for the 2013 grant cycle.
• That the College for Bishops offer training on the Theology and History
of UTO.
New Technology
• That UTO embrace the horizontal message sharing, and new technologies; The United Thank Offering Board invested in United Thank
Offering branded I-pads for each member and Mac books for strategic board
responsibilities.
• That Staff persons be fluent in digital media;
• That the United Thank Offering Board, Provincial and Diocesan
Coordinators be trained in communication and social media; Board members are trained in the use of I-pads, facebook.
Board committee work can be accomplished with a virtual meeting program.
• That the United Thank Offering develop a UTO University; A new revamped training
program for Diocesan
Coordinators is
in place, presented and professionally recorded Summer 2013 and available by
subscription on You Tube.
• That the United Thank Offering focus on expanding demographics in the
Episcopal Church for growth; and
• That the United Thank Offering Board engage in a strategic planning
process using recommendation of INC-055 as a starting point.
The following is quite lengthy, the format at times difficult due to the conversion from MS-Word to plain text, and the preparation was not ever thought it would be necessary; please read with patience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The United Thank
Offering Board 2012-2015
In entering into the 2012-2015 Triennium, the United Thank
Offering Board has had as a roadmap for thinking and decision making the report
from INC-055 Ad-Hoc Committee of the Executive Council. The report states in its beginnings that the
work of this committee was "meant primarily to be a visioning exercise,
providing recommendations to the 2012 General Convention concerning United
Thank Offering and its vision for the 21st Century." The report continues with recommendations:
"Our recommendations....highlight
several common concerns:
visibility, communication,
autonomy and support. For the United
Thank Offering to be successful
in the coming years each of these
Concerns must be addressed."
Sarita Redd, United Thank Offering Board President, opened
the first meeting of the 2012-2015 Board with emphasis on the importance of
consciously embracing the recommendations of the study report, and using them
in our process of developing goals and objectives for the Triennium. This approach to development of the Board
was met with enthusiasm by most of the Board.
A Board in
Transition, Transition, Transition!
During the 2009-2012 Triennium, when the study committee was
doing their work, there was substantial conflict among members of the Board
precipitated by the intent of a Task Force studying the United Thank
Offering. As there is in the whole
church, there was great difficulty within the Board with the challenge of moving
into the 21st century where change is the norm and "but this is how we
have always done it" is no longer acceptable. As with church membership changing and demanding a different
engagement from its participants, the UTO Board is demanding a different
engagement from its members. Most of
the "Old Guard" came from a place of White Entitlement; mission was
done to others by grants, not with others using grants. There was also a racial challenge—the white
entitlement position struggles deeply with real leadership in the church being
either ethnic or female—even though those struggling are female. It was not uncommon during the 2009-2012
Triennium for racial slurs to be muttered at the Board table, and challenges to
authority of Board members being based on prejudice rather than working task
issues.
Into this challenging picture came six new board members
from all over the Church "Nation."
And with these six board members began a process of transition of people
unprecedented in UTO history. Beginning
with the first meeting, the same people have yet to gather round the United
Thank Offering table; if the present course continues, it will be January 2014
before the 2012-2015 Triennium Board has stabilized (if then!). See
Appendix 1 for Board Transition Back Story
Yet We Persist!
And yet with these transition challenges, the United Thank
Offering persists!!! The "work we
have been given to do" is getting done, and that is what this is all
about!
Accomplishments
September 2012 – July 2013
The INC-055 Ad-Hoc Committee study report identified three
distinct areas of interest related to The United Thank Offering:
Matters concerning:
1) Faithfulness to
God's Mission
2) Role, Purpose and
Function
3) Board Structure, By
Laws, and Policies and Procedures
Regarding
Faithfulness to God's Mission:
The United Thank
Offering is mission minded and sees God's mission as its work. The United Thank
Offering Board establishes its guidelines in relation to its discernment of
needs and its historical focus on ministry by and to women and its theology of
thankfulness.
Triennium Goals and
Accomplishments in Faithfulness of God's Mission 9/1/12 – 7/15/13
During the 2013 Granting Season the focus of granting was
two of the five marks of mission:
To respond to human need by loving service
To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence
of every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation
The granting focus and criteria were available to the public
beginning 11/1/12; final
grant application deadline was 2/28/13.
During this granting season, 86 grants were received; 48 grants
were funded fully or
partially, for a total of $1,517,895.81. See Appendix 2: Funding
United Thank Offering Grants
Regarding Role,
Purpose and Function
The United Thank
Offering plays an important role in the missionary life of the Episcopal Church
and richly deserves the recognition and support of The Episcopal Church. It has served the church as a vital force
for new work and vision. Relationship
between UTO and TEC is creative one.
The UTO can be a source of vision
and that accepting that call to prophetic ministry will open UTO to renewed
vocation in the 21st century.
UTO is "grounds
up" organization; its role, purpose and function is grounded in the activity of thankful
giving. The United Thank Offering must
continue to be autonomous, but interdependent regarding the entity that is The
Episcopal Church.
Triennium Goals and
Accomplishments in Role, Purpose and Function 9/1/12 – 7/15/13
During the early months of the 2012-2013 Triennium, the
United Thank Offering has stepped up to assume its autonomous position within
the great body of the Episcopal Church by doing the following:
*revising and instituting new granting procedures to address
challenges presented by the study committee report:
The Ad-Hoc report stated some specific comments regarding
the granting procedures utilized by the UTO Board up to 2013:
Applications
are reviewed and investigated by the member of the UTO Board assigned to that
geographic region. At its annual granting session, the UTO Board prioritizes
grant applications and decides which ones will be funded and whether the full
amount of the request will be met. Although there are criteria for determining
which grants to fund, it appears that they are not applied consistently and that
the decisions as to which grants to fund are part of a negotiating process
between members of the UTO Board.
The year prior to the 2013 granting season was spent in an in
depth revamping of the granting process.
In seeking to function with greater fiduciary responsibility, the Grant Committee was asked to develop a
granting process that would involve each Board member equally in the granting
process, and that would have a more objective approach to grant decisions than
those described in the study report. A
new grant system was developed, and with the new system, all grants were
reviewed by the Grants Committee for completeness of application forms, and for
compliance with criteria. Any questions generated were asked by committee
members; the involvement of the Province Reps was prior to the grant submission
deadline talking with the Dioceses in their areas.
All Board members then read every grant; each Board member rated each grant using a
scale designed to approximate a bell shaped curve; all grants received one
rating for each Board member. When all
ratings were in, then all the grants were ranked in order of points
assigned. At the end of the first hour
of the granting meeting in May, the granting process was complete. It was remarkable. There are still some issues to resolve to make the process be
more user friendly, but the end result was extremely successful. Appendix
3: Backstory regarding promises made by DFMS regarding Grant Application
*requiring all board members to become computer literate
and digitally aware
The Ad-Hoc report made the following statement: We believe UTO is an ideal organization to embrace
social media and the new technologies of communications. These new technologies
are all about building relationships and telling stories, removing the barriers
of centrally-controlled communications and putting the personal interaction and
experience of transformation directly with the participants.
Taking this to heart, and looking at the concentration of the report on
issues of new technology and social media, Sarita asked the new Communications
Convener if the Communications Committee (a committee of several subcommittees
that ultimately involves the whole board) could plan on going paperless by
2014; however, the committee was ready
to do it now! Ipads and MacBooks were
purchased for the use of the whole board.
Each board member received an ipad;
Executive committee members and committee conveners also received
MacBooks; the UTO Board became an Apple Joint Venture, and by the time of the January Board
meeting the entire Board went to the Apple Store in Boca Raton, Florida for
Ipad training. Each Board member has a
UTO Board email address that is tied to the webhost
for the United Thank Offering Website:
www.UTOchange.org.
The Board has now been for a second round of training at the Apple
store in Richmond, VA.
The Board devices are permanently branded with the United Thank
Offering logo; everywhere a board members travels, her electronic device
displays who she is representing. The theory is that all UTO work is on these devices; if one person
leaves the board, and that has happened already, the device is set up to serve
that Province or focus and all the past info is stored there. So far this has worked fairly well. There are a few bugs; however, the Apple
Joint Venture membership allows for trouble shooting 24/7 on line and at all
stores all over the world. Any member
can get help anytime.
The other tremendous thing this process has done for us, is that face
to face communication with each other has been remarkable. Using the Go To Meeting program, committees
have repeatedly met live doing work in preparation Board meetings and other
needs. The whole board has been able to
have a conversation simultaneously; and this week will have a special on line
meeting in preparation for the trip to New York.
Part of the theory behind getting every board member online was that if
our board can do it, everyone, even those who "hate the internet" and
"don't like email" will begin to embrace this new world that their
children and grandchildren negotiate with ease. This has worked for us.
And for us—imagine having every diocesan coordinator show up with their
UTO ipad to do a presentation for a congregation! What does that communicate!
Appendix 5: Getting the United Thank Offering Paperless
Performance Package Paid For!
*establishing a Facebook page and other Social Media that
is active and changing daily
The newly formed social media committee is maintaining the Facebook
page daily; it has a way to go—but it is there; the membership to Pinterest is
there; the option of twitter is there; we have members who will be undertaking
maintaining the UTO Blog.
The Social Media presence the Board needs will be a part of the
planning for the UTO 125th Anniversary occurring in 2014. A communications consultation is being held
with representatives of the 125th planning committee and Neva Rae Fox of
Episcopal News Service to explore the avenues for major marketing of UTO, its
brand, and its potential on July 30,2013 at Camp Allen following the Face to
Face Training
Conference.
(Twitter account up and running August, 2013: Currently following
*redesigning the Face to Face diocesan coordinator training
program to be filmed for posting on a United Thank Offering Youtube channel.
The Face to Face Diocesan Coordinator training scheduled at Camp Allen
is designed with 12 minute presentations that will be filmed and put on line on a United Thank Offering
Youtube Channel and on Vimeo channel so there is easy access for the constantly
changing populations of Coordinators in the field.
(added 9/4/13: the Face to Face training has been held,
video taped and is on its own Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/utochange)
*creating a committee structure that requires active
participation of every Board member
At the May Board meeting a process of visioning and
revamping the way the committee structure functions; every Board member commits
to 10-20 hours of volunteer time each week.
This team work offers a remarkable amount of energy available to impact
the world where "Our change changes lives!" The goal is to have a
new committee structure in place in January.
*establishing a website that serves as a source of
communication regarding all activities of the Board and its' members, with
special pages for Province news and Church wide news, and a virtual blue box
for giving that change that changes lives!
The Ad-Hoc report contained a visioning exercise regarding how new
technology might look. The Board has
taken that vision very much to heart and has embraced the need for each thing
discussed in that vision. At the May
meeting the Board voted to offer two places for online contributions on the UTO
change website. Now we just need the
account numbers at DFMS where contributions will be directed and the virtual
blue box will be a reality.
Each of the items listed below is being undertaken by a
subcommittee of the
Communications Committee; reports on the status of these items are due at the
September Board Meeting in Massachusetts:
*expanding and organizing a database of the people
interested in participating in United Thank Offering activities
*revising the corporate logo of UTO to complement the
branding of TEC while maintaining its autonomy
*undertaking a careful analysis of marketing products;
discerning which items are needed in print form and designing items that can be
easily distributed through digital media
Regarding Board
Structure, By Laws, and Policies and Procedures
The United Thank
Offering/Board understands itself, and is understood by Executive Council, as
an Agency of the Episcopal Church. It understands
it must order its work, understand its purpose, and develop policies and
procedures in coherence with the Constitutions and Canons of The Episcopal Church and the organizational and
fiduciary policies of the DFMS.
The Ad-Hoc Committee,
working closely with the UTO Board President and The Board has proposed a set of bylaws that follow closely the
policies and procedures already in place with the United Thank Offering. Recommended by the Ad-Hoc Committee, these Bylaws have been put in place by
resolution of the UTO Board and affirmed by resolution of the Executive Council
(October 2011).
The ratification of
these documents requires a Memorandum of Understanding between the United Thank Offering Board and the
Officers of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society regarding the relationship
between the UTO Board and The Episcopal Church. The occasion of the signing of that Memorandum of Understanding
signals the commitment to a relationship of trust and cooperation.
Triennium Goals and
Accomplishments (and issues) in Regarding Board Structure, By Laws, and
Policies and Procedures 9/1/12 –
7/15/13
In December of 2012, Sarita Redd sent an official Board
Memorandum to the entire
United Thank Offering regarding the upcoming finalization and signing of the
Memorandum of Understanding. (That Board Memorandum is attached here as
Appendix 6) In this document
she itemized several areas of concern she had regarding the clarification
between UTO and DFMS to be spelled out in the MOU. She indicated that she was working with the legal counsel to the
UTO Board, and that the entire Board needed to understand the importance of
this MOU. She informed the Board that
the final Memorandum of Understanding was due in the office of The Rt. Rev.
Stacy Sauls on January 31, 2013. That Board discussion did not take place as
Sarita expected as the business of the new granting process to be conducted by
the Board occupied the majority of the meeting time. All parties left Florida expecting to have a copy of the MOU to review
at the beginning of the next week.
Sarita died two days later.
Anne Gordon Curran, Vice-President acting for Sarita, was
asked by the Board to query Bishop Sauls regarding this document. She reported that he had responded there was
no rush regarding this document. The
entire Board was involved in the granting process at that point in time; there
was little time to give thought to this document and how it was to come to
pass. There was an assumption by the
Board that Sarita had been working on this document with the Board "legal
counsel," whom the board understood to be an attorney named Larry Grable,
who lived in Oklahoma City, and worked with Sarita.
The board contacted Larry Grable to ascertain the status of
this MOU, and he said he was
unaware of the status of this document, but that he was the Attorney of Record
for the United Thank Offering Board. He
indicated there was a retainer in place, and that he was willing to contact
Sarita's family to try to obtain whatever files were in her possession.
Sarita's family was at that time unwilling to be in contact
with the leadership of the UTO Board.
Sarita's mother is of the opinion that the UTO and its years of stress
are somewhat responsible for the death of her daughter. This has been a delicate process for the
Board.
At no time did anyone on the Board perceive that continuing
to view Larry Grable as the Board's attorney was not "allowed" by the
relationship of UTO with DFMS; especially as the relationship of Mr. Grable and
the Board began in 2008. And also as
there had been no communication at all after Anne Curran's contact with Bishop
Sauls regarding the timing of the document.
One of the appointed members of the Board has recently told the Board
that the MOU was to have been generated by DFMS. The idea that this document was being prepared by the DFMS attorney has never been mentioned
to anyone on the Board.
The goal of the Board was to be in compliance with the
recommendation of the Ad-Hoc Committee report that the MOU was a
necessity. It was also clear that the
MOU was to keep at the center of the relationship, the autonomy of the United
Thank Offering Board and its day to day functioning to serve The Episcopal
Church.
The Board was also aware that "the UTO Bylaws required a Letter of Agreement between DFMS and The
Episcopal Church Center leadership and the UTO Board and staff persons hired
concerning UTO expectations and obligations toward
the staff hired."
It was made clear to the Board by Sarita that this letter of
agreement would be prepared and signed at the time a new UTO coordinator was
hired. It was the understanding of the
Board that Mr. Grable would also be the person to help prepare this letter.
There was an assumption that the procedures described in the UTO Bylaws
would be followed when hiring the UTO Coordinator, and that at the time a candidate was
jointly selected a simple letter of agreement would be prepared and signed.
There was unfinished business related to the requirements of
the Bylaws approved by Executive Council, which spelled out somewhat clearly
the expectations of the Board related to the hiring of a UTO coordinator and to
the need for the final document called the Memorandum of Understanding. The Board has believed that the services of
Mr. Grable were begun for the reason of creating and finalizing these documents
and that once they were complete, both
parties would move ahead in partnership, trust and understanding—as the Board
believed was being done even without these documents.
As a Board, we are astounded at being accused of taking an
adversarial position with DFMS. As we
will restate—for 125 years coming up we have been part of The Episcopal
Church. We are The Episcopal Church.
We cannot imagine being anything else.
At the same time,
we have some very serious issues with how we are relating to DFMS and that
specifically has to do with Finance.
And here is that story!
Financial Concerns
The 2012-2015 UTO Board was installed at the Triennial
Meeting in Indianapolis in July of 2012; the first meeting of this Board was in
September, 2012 in Oklahoma at St. Crispin's Conference Center.
During the July Board Meeting at the Triennial convention of
the Women in Indianapolis, it was made clear to the board that the budget being
presented was theoretical only as no financial reports had been available to
the board for preparing the budget.
Apparently then treasurer, Jan Goosens, had tried unsuccessfully to
obtain financial statements in March and again in June. In March, she was told the audit was taking
all the time; in June preparation for General Convention and the General
Convention Budget required all the effort available.
At the September meeting, President, Sarita Redd informed
the board that there was no budget as we had no figures from the prior year to
help determine a budget. She told the
Board that she and the finance officer elected at the September Board meeting,
Lois Johnson-Rodney, had an appointment with the finance office at DFMS in
November 15-16 in New York; she said that as Jan Goosen's father had died, Patty
Tourangeau, past treasurer from 2006-2009 Board would be attended to help
facilitate the transition from one Board to another. Sarita said at that time that she wanted to be absolutely certain
that DFMS had not continued to draw from UTO funds the portion of the salary
paid to the UTO Coordinator who had been let go in March and not yet replaced.
Sarita, Lois and Patty indeed traveled to New York, but did
not meet with the finance office. The
reports were not yet available. The
three met with Michelle Jobson, Grants Associate regarding travel forms, and
online payments for travel reimbursements.
Discussion was held regarding having a finance meeting just before the
At Large Grants meeting scheduled for the week of March 13-14, 2013.
There were no financial reports available for the January
meeting of the Board in Florida, and again there was no budget. Sarita continued to voice her concern about
the use of coordinator salary money when there was no coordinator.
Sarita died on January 26,2013—two days after returning home
from the January meeting.
In March, due to major bylaw issues within the board, a
Special Board meeting was called in New York, to coincide with the already
scheduled finance meeting and the At-Large-Representative Grant meeting with
the Mission department. At this
meeting, Anne Gordon Curran, who as Vice President of the Board, had become
President upon Sarita's death, resigned as president, and Barbi Tinder,
Province I Rep was elected President; Barbara Schafer, Province 8 Rep was
elected Vice President.
As President, Barbi was to attend the finance meeting Sarita
had been hoping to have with DFMS Finance and with Johnson Rodney, UTO Finance
Officer. This meeting did not take
place; no financial reports were available, as the auditors were working. There were no reports to be used as a
starting point for creating a budget to present at the May Board meeting.
A new meeting time was scheduled for June 23, this was a
reschedule of the original November finance meeting requested by Sarita
Redd—again with Patty Tourangeau present to facilitate training and transition
from 2009-2012 board to 2012-2015 Board.
This finance meeting was cancelled precipitously on June
20th, 2013, by Sam McDonald. Patty
Tourangeau was called by DFMS staff and told the meeting was cancelled before
UTO Finance Officer, Lois Johnson-Rodney was told. Plane flights and hotel rooms were cancelled prior to contact
with UTO Board members; the only contact from DFMS came after those actions in
an email to UTO President, Barbi Tinder, in which Sam McDonald accused the
Board of taking an adversarial relationship to DFMS because we had legal
counsel for the Board. The entire Board
was shocked at the behavior of DFMS staff in this whole process. There were no questions asked regarding our
perceived need for an attorney; Sam McDonald might have learned something
interesting had he asked questions first before reacting. Never had the word
"adversarial" entered the thinking of this group of hard working women
who give freely and faithfully of their time, talent and trust.
Now, the United Thank Offering Board looks at the behavior
of DFMS toward them and asks the question—who is the adversary? The Board sees a pattern that is very
disturbing.
The United Thank Offering Board is responsible for the
managing and stewardship of the United Thank Offering money. Becoming a Board and not being a Committee
implies a change in responsibility. In
the past, the UTO Committee received quarterly reports that could be defined as
Income Statements and P&L statements.
These reports have not been made available in 18 months. They have been verbally requested three
times a year: the pattern is this:
Financial Report Due Results
March 2012 No Financial Reports Available
June 2012 No Financial Reports Available
November 2012 No Financial Reports Available
March 2013 No Financial Reports
Available
June 2013 No Financial Reports
Received
To make clear the situation; the reports not available are
the Operations Reports that are due to the Board to make clear the financial
operating picture of the Board. There
are now two grant periods where figures for awarding grants are available, but
there is no operating budget as there are no figures.
The United Thank Offering Board of 2012-2015 understands
itself as a fully functioning professional board with fiduciary responsibility
for the funds with which it is entrusted.
The Board sees itself as having waited one full year plus several months
for reports on the financial status of the operating funds available for its
work, as the Board has taken the word of DFMS officers in good faith that
reports are forthcoming. While there
have not been written requests for this information, verbal requests should
have been sufficient to obtain the needed information. Finance Committee meetings of the 2012-2015
Board have been held, but no information beyond available grant funds has been
provided.
The only written request for financial information this
board is aware of was sent by Barbi Tinder, President of the United Thank
Offering Board, to the UTO Finance Committee and to the new UTO Coordinator on
June 12, in preparation for the Finance meeting with DFMS on June 24,
2013. Interestingly, this request dealt
primarily with ingathering funds for granting, and not operational funds. But was Sam's real reason for cancelling the
June 24 that the reports Barbi requested were not going to be available for
discussion? In the light of the pattern
above, now everything becomes suspicious.
No legitimate business would or could ever operate this way;
the trust, understanding and good working relationship that should exist
between the United Thank Offering Board and DFMS does not exist at the present
time. And yet the Board has felt
helpless, not adversarial, in this situation. Those to whom the Board is to
relate at DFMS are those who are refusing by omission, if not deliberate avoidance,
to provide the information the United Thank Offering Board must have in order
to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility.
Where do we go from here with this whole situation?
Appendix 1: Board Transition Back Story
There are presently twelve members of the United Thank Offering
Board; eleven elected members and one appointed member. There is also a Liaison
from Executive Council to the
Board. There are two vacancies
currently: Latin America
Member-At-Large and a second member to be appointed jointly by Executive
Council and the Board—the participation by the UTO Board President fulfills the
Board responsibility to this appointment. (There is a candidate under
consideration.)
The beginnings of this Board functioning cohesively have
been challenging. Board terms are for
the three years of a Triennium; a Board member may serve for two terms in a
lifetime; these need not be consecutive.
In a usual scenario, one half of the board changes with each Triennium. With the creation of the INC-055 Ad-Hoc
Committee report and the subsequent creation of New Bylaws for the Board, there
are now to be 15 Board members. Nine
members are elected from the Provinces of the Episcopal Church, one to
represent each Province; three are elected from within the Board to serve as
At-Large-Members representing three major areas of the Anglican Communion; two
are appointed by agreement of the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House
of Deputies and the President of the Board; one is appointed by Executive
Council. In this Triennium, there were
to be six newly elected province representatives, six returning members, and
the three new persons appointed.
The first meeting of the 2012-2015 Triennium was held in
Oklahoma in September; eleven members
of the Board attended this meeting; the Province Nine person, newly appointed
by the Province Bishop cancelled her attendance at the last minute
(subsequently, she resigned from the Board and was replaced by the previous
Province IX person who was eligible to serve one more term.) At this meeting, the Province V
representative was removed from the Board by recommended action of the
Continuing Review Committee for actions seriously violating by laws and the
required oath of office.
The second meeting of the Triennium was held in Florida;
twelve members attended this meeting. A
new person was elected to fill the Province V seat; Province IX sent the past
member to fill the vacant seat.
Immediately following the Florida meeting, President Sarita
Redd died suddenly. After a month long
period of chaos and controversy, sadness and shock, the Board called a special meeting; at this meeting, Anne Gordon
Curran, Vice President who had become President at Sartia's death, resigned as
President. Barbi Tinder, Province I rep
was elected President; Barbara Schafer, Province VII rep was elected VP. Two days after this meeting ended, the
Province III rep resigned.
The third meeting of the Triennium was held in Virginia; ten
of the members who attended the meeting in Florida were in attendance, one of
these members arrived one day late; one arrived two days late. One of these
members left two days early unexpectedly.
The new representative from Province III was in attendance for the whole
ten-day meeting. One of the new
appointed members was able to attend for five days; the person identified as
Liaison from Executive Council (a position the Board did not know existed)
attended for five days. There is still
one elected position open on the Board, and one appointed member has been
identified and who is considering the appointment. In addition, the newly selected UTO Coordinator attended the
meeting for four days. (This meeting
was a bit challenging when it came to managing agendas, information, goals and
objectives!)
Appendix 2: Funding United Thank
Offering Grants
The United Thank Offering Board is struggling with
communication with DFMS regarding the process of actually getting the money for
a grant award into the hands of the grantee.
There appear to be multiple issues regarding the process of grants
actually being funded.
There are criteria that the Finance department requires
regarding past grants; these criteria are not clear to the board, and the
process of the communication about the issues is difficult to track.
The grant awards list was sent to DFMS on June 6; it was
forwarded again on June 12.
The sample letter to be sent to grant recipients was
transmitted with the list.
After this letter was submitted, the Board requested that
the checks go out as quickly as possible.
There are apparently some grants with outstanding final report forms
that have emerged for consideration since the award process. A new grant cannot be awarded if a final
report has not been filed. The scope of this information is not known to the
Board at this time.
Getting from the Board approval to the money getting into
the hands of the grantee in a timely fashion has seemingly been problematic
consistently.
Appendix
3: Backstory regarding promises made by DFMS regarding Grant Application
There is a back
story here: TEC was supposed to provide
the UTO Board with an electronic grant application form to be used for granting
for the 2013 year. When Sam McDonald
attended the UTO Board meeting in September, he assured the entire Board that
the application was "in the works," and that Michelle Jobson, grants
associate would be trained how to use the application. He told us the application would be ready to
test by November 1 and would be up and active by the January date we requested. This information was announced in a press
release by Neva Rae Fox in October 2012.
During the second
week in December, Sarita Redd informed the Grants Committee that Alpha Conti,
DFMS controller was leaving DFMS in a week and indeed there would be no
electronic grant application forthcoming from DFMS as he was responsible for
this process.; could the committee please find away to create a grant
application---
This was done; it
required creating the website that had been planned for May launch be completed
immediately and this website would need to accommodate an application form that
would create a data based for managing grant information. In a matter of two and a half weeks, two
members of the committee and their very helpful spouses created a website, an
application form and a method of handling the entire granting process on line,
including reading, rating and ranking grant applications. It was not perfect, and there was no time
for testing the product, so the early applicants were experimenting right along
with the board. But at the end of the
day, the Board learned many important lessons and solved many problems.
Unfortunately, one
of the lessons learned was: do not trust DFMS; what we are told will not happen;
attention we need will not be forthcoming—we are not autonomous within a large support
system—we are out there on our own! And
we have learned a new level of autonomy
that changes the nature of our legitimate needs from UTO?DFMS staff. We have needs and they are real, but they
may be more manageable than they appeared a year ago.
Appendix 5:
Getting the Untied Thank
Offering Paperless Performance Package Paid For!
The
attached spreadsheet documents the long process of getting the invoices for the
paperless project paid for; the issue was the scheduled training process
accomplished at the January Board meeting so that the granting processes could
proceed paperless. The problem was
apparently a desire to have a conversation about the proposal—but that was not
communicated to anyone on the Board; when it the conversation was finally held
at the last moment on December 13, the finance office was closing on December
14 until after the first of the year—a fact not known to the board until the
afternoon of December 13. It would seem
that if a DFMS staff person had a question regarding a project of the United
Thank Offering, that person could make a phone call for clarification, rather
than hold invoices on a desk for four weeks.
UTO - DFMS PAPERLESS PROJECT TIMELINE
DATE COMMUNICATION FROM TO
SUBJECT
10/8/12 Email
Robin Sarita Registering domain names for UTO websites, blogs,
etc.
10/11/12 Email Robin Max Request
for quote regarding electronic devices for UTO Board
10/18/12 Email Sarita DFMS First
submission of request for payment of electronic package
11/16/12 Email Robin Sarita Second submission of request for payment of
electronic package:new invoices
12/1/12
GRANTS CONVENER DEVELOPING NEW GRANTING AWARD PROCESS
12/2/12 Email Sarita Michelle Please expidite payment of electonic package
invoices
12/12/12 Email Sarita Robin Payment has been made, check with Apple
12/12/12 Phone Call Robin Sarita Payment has not been received
12/13/12 Phone Call Robin Arlyssa/DFMS
Have no idea what you are talking about. Have never seen invoices
12/13/12 Phone Call Robin Michelle Invoices were given to Sam in Nov. Still on his
desk.
12/13/12 Phone Call Robin Sam Invoices finaly walked to finance and paid on
12/14/12
Sam says "I do not have
authority to approve this, but I should have been informed."
12/13/12
Phone Call Sarita DFMS Sarita
learns 815 is closing until after the New Year on Dec 13
12/13/12
Phone Call Sarita Robin There will be no online application
created by 815; can you create one?
12/17/12
Phone Call Robin Kurt Barnes Kurt
Barnes facilitates final payment for electronic package for Boad 12/17/12 Phone
Call Robin Sarita Work will begin today on website and
application form: goal posting 1/1/13 1/1/13 Email Robin Sarita
Website and Form up ready for testing
1/5/13
Email Robin
Board Website and Grant
Application Up and Ready for testing
1/7/13
Webposting Robin DFMS Request that DFMS place link to grant
application on UTO Mission Page
1/17/13
BOARD MEETING New Granting
Process and Electronic Grant Process presented to Board
1/23/13
Sarita Dies
Appendix
6: Board Memorandum 12/11/12
UNITED THANK
OFFERING
“Our Change
Changes Lives”
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcie
Chérau
Margaret Cooper
Cindy Dillon
Blanca Echeverry (Maria Atondo)
Anne Gordon Curran
Renee Haney
Lois Johnson Rodney
Barbara Schafer
Robin Sumners
Barbi Tinder
Georgie White
United Thank Offering Board
Members
FROM: Sarita Redd, President
United Thank Offering Board
DATE: Tuesday, December 11, 2012
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding
A Memorandum of Understanding
between United Thank Offering and the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society
will be submitted by the United Thank Offering Board, Thursday, January 31,
2013.
I have asked the United Thank
Offering legal counsel and legal team to readdress several matters facing the
relationship between United Thank Offering and the Domestic and Foreign
Missionary Society, to including securing a document that provides clarity and
understanding in all matters regarding UTO professional relationship with DFMS.
This document will be a point
of discussion during the 2013 United Thank Offering Winter Board Meeting to be
held in January, 2013. Please take the
time to review the United Thank Offering Board Bylaws, Article VI, Business,
Sections 1, 2, and 3 will require our attention and some discussion. (United Thank Offering Board Bylaws,
Article VI, Business, Sections 1, 2, and 3 – see attached).
UNITED THANK OFFERING
BOARD BYLAWS
ARTICLE VI
Business
Section 1: These Bylaws shall
become effective upon their approval by a majority of the members of the United
Thank Offering Board and subsequent approval by the Executive Council of The
Episcopal Church.
Section 2: The affairs of
United Thank Offering shall be controlled and administered by the United Thank
Offering Board, consisting of fifteen (15) members as set forth in Articles II
and III.
Section 3: The United Thank
Offering shall conduct all business within accordance to The Constitution and
Canons of the Episcopal Church, policies of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society, Memorandum(s) of Understanding(s)/Letter(s) of Agreement(s) between
the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society and United Thank Offering and the
Bylaws and Policies and Procedures of the United Thank Offering; shall be
accountable to the Executive Council and General Convention regarding the
business of United Thank Offering and submit a written report(s) concerning said
business.
Thank you for your time and
considerations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 9, 2013
September 9, 2013
The
follow represents an addendum to the above of the challenges faced by
the board since the planned meeting with DFMS finance in June 2013
The cancellation of the June 2013 meeting between DFMS
finance, two board members, and a past UTO finance officer was followed by a
request from the Presiding Bishop to meet with the UTO board and DFMS
management/staff personnel. The meeting was set for July 15th. At
the meeting, at the request of the Presiding Bishop a task force was set up to
continue to meet in the future to develop the By-Laws and Memorandum of
Understanding by 9/15/2013. Upon her insistence there would be an equal number
of DFMS personnel and UTO board members. Originally there was to be three (3)
members each to the group that would become known as the “task force”. A member of DFMS asked to include Heather Milton the UTO
coordinator on the task force and the UTO board agreed. In keeping with the
Presiding Bishop position to have an equal number from each group; a fourth
member from the UTO board was added to the task force. A follow on meeting was
scheduled for August 1st with the objective to start work on the two
documents (by-laws and MOU).
Two days before the meeting the UTO members on the task
force was notified by the COO (Rt.Rev Sauls) that he would wanted the meeting
to focus on “Relationships” instead of working on the two documents. The UTO
member at first was taken back a bit by this since the 7/15 meeting direction
was to work on the two documents. However, again in hope and an element of
trust, the board member view this to be maybe a positive movement, in spite of
the original objective, and agreed to meet in at 815 as planned on 8/1.
Upon arriving at the meeting at 815 the UTO board members
was introduced to Michael Barlow the Secretary of General Convention. The board
members took this as simple an introduction and proceeded to ready themselves for
the meeting. However, Michael did not leave the meeting but instead stayed for
the entire meeting with a very active voice in the process. SO MUCH FOR THE
PRISIDING BISHOP INSISTANCE OF EQUAL NUMBERS AND VOICE. What was the meeting
about, preparation of the two documents, no, working on relationships,
evidently not?
The meeting concluded with a plethora of newsprint taped
around the walls of the conference room regarding the relationship discussions.
A follow on meeting was not scheduled to continue the process of developing the
two documents. Instead the direction put forth by the COO was to have Robin
from the UTO board and the Paul Nix, the legal counsel for the Church, to start
to work together on the two documents. Note at this point in time the Church
Center had received a copy of the board’s By-Laws (the current by-laws accepted
at the 2012 General Convention) and draft MOU; the board had neither from 815.
These two documents from the UTO board were actually submitted to the Presiding Bishop before the 7/15
meeting.
On Tuesday August 27th the Robin, a member of the
task force and the one ask to work with Paul Nix, called him to express concerns that the timetable to complete
the two documents by 9/15 was becoming very tight. Paul did not answer his phone so Robin left a voice
mail to this effect.
On Wednesday August 28th Paul Nix returned Robin's
call and indicated that there was no timetable issue but in fact that the documents were all
“done”. There is no need to do anything further.
During the day Thursday the 29th of August two
documents from the legal counsel for the Church Center were received in a email. Upon receipt of the
email Robin sent a thank you reply immediately before the attachments were
review. An immediate “out-of-office” message was receive back by Robin.
The
review of the two documents brought a feeling of total
shock, horror, and disbelief to the four UTO task force members. On
Friday 8/30
the President of the board contacted all of the elected board members to
set up
a communications session using the Go-2-Meeting technology the board and
committees has used in the past. The desire was to have the session as
soon as practical which meant probably on Saturday
night but with the number of scheduling conflicts the meeting was
schedule for
Sunday night instead among the elected board members. The documents were
provided to
the elected board members in advance of the meeting for them to review.
The reaction of
the board members, with the exception of one, was again shock and
disbelief
that the Church would take such a position. Questions abound and with
the way
the documents were constructed most members had difficulty understanding
all the
nuances of the two documents. After a lengthy discussion it
was decided to get together again on Monday evening. The board ask to
have an “annotated” version of the
proposed By-Laws be prepared for the Monday night session. An version
was prepared by basically removing all the line-through (crossed out)
UTO
input text leaving only the DFMS By-Laws text. The reaction by the board
members, with the exception of one again, was similar yet even stronger
than Sunday’s
session. Yet hope springs eternal and the discussion Monday night
phrased
like “can’t we sent them our documents”? No our documents were provided
before the
meeting on 7/15 with the Presiding Bishop. After all the members had a
chance
to voice their feelings and thoughts the President of the board read her
letter
of resignation in protest of the clear injustice of these documents,
continued/constant DFMS management obstacles, and the certainty of the
path to take
over control of UTO and all that goes with it. Following the President’s
resignation, to be
effective at 11:59pm September 2nd, Robin Sumner read her resignation
letter. Each board member was allowed to express their option of remaining on
the board or not. All members made a decision were made with respect by all. Two
additional members, Continuing Review Convener and the Secretary Officer
tenured their resignation also in protest of the documents and the continued
treatment by DFMS toward the board. The resignation of these four members
vacated 4 out of the 5 offices leaving only the Treasurer’s office filled.
Surely
the resignation of these members should send a
significant message to the Episcopal community. The President of the
board in
fact has nearly 30 year of dedicated and volunteer service to the ECW,
UTO, and
other women ministries. Similar time of dedication applies to the other
three members that resigned. Why would these member with this history of
service take
such an action if:
1)
The level of injustice to the ministries of the women was
beyond comprehension.
2)
The continued approach and methods used by the very core of
the Church Center in dealing with the board has been beyond any reasonable
practices of a business and not a culture that could acceptable not only the
board but all Episcopalians.
3)
Given the power brokers, resources, and culture existing at
the Church Center the President and other that resigned concluded they
could not be remotely connected with any part of the obvious dismantling
of the UTO
and it’s 125 years of service. As one message that has come forward
lately put it;
the members who resigned in protest realize that the important of the
UTO ministry
is larger than any personal aspect of their service.
Closing the book on such a historical and valuable lay
ministry brings forth many emotions; anger, sadness, and disbelief. The very
people that should be advocating, nurturing, and serve the efforts of the women
of the church are the individuals that has perpetuated this injustice.
Several saying comes to mind: Power Corrupts, Absolute Power
Corrupts Absolutely. The DFMS By-Law will means the concentration of power is
now nearly complete at 815. Removing the UTO with a dotted line reporting and by
taking the current structure at 815 to draw classic organizational chart it would
show all power reporting to the COO as a solid (direct) line. This would be
with one exception; ECW.
Who has held the most funds in restricted use trust accounts besides UTO and ECW?
Who has held the most funds in restricted use trust accounts besides UTO and ECW?
Unless the Executive Council:
1) Does not accept the DFMS By-Laws that will undoubtedly be submitted at
their October meeting.
2)
Undertake a process to changing the power and control culture
pervasive at 815
the survival of the UTO board operating as it has for past 125 years is unlikely. The six years of study of the UTO role in the Church will have been ignored. The idea repeated five times in the INC-055C report that the UTO board be “Autonomous yet interdependent” will never be realized. Even if the DFMS By-Laws is not accepted by the Executive Council the damage to the UTO board will render the success of a women’s and lay based ministry will suffer for years to come or possibly forever.
the survival of the UTO board operating as it has for past 125 years is unlikely. The six years of study of the UTO role in the Church will have been ignored. The idea repeated five times in the INC-055C report that the UTO board be “Autonomous yet interdependent” will never be realized. Even if the DFMS By-Laws is not accepted by the Executive Council the damage to the UTO board will render the success of a women’s and lay based ministry will suffer for years to come or possibly forever.
Surely for the board members that resigned the issue is not
only and attempt to control the UTO and all that goes with it through the
changes in the By-Law and MOU: a phrase used often when talking about
governments:
It should also be
It should also be
“a vote of no confident”
in the management style of our Church.
in the management style of our Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment