UTO: a way forward

An analysis of the documents and the proposed bylaws by Will Westerfield who is an accredited parliamentarian - an expert in this field. The first part is a cover letter followed by an analysis of the draft bylaws.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The Rev. Gay Clark Jennings,President of the House of DeputiesThe Episcopal Church
The Right Rev. Wendell GibbsBishop, Diocese of MichiganProvince V Representative
Dear President Jennings and Bishop Gibbs,
Like many in The Episcopal Church the public conflict between members of the United Thank Offering Board and the Presiding Bishop’s senior staff has caught my attention.
I have been an Episcopalian all my adult life and have had the opportunity, which I enjoyed greatly, attending General Convention in 06 as a volunteer for Integrity USA. I have also had the opportunity, through professional engagements and volunteer work to interact with many people throughout the Church.
Parliamentary procedure has been an interest of mine since high school and I have been a member of the National Associations of Parliamentarians for over fifteen years. I hold the designation of Professional Registered Parliamentarian from that body as well.
I have spent several hours reading the existing bylaws of the UTO and the proposed changes and attached is my detailed analysis of the impact of those proposed changes. Yet I realize that bylaws don’t exist in a vacuum.
I understand that the UTO operates under the 501(c)(3) Determination Ruling held by the DFMS. Therefore ultimate accountability of the UTO resides with those with fiduciary responsibility of DFMS.
I also understand that the UTO is without peer in The Episcopal Church. There are over $60 million in assets under the primary umbrella of the UTO. There are no Boards within the current CCAB structure of which its members are not elected by legislatively action of General Convention.
I also understand these are draft bylaws and are not approved. Perhaps circulation at this juncture wasn’t intended.  However there are some blatant structural errors in the section regarding the duties of the Officers that I wouldn’t expect in any drafts. I also question why UTO Board members resigned in the face of proposed bylaws.
I realize that the proposed bylaws, and the reaction to them, are emblematic of the bigger problem that obviously a breakdown in communication between the executive staff at 815 and the existing UTO Board Members has occurred.
I have also read two versions of the publicly discussed Memorandum of Understanding. One version was clearly written by the UTO Board and the other was equally clearly written by the executive staff at 815. It is as if the two sides represented in each of the draft documents are talking at each other instead of with each other.
Parliamentary procedure is meant to be one tool in an entire suite of tools meant to promote healthy organizational development and functioning. It is not clear to me that the currently proposed bylaws fulfill this role. There are also obvious issues with the bylaws the UTO is currently operating under as well.
The UTO has made significant contributions to the life the Church throughout the world. I believe everyone who has followed the public spat agrees that the UTO can continue to do so for future generations.
One of the realities is that perhaps action should have been taken in Indianapolis so that UTO was named a formal Board and required to function as every other Board. The fact that it didn’t is a problem that also presents itself clearly in the draft bylaws. The extraordinary way in which the members of the UTO Board are elected is an example of the magnification of this problem.
I would hope that before any formal action is taken at the next Executive Council meeting in October, select members of the UTO Board, Executive Council and executive staff from 815 could sit down together, perhaps with an outside facilitator to restart talking with each other.
I realize that a number of people are speaking out regarding this issue. I hope that by writing this, I contribute positively in encouraging solutions to this problem.
I know that the House of Bishops is meeting later this week. As it is whenever HOB meets, that body will be in my intentional prayers. The same is the case of the Executive Council.
Deus Meus et Omnia,
C. William Westerfieldwill@gridservicesgroup.com989-492-0201Eastern Michigan

Article I

It is not clear why in this “Name” section the mission of the Board is initially detailed. There are major two issues here. In traditional non-profit organizational development theory, the vision of an organization is the why it exists. The mission of an organization is how it exists. Aside from the fact that most of the items listed in this section are actually things traditionally associated with the vision of an organization, there are two items (Nos. 5 & 6) that essentially mirror the Purposes set forth in Section 2.

Article II

The revisions in this section clearly change the fundamental operation of the UTO by focusing on the advisory duties it would perform under these proposed revisions.  In her public letter, dated September 12th, The Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, the President of the House of Deputies states that she believes

“that the original intent of this work was not to take authority or

grant making decisions away from the UTO board, but rather to ensure

that the United Thank Offering will continue its invaluable mission

for years to come.”

Even a generous reading of the text “evaluate existing policies, priorities and grant criteria as approved by the Chief Operating Officer of DFMS, or his/her designate, and to evaluate solicited grants based on said approved criteria and to recommend dispersal of said grants to the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church through the Finance and Mission Departments…” could not allow for any interpretation but that of a change from the UTO taking action itself to recommending how DFMS takes actions in the name of the UTO, especially in light of the fact that in 2013, the UTO made two grants to the aforementioned Department of Mission (IDTEC1, IDTEC2) totaling $80,000.

Article III, Section 1 (Deleted and Substituted sections)

The deletion and substitution of this article makes it clear that final accountability of the UTO rests with the DFMS, General Convention and The Executive Council. Ultimately because the UTO currently operates under the 501(c)(3) designation held by DFMS, this is accurate and required by law. Even if the UTO were to obtain its own recognition of exemption by the IRS (and even if it were its own legal entity), there would be questions regarding the true state of complete independence unless there was no oversight by General Convention, The Executive Council or staff from 815.

Article III, Section 2

This simply states that the UTO will act within compliance of DFMS policies. Just as in that parish bylaws cannot conflict with diocesan bylaws that cannot conflict with General Convention, a Board of the Church cannot be in conflict with it either.

Article III, Section 3

Previously the members of the Board of the UTO were solely elected during the Triennial meeting of the ECW without any form of approval or consent from General Convention or the Executive Council. It should be noted here that no other Board of The Episcopal Church is elected in such a manner. Every other Board has its members elected by way of General Convention. Thus by letting a body outside GC elect members to a Board who are then are sent to Executive Council for its approval, the UTO is singularly unique. Strictly speaking for the sake of uniformity, this section could have specified the members of the UTO Board are to be elected by legislative action of General Convention. A problem created by this revision is that there are no publicly available criteria that the members of the Executive Council would use in determining whether or not to approve the aforementioned elections held in the ECW Triennial.

Article III, Section 4

The fact that the UTO Board will develop and recommend the “strategic plans, policies and criteria for the granting process to the COO of DFMS…” fundamentally changes the functioning of the Board from action-orientated to advisory oriented. This is further clarified by the elimination of several support duties later designated to be conducted by DFMS staff and finally by adding that the Board will “make recommendations to the Executive Council of TEC regarding UTO grant awards.” The duty to publicize Annual Reports of the Board “granting activities” is problematic because as specified earlier in the present Article and Section as well as Article I, Sections 1 and 2, it is clear that the UTO Board is making no granting activities in the traditional sense that it is making the grants. Clearly the Executive Council is the body now making the granting activities under these proposed bylaws.

Article III, Section 5

This is seemingly in conflict with the previous provisions. Is the Executive Council the body actually making the grants or is it the Executive Council together with the UTO Board actually making the grants?

Article III, Section 7

The deletion of this section further strips away job functions previously performed by UTO officers.

Article III, Sections 8, 9 & 10

The re-wording of these sections is simply a matter of compliance and clarity.

Article III, Sections 11 & 12

These were merged into other sections.

Article III, Section 13

The elimination of this article is most likely to bring the bylaws in compliance with DFMS policies.

Article IV, Sections 1,2 & 3

Modifications here are for the sake of clarity.

Article IV, Section 4

While most modifications in this section are for clarity sake, there is one change that is of particular note. The change requiring the margin of majority votes in favor of new business being considered at Special Meetings is a substantive one. This change may simple be one that brings the UTO Board operations in line with other Boards of General Convention. Traditionally business at Special Meetings have been tightly limited to that which was already on the agenda when the notice of the Special Meeting was transmitted to Board Members. Lowering the majority threshold on the passage of changing the agenda of a special meeting from 75% to a mere majority can fundamentally change not only the course but also tone deliberations in Special Meetings.

Article IV, Section 5

While the addition of the consultation by the Board President with the General Convention Office may be also bringing the operations of the UTO Board in line with other CCABs, the addition of the necessary consultation with the Mission Department as well fundamentally changes the relationship between the UTO Board and what was one of its former grant recipients.

Article IV, Section 6

This section deleted the ability for proxy votes to be transmitted during Board meetings. This is a reasonable provision alteration considering that participation by “telephone or similar communication equipment” is allowed for.

Article V, Section 1

The only addition is clarity of what larger the body “Executive Council” is a part of.

Article V, Section 2

The change in the wording from “confirmed members” to “adult communicants in good standing” is meant to bring the bylaws into conformance with other similar membership requirements.

Article V, Section 3

Of particular note is the removal of the vote/consent of the President of the UTO Board with respect to the two (2) appointed members added formerly jointly with the President and Vice President of the Executive Council. This change further highlights what some UTO Board members may view as a substantive loss in the autonomous nature they previously had with DFMS.

Article V, Section 4

This section further clarifies that the terms of office for Board members are in line officially with General Convention rather than the ECW Triennial.

Article V, Section 7 (Existing)

One reading of the elimination of the original section may be that non-UTO members may become Board members.

Article V, Section 7 (Proposed)

The discipline as outlines in this section is bringing the bylaws into compliance with GC standards.

Article VI, Section 1

The elimination of the Finance Officer is of note here. However given that the UTO utilizes the 501(c)(3) determination ruling held by the DFMS, this is likely required for compliance.

Article VI, Section 2

The revisions here bring the UTO Board elections to coincide with General Convention.

Article VI, Section 4

The elimination of the title “CEO” is in compliance with provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that required the elimination of otherwise honorific corporate business titles being given to members of an organization.

Article VI, Section 7

The elimination of this article highlights the lessened autonomy that the UTO would function under given these new bylaws.

Article VI, Section 8

The first sentence clarifies that the UTO Board President shall meet with DFMS officials.

The entire numbering & lettering sequence of Article VI from Section 4 and beyond need to be fixed for consistency sake. The presidential duties constitute Sections 4 through 8. It would make more sense to contain “presidential duties” within a single Section 4 with numbered paragraphs. Then the sentence in Section 8 regarding Vice Presidential duties would be logically Section 5 and the paragraph (c) detailing the duties of the Secretary would then be Section 6. This of course affects the remaining two numbered sections of Article VI, which would then become Sections 7 and 8. There are also other basic numbering errors throughout the document as a result of combined and deleted sections. Consistency is important for understanding a document.

Article VII

The elimination and restructuring of the committees in this article is a re-organization and fundamentally changes the duties of the entire UTO Board. Some of these changes help streamline the process by which UTO operates. However it would be almost impossible to argue that the nature of what UTO is accomplishing (“advising” versus “doing”) hasn’t changed.

Article VIII

The fact that the bylaws of the UTO are now subject to Executive Council approval further demonstrates the change in the nature of the UTO.

Article IX

The assertion that Trademarks are intellectual property of DFMS further magnifies that UTO is part of the DFMS entity.

Lost and Found

Thoughts on Sunday's Gospel, Luke 15:1-10: Jesus is challenged by the Pharisees and the scribes about his practice of eating with tax collector and sinners. He tells them 3 stories - one about a lost sheep, another about a lost coin, and a third about a lost son. Sunday's reading focusses on the first two.

In our Bible study this week I was surprised to hear in one version of the Bible that Jesus left the 99 sheep in the open country. The versions I have always heard and all the Sunday School Bible art shows them in the wilderness. In my imagination, "wilderness" evokes a very different image than "open place." So I began to think about the initial encounter between Jesus and his challengers.

Pharisees, of course, were good religious people, trying to keep the faith in a time when it would be very easy to lose it. The Romans had conquered them and had a very different religion from the Judaism. It would be easier to go along and forget about God or just be private about one's faith. But the Pharisees chose a harder path - very public about their faith with many ritual practices to remind them of who they were. Scribes were the ones who helped keep everyone true to the religious laws. So they are shocked that Jesus would hang out with the tax collectors who worked for the Romans and with sinners - the ones were not observant or who showed no sign of being faithful. They may or may not have been living in sin as we interpret it - but for sure they were not faithful to God.

So back to the story:
As we read this translation - where it says the shepherd left them in an open place. I began to wonder if where they pasture sheep may be different from our thinking about wilderness or even that painting from Sunday School where the shepherd finds the lost one on a craggy cliff.


I wonder if Jesus is saying - yes you are following God but it is from relative safety-- you have homes, family, privilege (even though the Romans are in power). But God loves even those lost in unbelief, the unclean, the one's who never follow the outward signs of faith -- etc.

Then a friend, Robert Morrison, the interim rector of St. Alban's in Albany, OR, sent me his sermon with a link to an action by Pope Francis and his willingness to talk and listen to people who are doubting and who don't believe. Morrison writes:

Francis wrote a personal letter to a renowned journalist and nonbeliever. Back in early July and again in early August, Eugenio Scalfari, wrote essays, “musing about questions he'd like to ask Pope Francis if he ever had the chance.” 

Surprisingly, the Pope wrote a letter that was “splashed across the front page of La Repubblica, the country's most widely read daily. 

“In the letter, Francis makes three points that have all been said before, including by popes, but rarely with such clarity or in this kind of venue:

• God has never abandoned the covenant with the Jewish people, and the church ‘can never be grateful enough’ to the Jews for preserving their faith despite the horrors of history, especially the Shoah, the Hebrew word for the Holocaust.• God's mercy ‘does not have limits’ and therefore it reaches nonbelievers, too, for whom sin would not be the lack of faith in God, but rather, failure to obey one's conscience.• Truth is not ‘variable or subjective,’ but Francis says he avoids calling it ‘absolute’ -- truth possesses us, he said, not the other way around, and it's always expressed according to someone's ‘history and culture, the situation in which they live, etc.’ …

“This is apparently the first time, however, that a pope has personally responded to questions put to him in two newspaper editorials. Eugenio Scalfari, one of the founders of La Repubblica, penned the essays in early July and again in early August, musing about questions he'd like to ask Pope Francis if he ever had the chance.” 

Scalfari had referred to a recent papal encyclical “Lumen fidei, which said that ‘to the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find,’ nonbelievers ‘are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith.’ … 

“In his response to Scalfari, Francis wrote that he believes dialogue between the church and non-believers is important for two reasons. 

“The first, the pope wrote, is the historical breach between the church and the culture inspired by the Enlightenment. 

“‘The time has come … for an open dialogue, without preconceptions, which reopens the doors for a serious and fruitful encounter,’ Francis writes. 

“Second, Francis says, from the point of view of the believer, dialogue with others is not a ‘secondary accessory’ but rather something ‘intimate and indispensable.’" 

Francis knew that Scalfari wasn’t the least bit shy about expressing his criticism of the Roman Church in particular and Christianity and other religious belief systems in general. Yet Francis set out, using one of the riskier methods – opening himself up to criticism and ridicule by responding to the newspaper in which the journalist was in control.

And I am reminded of the Hymn "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" 

More to ponder -- what do you think?

UTO: my thoughts

A question was asked in another place - why doesn't United Thank Offering just get its own 501c3 number instead of using the Episcopal Church's tax i.d.? Episcopal Relief and Development took this direction a few years ago - why not UTO?

Remembering the ER-D switch to its own 501c3 instead of the church's tax i.d. -- 3 reasons were given - one to protect assets from lawsuits against the church, two -to keep it less political - it could stay out of issues accruing to the National Church, and three - to allow it to go after grants from corporations that would not give to "a church" (like the partnership with Nets for Life and the NBA).

The UTO has not wanted nor needed that separation for any of those reasons. UTO and 815 needed to be clear about roles and tax status -- that was being worked on and agreed to by all. The sticking point is the movement from UTO doing the majority of the work of reviewing and granting within the structure --- to --- the COO and UTO coordinator doing this with a small advisory role for UTO.

It is not clear why this change was being made and there has been no explanation (except in the PBs letter where she says "official leadership (the President of the House of Deputies, the Chief Operating Officer, the Executive Officer of General Convention, the Treasurer, and I) have no intention of divesting the United Thank Offering of its funds or applying excessive controls to its practices."


But the bylaws proposed by the COO do not bear our this statement. Comparing the former bylaws (approved by GC and Executive Council in 2012 - has that much changed in tax law and why wasn't it questionedthen?) you can see the shift of control.


Now we find out that the PHoD (see previous post) did not see any of the documents that were released by the PB and COO.
I am not saying anyone set out with bad intent -- but it has played out in ways that make one wonder.
Prayers that the Executive Council will hear from all - including those who have resigned - and offer some reconciliation. UTO is to great a program to lose.

See previous blog items and Episcopal Café for more on this.

President of House of Deputies responds on UTO

The President of the House of Deputies the Rev. Gay Jennings has written to Deputies to General Convention regarding the UTO revelations. Read her letter here to see links:

September 12, 2013

Dear Deputies:

In the last several days, many people in the church have expressed interest and concern about the United Thank Offering (UTO). I wanted to write directly to you to give you my perspective and ask for your thoughts.

First, some background as I understand it: Beginning this summer, a group of UTO board members and four people representing the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS), including a member of Executive Council, have been working to update UTO’s bylaws and memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DFMS and put standard business practices in place. This work builds on the work of a task force created by Executive Council in 2008 to strengthen the UTO for ministry in the 21st century (INC-055 Ad-Hoc Committee).

Like many of you, I was surprised and saddened to learn last week that four members of the existing UTO board have resigned their positions, at least in part because they were unhappy with the current version of the draft bylaws and MOU. It is clear from the statements and documents that have subsequently been released by both sides in the conflict that the situation is badly in need of reconciliation.

I believe that the original intent of this work was not to take authority or grantmaking decisions away from the UTO board, but rather to ensure that the United Thank Offering will continue its invaluable mission for years to come. Reasonable people can debate exactly how the balance of control over UTO funds should be shared between the volunteer UTO board, the Executive Council and the staff of the DFMS, but we all agree that UTO funds should be used only for their intended purpose: to make grants for mission work. However, as an officer of the DFMS who bears fiduciary responsibility for these funds, I believe that it is important to put some better business practices in place and delineate more clearly what powers both the UTO board and the DFMS possess and how they can best work together for the mission of the UTO.

Last Friday afternoon, Bishop Katharine released a statement about the ongoing conversations with the UTO, and I commend her statement to you. I agree with her assessment of the situation, and especially her reminder that, “The goal of all of this long work is to the continued existence and thriving of the ministry of the United Thank Offering.” I continue to be grateful for the strong working relationship that the Presiding Bishop and I have built, both on this issue and many others.

Unfortunately, both an unattributed summary of the situation and private correspondence between UTO board members and DFMS employees were also released on Friday. I had no prior knowledge of the planned release of these documents and I received them at the same time as the rest of the church. Had I been consulted, I would have voiced strenuous objection both to the tone and content of the unattributed summary and to the release of private correspondence without the consent of everyone involved. I am dismayed to be associated with this action by virtue of being mentioned in the unattributed summary.

What now? Some of the remaining members of the UTO board and those representing DFMS have resumed working on the draft bylaws and MOU, and it appears to be a positive engagement. Next month at Executive Council, the elected leaders of the church will be briefed, and depending on the status of these discussions, Council may need to consider additional ways forward to foster healing and reconciliation and to ensure that UTO is strengthened for the next 125 years of service. At that meeting, I will advocate for reconciliation and for a respectful, transparent outcome that is shaped and supported by the UTO board and Executive Council to ensure the continued vitality of the United Thank Offering.

I am also making a personal gift to the United Thank Offering today in gratitude for its 125 years of ministry and for the unstinting service of the laywomen who founded it and continue to lead it today. I invite you to join me by mailing your check to:

United Thank Offering
DFMS – Protestant Episcopal Church US
P.O. Box 958983
St. Louis, MO 63195-8983

Please also encourage congregations in your diocese to order United Thank Offering Blue Boxes online and hold ingatherings this fall and next spring.

Most of all, please pray for everyone struggling to discern the right path in this situation. As Episcopal Church Women President Nancy Crawford wrote last week, “I ask your prayers for those who administer to the needs of our church, and most especially for all the women of our church who strive daily to do the work God calls us to do in mission and ministry in the world, that we may shine forth the joy and wonder we share in God’s holy name.”

I hope that you will stay in touch with me as this situation unfolds and join me in praying for reconciliation and healing.

Faithfully,



Gay Clark Jennings
President, House of Deputies of The Episcopal Church

UTO 4 blog

The UTO 4 have a blog to share their view of the events of the past few years. Read it here.

UTO: another letter

UPDATE 2: Tobias Haller comments at his blog In a Godward Direction
UPDATE: Mark Harris comments at his blog, Preludium.

In my last blog post there was an update from the Presiding Bishop's Office with links to an exchange of letters between the now resigned members of the UTO Board and Bishop Sauls (the Chief Operation Office) and others.  I was surprised that the Church leadership would release some pieces of this correspondence without the permission of the authors but it did shed light on the perceptions of the Presiding Bishop's staff and some of their replies to the events of the summer. These letters that the Presiding Bishop published with her letter to the Church show the developing issues. However, they neglected to include this letter from former UTO Board member, Robin Sumners to the Presiding Bishop (published with permission). See my thoughts following the letter:

Letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church September 2, 2013

Dear Bishop Jefferts Schori,
In November of 2012, you gave a series of presentations at the Seminary of the Southwest during the celebration of the 60th Anniversary of that institution.  In one of those presentations, you were asked a question regarding how you tell others about faith.  Your answer was:  First you Show Up; Second you Listen; Third you Tell the Truth.
As a lifetime Episcopalian, I have a profound respect for the Office of the Presiding Bishop.  I have also been one of your supporters.  I have kept you in my prayers, urged others to pray for you, felt hurt when you have been treated with disrespect, read your written work, and believed you were called by God to be where you are, imagining it must at times be very uncomfortable.  You have inspired me to show up, to listen and to keep telling the truth—and somewhere in the midst of my truth and your truth there is the truth of the Gospel—that truth is that God loves us and that we live our lives with the gifts of Joy, Hope and Grace always available in our lives.

So returning to your three points, I will speak for myself, only myself, but myself as a Board Member of UTO and a Board member with significant responsibly, related to the present situation regarding the relationship between UTO and DFMS.

Show Up:  On July 15, as a result over conflict and misunderstanding regarding a document titled the INC-055 Study Committee Report, every member of the current United Thank Offering Board who could possibly clear their schedule came a meeting that you requested at the Church Center in New York. I was one of those members.  I came; the others came; we SHOWED UP.

As another act of  “showing up,” prior to this meeting the United Thank Offering Board drafted a possible Memorandum of Understanding, which we as whole approved and sent to you.  The bylaws created for the UTO Board as part of the INC-055 study were made available to you, as was the report itself. The INC-055 report contains this statement: We believe that the United Thank Offering must continue to be autonomous but interdependent as regards the corporate entity that constitutes The Episcopal Church.  I came to New York believing that there were some major misunderstandings that needed to be cleared up, but that the power of the statement in the study report talking about the United Thank Offering was what everyone around the table believed.

Listen:  For the entire working day on July 15, 2013 we listened and then we talked.  While we listened, or thought we did; I listened or thought I did; I did not hear, and we did not hear the real issue on the table.  I think we did not hear or understand the real issue, because neither I, not any other Board member had ever thought for one moment about the real issue.  We learned later that the real issue was that the leadership of The Episcopal Church—meaning you (the Presiding Bishop), Bishop Stacy Sauls, The Rev. Gay Jennings—believed the United Thank Offering Board was making a move to leave the Episcopal Church.  Unimaginable!

What I heard was that there was misunderstanding regarding roles and responsibilities regarding the relationship between UTO and DFMS, and that the solution lay in creating new documents that define the relationship and that these documents needed to be jointly created.  You specifically stated that Paul Nix wanted to revise the UTO Board bylaws.  We told the group that we had some changes to our bylaws that we had been working on. You requested the creation of a working group to create these documents. You stated you did not want this group to be too big; you asked our President to select some people from our Board that number was four.  I was one of them. You selected Bishop Sauls, Paul Nix, Heather Melton and a person not present, Steve Hutchinson. That working group met briefly that afternoon to try to coordinate calendars. I have not ceased to wonder why now?  Why is there a need for new documents now?  Where is the input of the INC-055?

The date of August 1 was selected as meeting date; on July 29, the four members our board preparing to travel to 815 received an email message from Bishop Sauls.  I found this message very encouraging.  He suggested that rather than begin with the documents, that we brainstorm regarding the common desires about the relationship between UTO and DFMS before we entered into development of the documents. He stated, “I strongly believe we need to spend some time first on the principles themselves and then judge our drafting work based on a common agreement on the principles.”  I went to New York hopeful. At the meeting itself, I told Bishop Sauls that I had prayed that this meeting would be cancelled and that his change in focus seemed an answer to my prayer.  Interestingly, your numbers in the working group had increased to five; we still had our four

Tell The Truth:
Telling the truth gets complicated.  Each of us has a truth.  In this letter to you, I am only going to tell my truth, and the truth as I have experienced it.  
At the end of this meeting, Bishop Sauls asked our group if he could appoint me to work with Paul Nix to create the needed documents.  Our existing bylaws were in your hands; the Memorandum of Understanding was in your hands.  We had put forth our ideas; we were waiting for yours.  We believed, in good faith, that both voices were to be reflected in the final documents.

On August 29, I received an email from Paul Nix that stated the following:

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.

When these documents arrived, my truth is that reading them made me sick at my stomach; I have felt betrayed, manipulated and treated with profound dishonesty.  I feel my naive trust of the leaders in my church being truthful put me at a distinct disadvantage.  I simply was not prepared for being disenfranchised by the church I think I have faithfully served. I own those feelings.  I called our President and talked with her.  She had the same reaction. Shock. I have her permission to tell you this. We did not immediately send these documents to anyone.  We needed time to process what had just happened. Why did anyone at all spend the time and money on a three year study only to toss it aside and proceed down a diametrically opposed path?  Why?  I do not understand?

Ultimately, here are my questions:  I have showed up: I have tried to listen: I am trying to tell my truth; where is the correlation on the other side?

First, there is the statement from Mr. Nix that says: "We also believe that these revisions will work to maximum the viability of the UTO Board for many years to come." This does not sound like an invitation to discussion.  These are meant to be a done deal.  As I read these draft bylaws, the only thing left for the UTO Board to do is to be an advisory board to recommend some grants to Executive Council.  Am I correct about this?

These bylaws effectively eviscerate the United Thank Offering Board.  This Board has represents the diligent work of the women of the church; women who worked to allow women like you to become ordained.  Women who themselves would not even live long enough to see the fruits of their labor.  For 125 years, the women of the church have been its servant leaders. This draft document includes nothing that honors that history nor does it empower the future of others who would carry on this work. This document is specifically designed to remove the women from the work of the United Thank Offering rather than asking of them, what ideas do you have?  Having been told in the meeting we had that some of our ideas were innovative, the pathway for creativity and innovation from the women who have served and are serving now is bulldozed over. Do I read them incorrectly?

As I have read them over and over, this document strips the organization entirely of its historic relationship to the Episcopal Church Women.  The United Thank Offering Board, as it presently exists, having been elected by the Women of the Church, will be immediately replaced by a Board elected through the Provinces and Synods of the Episcopal Church.  This seems to mean that those of us on the Board will no longer serve once these bylaws are passed, and that is expected in late October ---is that true?

Under these bylaws the following appears true: the United Thank Offering Board no longer has the autonomous ability to make grants, communicate its story and its history, develop and control its budget, oversee its training activities, develop its educational materials, speak publically about its work, and plan its meetings.  Am I correct in my understanding of this?  

If so, then the process you invited me to be part of is not what you led me to believe.  You  asked for dialogue, I thought.  Yet the documents we received came with the very clear statement that these are done and not really available for discussion; our input may have been received, but it was certainly not included—and a few blue lines in the MOU doesn’t cut it.  Is this our punishment for you having been afraid of something that was not even on the radar? What happened to “We believe that the United Thank Offering must continue to be autonomous but interdependent as regards the corporate entity that constitutes The Episcopal Church.”?

I cannot find vestiges of our historic loving care, our commitment and our devotion celebrated in these documents anywhere.  As I read them, what I see is the creation of a new United Thank Offering, and it is called DFMS.   Am I correct?

More Truth:

After discussion of the documents we received with the Executive Committee of the present Board, and the additional members of the working group that participated in the August 1 meeting, I was asked to create a document to try to use in our own defense. I drafted the “Barbarians at the Gate.” I wonder if you are familiar with the source of my title? It has powerful roots in history. That title came to me as I wept at the sadness of where this process had taken me and my Board member friends and companions.

“Barbarians” as you and Bishop Sauls called it is, a draft of a document created to try to put words in place, with in put from several others, trying to communicate to myself something incomprehensible.  It will likely never ever be used; none of us really has the spiritual energy to conduct a “campaign.”  And none of us would ever want to hurt the church we love. It got to Michael Barlowe by accident, and it was my error, but I think it was a God thing.  I am not sorry you received it.  I am sorry if you were hurt by it; I have prayed that you would not have much more pain in your position, for from the outside, your daily work must be demanding at best, and you do it tirelessly.  But surely you can understand how I feel, and not dismiss it as some poor attempt at humor.

I admit to being devastated and to feeling betrayed.  Am I supposed to embrace a set of documents that to me seems to destroy 125 years of faithful service that has and still does include my entire family of faithful women, servants all, as well as myself?  That seems a big thing to expect.  I hurt at having been referred to you by Bishop Sauls; when I received his email, I really thought he would call and talk to me—that there would be an explanation.  I guess I expected someone else to Show Up, Listen and Tell the Truth. Oh, well.

Please tell me that I have radically misunderstood where we are.  Please tell me I have completely misunderstood the intent of these documents.  

I remain hopeful. I remain in His Service and yours, as the titular head of my church (as The Very Reverend John Hines described himself when in your position),

Robin Woods Sumners

Was all of this happening because the Presiding Bishop and the Chief Operating Officer believed they had to act to pre-empt their belief that UTO was planning to leave The Episcopal Church? I do remember when that rumor was being discussed but who took it seriously? I guess they did.

I continue to pray that this situation can bring forth some grace. I believe that all want the best for The Episcopal Church. Can people sit down now and listen to one another and hear what is on each one's heart? I look to the Executive Council to hear from everyone and open the path to healing and reconciliation.