July 31: Email from Karla and Phil to the congregation

Beloved People of FCCH, In March, upon the recommendation of the Human Relations Ministry (HRM), our Church Council approved a new policy regarding departed clergy, and this information was conveyed to the congregation. As many of you know, there was conflict and concern regarding both the policy and the way it was announced.   In June, the Human Relations Ministry, in consultation with the Committee on Ministry (CoM) of the WNC Association of the UCC and the Associate Conference Minister, The Rev. Dr. Colleen Samson, made a motion to Church Council to suspend the departed pastor policy and engage a consultant with expertise in church conflict management. This motion was made out of the desire to reduce tension and dissension and to promote dialogue and begin a process of healing. After considerable discussion, the Church Council approved this motion by a majority vote. On July 22, the Church Council met to discuss proposals from two organizations, The Center for Congregational Health in Winston-Salem and Convergence in Atlanta.  Again, after considerable discussion, including questioning the need for a professional church conflict consultant, the Council approved, by a majority vote, the proposal from the Center for Congregational Health. Since then, the council has received multiple emails from the group of concerned members regarding moving forward with a conflict mediation process. While we hear those concerns, your elected church leadership has chosen a course of action that will provide us a framework to work through our differences during the added stress of a global pandemic. There are those who believe if the policy is simply changed, everything will be o.k. While addressing the policy will be an important part of this process, we also know that there are ruptured relationships and significant misunderstandings which we believe will be best addressed through a period of listening, dialogue, assessment and healing, led by an objective and skilled professional. The Center for Congregational Health is busy putting together that process and we will have more details at the end of next week on how it will unfold.  Please know that everyone who has something to say and share will have the opportunity to do so, and we are committed to an equitable process for all. Everyone’s voice is essential and important. In the meantime, while we wait, it is our holy opportunity to reflect upon where we are as a community, and to pray for our church, and for one another. May we each seek reconciliation wherever and however we can individually. May we listen to the Spirit of Love and Grace as we move through this process together, so we can embrace more fully the mission of justice and compassion we are being called to do in this pandemic world we are living in today.  Faithfully yours, Rev. Karla Miller, Pastor Phil Taylor, Moderator       and on behalf of the Church Council

Mediation Proposal from Center for Congregational Health

This is a letter sent to Karla on the consulting/mediation proposal.  It was sent on June 29th and this was the proposal that was agreed at the church council meeting.

Note that it does not mention the Former Pastor Policy and that's deliverable is very generic.

Dear Rev. Miller and FCC Church Council:

Thank you for the opportunity to share this proposal with you. I have reflected on my
conversation with Rev. Miller and propose the following design as a process to help in
discerning the current situation at First Congregational Church and to determine the
best next steps for the congregation. In our conversation I heard a strong desire to
understand how the congregation can function more healthily and faithfully at this time.

Desired outcomes

The design of this proposal is to reach the following desired outcomes:
• Determine the challenges and concerns from the congregation, lay leaders, and
staff concerning the current state of the congregation
• Clarify healthy next steps for the congregation and leaders.

Consultation Process

This consultation will be conducted and delivered virtually. This process will focus on
gathering information and perceptions from lay leaders, staff, and congregation
members, with the aim to surface key issues and clarify any problems to be solved.
Therefore, the primary work is the responsibility of the facilitator(s), and is a relatively
short period of time. The consultants/facilitators will:

• Conduct up to 20 small group listening sessions with congregation members
(up to 160 participants). Listening group sessions will be open to all
congregation members who wish to participate. The aim of the listening
sessions will be to gather and share information and perceptions about
congregational life. The listening sessions are not group discussions. They are
designed to be a forum for each participant to share their views while others
simply listen without comment. Information shared in the group settings will
be in the final report in anonymous form. Sessions will be scheduled on the
hour and last no more than 55 minutes. Each group will have no more than
eight participants. (I have attached a description and sample sign-up for
listening groups; sign-ups for virtual listening groups will be via a web-based
platform. We will determine dates once the proposal is accepted.)

• Compile and analyze information gained from the interviews and listening
sessions.

• Prepare written report on findings and recommendations for action. The
Consultant will make a verbal report to the Council and staff, and a verbal
report to the congregation. Each report will be offered virtually.
Costs for this part of the process will be $5500.00 and will take approximately three -
four weeks. These costs include:

• 20 listening groups, conducted virtually, for up to 160 people. If additional
(or less) groups are needed the end cost may be adjusted.

• Delivery of an oral and written report for the staff and council and a report
for the congregation, delivered virtually. The report will contain
recommendations from the consultant for discerning a healthy path forward.

• Up to 4 hours of telephone and electronic communication as needed.

The Center for Congregational Health® is a non-profit, fee-based ministry. Costs are
calculated on the time spent with and on behalf of the congregation and/or its leaders.
The fees are an important part of engaging the congregation. If the church is willing to
pay a fee, the members are more likely to give their time and focus to the process.
Invoices for services will come from, and should be paid to, the Center for
Congregational Health®. Consultant fees may be invoiced and paid with one statement
or by agreement to a payment plan.

Please let me know if you have any questions and/or concerns. Thank you for the
opportunity to propose this work. If you agree to this proposal, please reply to this email
to notify us of your acceptance.

Church bylaws on Congregational Meetings

At the request of the group I was asked to post the bylaws related to congregational meetings.  Section B is the applicable section for special meetings which can be called by a petition of 20 members.

ARTICLE XIV– CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS

SECTION A. REGULAR MEETINGS

1.   Fall Budget Congregational Meeting

This Meeting shall be held in the fall on a day determined by the Church Council. The purpose of the Meeting shall be to consider and approve a proposed Church preliminary budget for the next fiscal year. That budget, revised as necessary, will be presented for adoption at the Annual Congregational Meeting. Other business may be brought forward for action, as deemed appropriate by the Church Council and announced on the agenda prior to the meeting.

2.  Annual Congregational Meeting

The Annual Meeting of the Congregation shall be held in January or as soon thereafter as possible on a date specified by Church Council. The purpose of the Meeting shall be to receive the annual reports of the Moderator, Treasurer, and Ministries, to adopt the final budget for the year, vote to fill the Offices of the Church Council, and to transact such other business as may have been announced on the agenda prior to the meeting.

SECTION B. SPECIAL MEETINGS

The Church Clerk, at the direction of the Council, shall provide notice for a Special Meeting of the Congregation whenever necessary.

The Church Council shall call a Special Meeting of the Congregation upon being petitioned in writing by twenty (20) or more members of the Church, who state the reasons for the proposed meeting in the petition. The Church Council may itself call a special Congregational Meeting by a majority vote of its members.

The time, place, and purpose for such a meeting shall be stated in the call to the meeting, and only such matters as are included in the call may be considered at the meeting.

SECTION C. RULES WITH RESPECT TO THE CALL AND TO THE CONDUCT OF CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS

1.        Notice of or call to any meeting of the Church membership shall be given by the Church Clerk using one of the following methods:

a.       In the Church’s Sunday bulletin for two successive Sundays immediately preceding the meeting.

b.      From the pulpit for two successive Sundays immediately preceding the meeting.

c.       By not less than six days prior, written and/or electronic notice to the membership.

2.        The nature of the business to be transacted and an agenda must be stated in the call.

3.        All meetings of the Congregation shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts’ Rules of  Order, latest revision.

4.    A quorum for the conduct of business at any meeting shall be thirty-five percent (35%) of the active membership.

5.    In the absence of a quorum a lesser number of members may adjourn a meeting to a later-specified time and date.

6.    Unless otherwise specified elsewhere in these Bylaws, a majority vote of those present, entitled to vote, and voting, shall be official.

7.    No sale, lease, mortgage, or exchange of real estate owned by the Church shall be made, nor shall any real estate be purchased or otherwise acquired, nor shall any buildings be erected on any real estate owned by the Church, nor shall any alterations exceeding a cost of $10,000 be made in any of the present buildings or to the Church grounds, without:

a.    the affirmative vote, taken at a regular or special meeting, called for the purpose, of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members of the Church Council, and

b.    the affirmative vote, which shall include approval of the raising of the necessary funds, taken at a regular or special Congregational Meeting,

called for the purpose, of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present, entitled to vote and voting at such a meeting.

8.    No action shall be taken changing the denominational affiliation of the Church, or uniting the Church with any other Church or churches without: 

       a.       the affirmative vote, taken at a regular or special Church Council

Meeting, called for the purpose, of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members of the Church Council, and

b.     the affirmative vote, taken at a regular or special Congregational Meeting, called for the purpose, of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present, entitled to vote and voting at such meeting.

9.    The Church Clerk shall have the responsibility of counting votes at all Church Meetings. He or she may appoint tellers to aid in the execution of this duty. It shall also be the Church Clerk’s responsibility, in the event of a secret ballot, to destroy the ballots after a suitable holding period. A secret ballot may be employed upon majority vote of those entitled to vote and voting at any properly called Congregational Meeting.

July 23:Diane's notes from Council Meeting

Diane sent this to the group:

Here is my account of what happened at the Zoom church council meeting yesterday, July 22, 2020.  Ben Coonrod, Bob Miles and I were present as observers.  Council members were, Phil, as moderator, Rev. Karla, Mark, John Waters, Sheryl Mendenhall ,  Gary Cypers, Nancy Keswani, Ron Miller, Ken Whitney and Donna Jones.  Others?

The council meeting was called to collaborate on the search for outside mediation.  The agenda was entirely focused on this.  Working with outside mediation had been agreed on at last month’s meeting.

The discussion: The Mennonite group was no longer viable; too long and too costly.  Several council members were discouraged that the proposed plan for the other mediation groups would address the problem but did not appear to provide any solution.  

Donna Jones expressed her support for going to the root of the issue, the former pastor policy, and not spending time and money on outside mediation.   She made an excellent case for the disruption within the church that this policy has created and how simple it might be to rewrite the policy.  She invited the council to talk to the group that has been looking to do this.

John Waters thought we might work within our congregation (in a metaphorically indirect way; something about a dog and a dog bite and just addressing the bite.)  Gary Cyphers interpreted it as opposite of how John meant it. 

Gary said we have systemic problems within our church, that the policy was a symptom, not the cause. Gary said that our group, our “oppositional movement” has “Pitted ourselves against the church leadership, against Karla.” 

Ron Miller was asked by Phil what he thought.  He was comfortable expressing dissent and firmly supported Donna in agreeing that the root cause of the problem was and is the former pastor policy.  He added that it should never have been put in place without a congregational vote. He said that the church did not have a systemic problem and that it was in good health until the policy.

Ken Whitney was not aware of our dissenting group.  It appeared that few of the council members were informed about our efforts or comfortable expressing dissent.

Nancy Keswani dismissively reminded the group when Donna raised her hand to speak again that they had voted last month to hire outside mediation, that this conversation was not pertinent and not on the agenda.  Phil agreed. 

Even though three people on the council were not in accord with the previously agreed on plan, they dismissed the suggestion and option to work within our church and went on to the possible concerns for mediation that Karla has been researching.

I left the meeting, incredulous.   Here are my insights.

The council had not received the documents, personal letters and invitations to dialog that we had sent to Phil as moderator, to share with church leadership.

There is no continued revelation with our church leadership.  They made a decision; they were going to stay on the agenda.  No matter that1/3 of the fellowship is at odds with it.  No matter that Ron Miller, Jeannie and Milton Stewart, Nancy Irving, Claudia Schopper, Ann Allen and some of the most valued, long time members are in opposition.

Donna had suggested that Ben speak to the policy and the group’s suggestions.  Phil declined.  Not on the agenda.

The meeting was conducted like a business meeting, not like a church meeting.  We have no standing.  We are in the way of their agenda.

Diane Rhoades

July 21:Upcoming meeting of church council

On June 10th the council voted to engage a consultant to "assess and ameliorate the causes of the dissension that has arisen around its passage".   We have learned that the council will meet this week (6 weeks since their last meeting).   

Donna intends to present this to the council.  Ben, Bob and Diane asked for an invitation to listen.  The meeting was not publicized to the congregation and apparently is not an open meeting.  

It has now been 4 months since the former pastor policy was announced and almost 3 months since the group first asked for a meeting with the council.

July 20: Letter to the church council

To:  Phil Taylor, Moderator; Members of the Church Council; Reverend Miller 

Re:  Former Pastor Policy

We, the undersigned members of First Congregational UCC, submit a way to resolve the recent disagreement among church members and leadership. We offer relief of the burden we have all been sharing. No one group or individual should have to shoulder the responsibility for creating and implementing a policy on retiring ministers. A resolution involving the entire congregation can illustrate the deep-seated values of our remarkable church.

The new Former Pastor Policy, the process by which it was developed and the response of church leaders to congregation members with concerns about the policy have created a conflict within our church community.

We do not believe that hiring an outside moderator to arbitrate the conflict is appropriate –it will take several thousand dollars and the process will require weeks or months, extending the time that our church suffers. 

We believe that a new policy can be developed that serves the needs of all involved:  the congregation, the current pastor and the former pastor.  Such a policy can and should be developed through the Church Council with input from members of this group and approved by the congregation. 

We request that the church council communicate a new policy to the congregation by October 1, 2020. 

As members of the congregation, we request that a new policy meet the following key principles:

a.       It needs to specify reasonable time periods for the former pastor to refrain from contact with church members after leaving as pastor and before the pastor can ask to return as a church member.

b.     A newly settled pastor can be included in discussions about accepting a former pastor as a church member, but should not have sole authority to make the decision.

c.      The policy would specify a process to determine whether a former pastor is accepted as a member of the church and that clear reasons be given for postponing or denying membership.

d.     A former pastor who returns as a member of the church would in all ways respect the current pastor’s authority and role as spiritual leader of the church and agree not to serve the members of the congregation in a pastoral capacity.

e.      The new policy and any subsequent revisions must be approved by congregation.

With respect, 

Allen, Ann

Argue, Pat

Battle, Cary

Bodamer, Karel

Byerly, Steve

Cain, Anne

Coonrod, Ben

Coonrod, Joanna

Fitzwilliam, Heather

Gambill, Virginia

Harris, Jimmy

Huff, Susan

Irving, Nancy

Jaeger, J.J.

Jolly, James

Jones, Donna

Kimmel, Joanne

Knight, Connie

McKinney, Joan

Miles, Bob

Palmer, Susan

Rhoades, Diane

Schopper, Aaron

Schopper, Claudia

Steward, Jeanie

Stewart, Milton

Swift, Diane

Tierney, Kevin

Tierney, Joyce

Wilson, Carolyn

Brantley, Diane

Brantley, Richard

Cone, Kirsten

Lowder, Stephanie

Raymond, Mark

Raymond, Jean

Perrett, Jody

(Signatures added 07/21/2020)

Jenkins, Kinsey

Jenkins, Doreen

Orr, Dell

Vandre, David

July 17: Letter from Rev. Jim Luck (Updated March 3 2021)

On July 17th the Phil send an email from Rev. Jim Luck, co-chair of the Committee on Ministry of  the UCC association to Bon who then forwarded it to the group.

The email implied that Richard had joined Trinity Presbyterian which turned out not to be true.

Since the CoM is not involved in the process the email wasn't particularly relevant.

In this letter from Rev. Jim Luck it was spelled out that church members were not to have contact with Rev. Weidler until the "mediation process has been completed".  (JB Note.  I added this in March 2021 as I could not find any other reference to this in the blog.

July 8:Response from Phil re meeting

Hi Bonnie,

Once again, thank you for your clarifications.

At this time, I believe Council needs to be working on a conflict resolution process based on Council's action last month - to engage a professional consultant from a respected and objective organization knowledgeable in church conflict mediation to guide the congregation through a conflict resolution process.

I expect that as part of this process there may be future opportunities to consider possible revisions to the policy.

At this time, I believe the intensity of this conflict has increased to a level 4 on the Alban Institute Conflict Intensity Chart, which is a level that clearly requires professional intervention to achieve a resolution.  And thus, my immediate efforts will be to begin this conflict resolution process using a professional consultant.

Thanks,

Phil