A
response to inquiries about the current status of UTO
I
can only tell you my truth; there are perhaps even more than two
sides to this story, but the two sides that do exist are clear on the
fact that each
is telling the truth.
So again, this is my truth. I resigned, not retired, from
the United Thank Offering Board in early September, in protest
against the position of the leadership at the Church Center at 815 in
New York believing that the operations of the United Thank Offering
should be turned over to the Church Center, under the supervision of
the Episcopal Church Executive Council. Four of us, who were
the leaders of the 2012-2015 Board, all life-time Episcopalians,
elected by our Provinces, resigned together in a protest statement
against the decisions being proposed by the executive officers of the
Episcopal Church—the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House
of Deputies and the Chief Operating Officer of the Church.
Those
of us who resigned, protested the positions of those in charge at the
church center who stated that the women of the church who have for
125 years given money in an offering of thanksgiving and then have
supervised, managed, directed and dispersed these funds in support of
mission for the Episcopal Church, were not capable of making these
decisions independently from control by the church center. The
bottom line is who gets the money. We on the board believed
that the money was given in trust to the women of the church; the
leadership of the Episcopal Church believes the money belongs to
them. This includes all money, that collected through the
process of in gatherings and the money held in trust funds named as
restricted for the use of mission by the women of the church and the
United Thank Offering. The church center has developed a
“clear” legal opinion that uses the requirements of the IRS to
define that all the money belongs to the church defined as DFMS —the
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. We disagreed with this
position, which has not been defined as legal by any court of law.
It is the legal opinion of the legal counsels to the Episcopal
Church and is only an opinion.
The
legal counsel of the church rewrote the bylaws of the United Thank
Offering Board to reflect that the women who serve on the UTO board
were only an advisory body to Executive Council; those of us who had
participated in the discussion leading to these bylaws being
developed felt betrayed by the leadership of 815, as all of the
strategic issues we requested be included were deleted from their
proposed documents. The United Thank Offering Board has always
been an independent,
autonomous body within
the Episcopal Church, adhering to the legal requirements of working
with the church, but able to make all decisions regarding the work of
UTO without control from the church itself. The control lay
with the women duly elected to carry out these responsibilities.
The
United Thank Offering has been one of the most profoundly successful
grassroots lay ministries the church has ever known.
The
proposed bylaws presented by the church center effectively wiped out
the historic structure of the United Thank Offering and its
contribution to the church as a lay ministry. The proposed
bylaws relegated the United Thank Offering Board to the place of what
is known as a CCAB—a Committee, Commission, Agency or
Board—under the supervision of the Episcopal Church Executive
Council, who by definition, controls and manages all money related to
each of these CCAB’s. This move put all the funds belonging
to the United Thank Offering in the coffers of Executive Council,
with Executive Council now having the ability to control all United
Thank Offering funds, including approval of all grants to be funded
by UTO.
After
the furor over our resignations, and much publicity regarding our
significant differences, a new joint committee was formed with
representation from the remaining UTO board and from Executive
Council to try to resolve the conflicts. That committee has
met; they have apparently created a new set of documents, which I
think includes new bylaws; these documents wcill be presented to
Executive Council for approval at the February E.C. meeting, if they
have been approved by the full UTO Board in January. Ultimately,
these documents should be made public so we can all read and discern
what actual final decisions have been made.
The
current United Thank Offering Board includes three clergy members who
are representatives of Executive Council, appointed to the Board by
the officers of Executive Council. There are also four new members,
who have been either appointed or elected by the Provinces
represented, Province I, VI and VII, and one member-at-large, to
replace those of us who resigned.
Those
of us who resigned in protest believed that the core values of the
United Thank Offering movement would not be sustained in the new
understanding of the governance of UTO. The church is looking for
fundraising opportunities, and the United Thank Offering is perceived
by the church center as a fundraising organization. The UTO Four, as
we have been dubbed, feared that the core value of the United Thank
Offering—a spiritual discipline of thankful giving, of "our
change changes lives," would be lost as the focus on fundraising
came to the forefront. We chose to make this discussion somewhat
public.
The
perception is that the UTO board does not have a choice in terms of
accepting the role of CCAB, as the UTO has no power. We, the UTO
Four, did not believe that UTO was powerless, as the Women of the
Church are capable of being a formidable force, should they choose
such a route. This process is not easy, and sustaining a protest
over time requires a level of energy difficult to maintain when other
life needs require attention. We believe that at least the
discussion got out there; people, like you, know there was something
going on that might not be a good idea. We had no idea how to
measure the success of our actions; our actions were taken knowing
there would be a high personal cost to each of us and that the work
we loved, the sustaining force of the United Thank Offering would be
something lost to us.
It
is important to note that the leadership at the church center also
believes it has the best future for the United Thank Offering in
mind. That is why I started by saying both sides have their own
truth.
The
church center is sufficiently angry at the UTO Four that we are not
mentioned by name or role, and the current Board members are urged to
have little contact with us. We all grieve that there was no offer
of discussion with us from those with whom we disagreed, so for us
there is not a face to face pathway of reconciliation; we each prayed
separately about our individual choices and each made our independent
decisions; with prayer and faith we have each reached our own
reconciliation.
We,
the UTO Four, grew up with Blue Boxes. We do understand that the
world has changed; understanding the power of change is an ageless
challenge. We were not protesting change; we were protesting being
absorbed by a larger body that did not seem to embrace the core
values of the organization it was incorporating.
It
will be up to the Episcopal Church, and primarily the women who
sustain the hope and promise of the church in the world, to be
vigilant in going forward. I believe this battle was lost from the
very beginning, as the need for money and the control of money is in
the hands of those in perceived legitimate power. But at the same
time, the need for the work of the United Thank Offering at the
grassroots level is one thing that will not change. The other thing
that will not change is the true power of the Women of the Church to
step up to service when asked for help.
There
are many references on line that tell the story. You will find most
of the written documents created by both parties to the controversy
on this blog site, presented without judgments.
Robin
Woods Sumners
January,
2014
