REPORT TO THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKING GROUP
UUA BOARD OF TRUSTEES

From Carol Agate
September 16, 2002 (Amended November 2003)

For many years now, governments have required an openness that goes far beyond what the UUA provides. This is, no doubt, largely because the government can afford informational mailings and publications that keep people apprised of what is happening. It hasn't been feasible for the UUA, because mailings are expensive, and people living throughout the United States cannot easily attend meetings. The advent of readily-available electronic communications that are in widespread use have changed that equation.

The background to this report

This report is based on my belief that the UUA needs to be more open, and the vehicles for opening it up are now available. The board working group on communications discussed some of these issues at its October 2000 meeting. In addition to the members of the working group, present were Tom Stites, Deb Weiner and Denny Davidoff.

For the past two years I have been trying to pursue the implementation of that report. Some things were implemented by the moderators. Denny Davidoff started posting the board agenda on the web site, and Diane Olson has been assigning board members to write reports that are posted within two weeks of the meetings. She has made certain that these postings are announced on UUA-L.

Other things were decided and never implemented. Some of the working group's responses did not answer the issues that were presented. During the past two years there has been widespread public discussion of making the UUA more open, much of which came about during the election campaign. There-fore additional points have been added to this report.

Why we need to be more open

Increased openness may lead to increased participation and interest for the members of its member congregations. We all know that many UUs have little awareness of the UUA. Their identification is solely as members of their congregations and not a part of a larger movement.

There has been on-line discussion of the problems of poor communication. During the elections, there were almost as many comments on elections-L about lack of information as there were about the candidates. Ken Carpenter responded to one complaint: "Some of your questions are routine, but carry a tone of suspicion and distrust." Larry Ladd sent a subscriber this reply: "I understand [the concern that news is controlled], but nevertheless regret the tone of mistrust that often permeates the discussion on elections-L. The board and staff of the UUA are not power-hungry nor secretive by design, and are working hard, within their human limitations, to serve well the religious community they love."

These are accurate descriptions of the perceptions people revealed in various discussion groups. There will be suspicion and distrust when things are not open, but it is difficult for people who are "in the loop" to recognize when things are closed.

On that mailing list Peter Raible said what is shocking to him in the election process is the "lethargy of our congregations about the election. I suspect that 95% of the members of an average congregation are not even aware that an election is taking place and even fewer care about the result. This disjoint between the UUA, which is supposed to represent and serve congregations, and the congregations themselves is truly our most fundamental problem. We can all bewail this reality, but the question becomes, what programs provide any promise of slowly correcting the situation." There are many ways to address this problem, but the foremost ones are to provide information and an opportunity to be heard.

Why the UUA is not more open

People who are deeply involved in "doing" are not aware of how those who are not active participants are uninformed. As long as the UUA board and staff fail to use all the communications media open to them to keep people informed, suspicion and distrust will continue. I don't think there is anything nefarious about their failure, but informing members of member congregations is not a high priority. After the elections mailing list was closed, several subscribers expressed regret that there was no longer a way for them to find out what was happening.

It is not easy to be open. First, those who take their own access to the news for granted are unaware that others do not have that access. Second, the UUA has not made access a priority. When something is perceived as difficult to do, the board and staff have tended to decide that means it cannot be done. They should decide whether it means they must find a way to do it.

Third, the staff is overwhelmed. This is a major stumbling block that has been perceived as being in the way. There is a large supply of potential volunteers to take on responsibilities that the board and staff have been reluctant to delegate.

The fourth problem is common to most people in positions of decision-making. It is a nuisance to get too much public input. It is easier to deal with the opinions of a small, contained group.

The fifth stumbling block is a perception that no one cares. General assembly workshops to discuss internal UUA affairs are poorly attended. This raises the question of the chicken and the egg. When people are informed and there is an issue of interest, they are there. When they know there is news, they follow up on it.

Board meetings can encourage involvement

Board meetings have come a long way in the past year or two. The posting of the agenda has been a large step forward. And most important, the practice of having a board member write notes for general posting has been excellent. The notes have been coming out less than two weeks after the meeting. Rotating the job has protected against the perspective of any one person dominating. If there were an official scribe there could be more of a perception of the news being managed.

The notes that have been published so far have been comprehensive, just what is needed to inform people who are not able to attend the meetings. And when they are posted on the web site, UUA-L subscribers are informed, so people interested in the UUA's governance know when to check for them. The only suggestion I have is that those who write them be careful to include exactly what was done, not just the fact something was done. For example, instead of "the board made appointments to the X committee," say "the board appointed Y and Z to the X committee." In at least one situation a written acceptance from each appointee was required before appointees could be named. The news was a month old before it was published. If an oral acceptance is not adequate, is form being placed over substance? Someone should always be asking whether the right of people to be informed is a priority.

People who visit the board meetings in person now have an opportunity to print out their own agendas beforehand from the web site. However, agendas should be available for visitors who arrive without them. It has been many years since I last attended a board meeting, but I do remember it as not being a hospitable experience. What I say may be outdated; I hope it is. The most important way to make people feel welcome and help them understand what is going on in the meetings is to distribute copies of everything being discussed. The cost of making extra copies of the committee, task force, and working group reports that are given to the board members is not high. It is difficult to follow a discussion when the listener does not have a copy of what is being discussed.

Not only should reports be available to board meeting visitors, they should be available to everyone. Right now the agenda discloses that a report is to be discussed, but it doesn't have a link to a copy of the report. [Note: For its October 2003 meeting the board provided those links.] In fact, since all board members have computers, the posting of the full board packet on the internet would save the cost of photocopying and mailing to the board, the presidents, and others who receive them. Even if board members were reimbursed for their printing costs, the savings could be significant.

The notes of the June meeting, for example, referred to a report that many are extremely interested in — changing the method of selecting the president and the moderator. That report should have been made available to everyone.

In answer to my request that working group reports be posted on the internet, the communications working group disagreed, saying that working group reports are not necessarily acted upon by the board and it would be confusing to distribute them. This makes sense if the reports are rejected at that same meeting. If a decision is held over until the next meeting, the report should be posted and input solicited.

It is tempting for those who make the decisions to fear that too much input will be hard to manage. Also, there is a concern that people whose advice is not followed will be upset. My experience is that people are less upset when their advice is not followed than when they are not given an opportunity for any input.

The major opportunity for input at present is talking with the district trustee. However, no one can discuss an issue with a trustee without knowing that the issue exists. And, unless a matter is brought to the general assembly, there is very little knowledge of what the issues are. Trustees vary in their degree of responsiveness to their constituents, and they are often overwhelmed by the amount of work there is to do. When Art Ungar prepared his reports of board meetings, he did so from the reports individual trustees gave to their districts. There were very few, usually about four or five. (It is not known whether others did not write reports, wrote them too late for inclusion, or did not want them distributed outside their districts.)

A system is needed that allows people to know what the board will be discussing and permits comments to be made and circulated to the entire board prior to the issue being voted on. It is tempting to say that is why people have trustees representing them. If the trustee does not agree with the position, it is unlikely that an effective presentation will be made. And opinions relayed through another person inevitably lose accuracy.

It appears much of the real work of the board takes place at working group meetings. [These were closed, but they are now open and their agendas are posted.] Diane Olson pointed out there were frequent requests to address working group meetings and they were seldom granted.

The idea that such requests are seldom granted concerns me. Yes, your meetings are crowded, there are many things to discuss and it is difficult to hand time over to people who want to present their personal issues. Here again is the question of priorities. The reaction to there being many people who want to make presentations to the working groups should be joy. How wonderful to have an organization in which the members are sufficiently interested to make such a request. There is limited time. The board must decide how important it is that the people for whom the association exists be given a share of that time. If the requests are really overwhelming and there is a fear of proposals that are too flaky to consider, there can be a requirement that a request be supported by the person's congregation or district.

A new issue of board openness has developed as a result of the prevalent use of email communications for board and staff. In setting a policy here, the UUA can provide guidance to its congregations and districts. Board meetings are open, yet much discussion takes place through email, and that is not open. There is concern about allowing people to subscribe to a board email list because the matters that are discussed may be confidential. However, nothing confidential should ever be discussed by email because it is never secure from hackers. And if there is nothing confidential, then there should be no reason not to make all email conversations open. Non-board subscribers can be limited to reading and not posting. The PSWD has opened its board emails with no adverse effects.

Open meetings should include all meetings

The issue of openness extends beyond the board and its meetings. All meetings of all UUA boards and committees should be open, just as meetings of government bodies are. The traditional exceptions to open meetings are discussions of personnel, investments, and litigation. The same criteria that control board meetings can be applied to other committees.

Supposedly, committee meetings are open. Unfortunately, meetings are not really open when no one knows when and where they are being held. There is an events calendar on the web site with a different color for each type of event. There is no color for committee meetings. A review of the list shows conferences and workshops, but not a single committee meeting other than the board of trustees. The previous working group said committee chairs were supposed to send their meeting information to the UUA for posting. I have not met a committee head who is aware of that request, and, even if they were, the lack of a designated color suggests such postings are not expected.

Not only the meeting dates and location should be posted, but also agendas and minutes. If committees don't have agendas and minutes, they should. Like the board meetings, agendas should have links to reports that are to be discussed. They should include an email address of someone to whom comments can be directed. Since an informal report right after the meeting is probably not feasible, the minutes should be posted promptly in draft form.

There is often a concern, in congregations as well as the UUA, of posting minutes before they are approved by the committee. Refusing to post draft minutes — clearly marked "draft" — is one more symptom of the fear of allowing things to be open. If there is a correction made later, that correction can be noted.

The way things operate now, the constituents have no input until GA — not a good forum for reasonable discussion, compromise, and reaching understandings. By the time a proposal is a GA business item, someone may have some good input to be considered. But instead of receiving calm and thoughtful consideration, the discussion will have to be restricted to two-minute sound bites and shoot-from-the-hip responses. How much better it would be to have more input at the stage the resolution is being developed. Input should be allowed similarly to committees.

Open meetings may enhance a sense of belonging among people in the congregations. The planning committee meets in various cities, especially those where upcoming GAs are scheduled. It might be interesting for people in the area to attend those meetings. The MFC discusses not just candidates, but also its own operations. Everyone should be informed of where and when they are meeting, and which portions of the meetings are open.

It is likely that committees really don't want outsiders to visit. There is a question of adequate space, providing refreshments, and allowing people to speak. Involvement should be what we are seeking, not avoiding the messiness of possible objectors. They might also be people with good ideas.

I believe ad hoc as well as standing committee meetings should be open. I have discussed this with Kay Montgomery, who gave my request serious and thoughtful consideration. She concluded:

I think the nexus of the disagreement is about what good democracy looks like. You say — or at least imply — that meetings that are not open to anyone are not democratic. For me, good democracy lies in good access and the ability to be in dialogue about decisions and how they are made. And, ultimately, having a vote about important matters.

The problem with this statement is that there is no access when there is no publicity. There is no opportunity for public input prior to decisions of special study committees. Consider what happened when the board imposed a fair share requirement. There was such a public outcry that the decision was retracted. People were especially upset that they did not know the issue was pending and had no opportunity to provide input.

Another example was the proposal that the board of review have jurisdiction over denials of preliminary and final fellowship. A task force was appointed. The person who made the proposal was not invited to attend. After the proposal was rejected, the man who proposed it placed the issue on the GA agenda for two consecutive years. I was as guilty as anyone. I was a member of that task force, and I did not think to question the absence of the proposer. Yes, when you are on the inside, it’s hard to see the view from the outside. Study committees should be open and should extend to the proposer a special invitation to attend, give a brief presentation, and answer questions.

UUA-news could provide information

Quite a few years ago Margy Levine Young and I founded UUA-L, believing it was time to provide news to people now that there was a way for up-to-date information to be delivered. After the list was established it was implemented by the staff, with a concept of its function that differed from ours. It became a vehicle for public relations announcements rather than news of UUA governance.

This is understandable, because the staff function is one of PR. There is also a philosophical difference as to whether the UUA should reveal controversy. Because the UUA is sponsoring the list, there is a real issue as to whether it should be strictly a house organ, to say how good we are, or whether it should be a way of letting people know what is going on.

A solution discussed by the earlier working group was to offer me the opportunity to publish a mailing list that would cover news. (I have tentatively called it “UUA-news.”) I said I would be delighted to do it, but in order to do so I would need access to the news. An outsider has a better perspective of what people might want to know than does someone who is in the loop, but does not have access to that information. I said I would need copies of all correspondence and publications. This was either an insurmountable problem or simply a matter of no one having followed through.

Here is an example of news that could be covered and the philosophical differences that might arise over the publication of that news. There was a lot of conflict in the Quebec GA following the Commission on Appraisal (COA) skit. As soon as I returned home I contacted Diane Olson, who was wonderfully responsive to ideas of being more open, and suggested an explanation of the issue be posted on UUA-L. I proposed that it be presented as Tom Stites did in the UU World issue on racism, explaining both sides. Diane suggested that we wait until the involved groups worked something out.

This raises two questions. The first is whether a matter should be publicized while it is still pending. I believe it should, but can understand the fear of opening a Pandora’s box. However, until the UUA overcomes that fear, we will never be truly open. Consider the governments of our country, states, and cities. They would be less messy if there were less public discussion of pending issues. But would any of us really want it to be that way?

The second question is what should be presented. Using the COA skit as an example, what was finally published was a notice on UUA-ga saying the COA had posted its apology on the web site and providing the URL to the posting. The apology raised more questions than it answered. Anyone reading it was left completely in the dark as to what happened. This is a not a criticism of the apology; it was not supposed to be a news report. But there never was a news report.

Right after the apology was posted, this query appeared on UUA-ga: “I wish I knew what ‘this’ was! . . . I wasn't at GA this year. Maybe we could learn something, too, about what pitfalls to avoid if we knew what pit they fell into. Any information about this would be appreciated.” There were responses, some from others who objected to the fact they were also in the dark and others who had various bits of facts. The story could be pieced together from the postings.

Now if this were the outside world, the issue would have been exposed from the very start because there would have been reporters. But as a practical matter, within the UUA access to reporting is controlled by the association. The only open communication is on the mailing lists, and each one is directed to a narrow focus of interest. UUA-news could solve that problem, but would the association feel that it has to control the news that is published?

Last December there was apparently a bizarre shooting at the Brattleboro, VT, church. Is this news? The public news media sometimes goes overboard in publishing that kind of information. But it is such an unusual occurrence for us, the question should be whether people would be interested in reading about it. If we had more news from individual congregations, we could help create a sense of belonging to a larger group. It is joys and concerns on Sunday mornings in our congregations that helps so much in making communities out of our churches. The association can help make us a larger community by telling us interesting events that happen to each other.

UUA-community could provide discussion opportunities

Many of the subscribers to elections-L were disappointed when the list ended, because it was the only place for discussion of UUA governance and politics. If we do set up UUA-news there is a question whether that should be a list for open or closed postings. If UUA-news is for closed postings only, that again raises the specter of controlling the news. If it’s for news and discus-sion, the news might get lost in an overwhelming number of discussion posts. It could also be open posting of news only, but it is unlikely that subscribers would make the distinction of whether what they are posting is news or comment.

One solution is to refocus UUA-community as a discussion group for items posted on UUA-news. So far it has been a discussion group with no designated focus, but tending primarily to philosophical issues, often unrelated to UUism. It has been dormant for quite a while. People do seem to prefer lists with a distinct focus. Perhaps UU-community could be used for discussion of items on UU-news. Hitting "reply-to" on UU-news could send the message to UU-community.

The web site has been excellent, especially since Diane has been determined to promptly post board agendas and meeting notes. The tie-in with UUA-L is important. Unlike UU World, which can be read when it arrives, the web site is not read periodically. It is used primarily for reference. Therefore announcing important web postings on UUA-L is a necessary adjunct to the web site.

Rely more on volunteers

The use of the web site for opening up the process could be expanded. One listing that would be wonderful is volunteer opportunities. Working with volunteers can be frustrating because of the frequent lack of reliability. But it would be a good idea to try getting more people involved by letting them know what jobs are available. Right now things are done pretty much by appointment only. The UUA might want to develop leadership as our congregations do, by giving people opportunities to take on tasks.

The nominating committee and the committee on committees are good about publicizing openings and allowing people to apply. But ad hoc committees, task forces, study groups, or whatever names are used, are not. Sometimes people know a committee will be appointed, even though they are not invited to apply. An example is the committee proposed at general assembly to study the process of electing the president and moderator.

There is far too little use of a variety of volunteers and overuse of a few. The most overused of all are the board of trustees. It is difficult for board members to spend time with their constituents because board responsibilities are so heavy. The board should take a serious look at its activities and see which things can be delegated.

There should be a way, other than the annual search for candidates, for UUs to put their name in a database for a wide range of committees, task forces, or study groups. When there are openings, the list could be reviewed for those with relevant interests and background. Or there could simply be a list of people who want to be notified of openings, and they would be contacted and offered the opportunity to apply.

I've discussed some of the issues in this report with Tom Stites. He said he agrees with them, but he was facing too many problems and not enough staff to handle them. He figured it would take about 18 months to be able to get the web site fixed first.

The UUA may not have the staff to handle the things I have proposed. What is needed is a communications committee that emphasizes content, rather than technical problems, as has been the charge of the electronic communication committee. This may be seen as an overwhelming task for the UUA to take on, but a communications committee of volunteers could handle these tasks if the association is ready to trust volunteers.

The working group discussion of two years ago

The last working group meeting concluded with the decision that there was no need to bring any recommendations to the board because all the decisions could be implemented by the staff. I have discussed the issues of more openness many times with the staff. I think the world of them and the great things they are doing with the web site and with handling PR. But openness is not their issue. It makes no sense to delegate ongoing supervision of a project to those who are not in sympathy with the goals of that project. It would be like assigning me to develop programs to enhance interest in football.

The working group's reply to my request for open committee meetings was that the web calendar lists events, and can list committee meetings "if people in charge fill out the appropriate box in the calendar section." What I propose is a more proactive approach. Committees should be told it is their responsibility to provide that information. If you arm a volunteer with the authority to publicize committee meetings, then someone can follow through and make sure the meetings are announced.

The working group rejected the idea of special committees being open, saying their purpose is to study and not to transact business. That is a sorry distinction. When things are being studied is the best time for public input. In my city, public committees are not permitted to meet for any purpose without announcing that meeting and opening it to the public. Three or more committee members are not allowed to have dinner together. Maybe the UUA would not want to take it that far, but it has a long way to go to get even close.

Encourage an informed and participating electorate

The GA packet is wonderful, and it is even better now having all that information also available on line. But there is woefully little information that will encourage an informed electorate. Here again, I turn to what the government does. In California, at least, packets go out to all voters stating the pros and cons of the issues on the ballots.

Many years ago, after one of my first GAs, I submitted through my district a rule change that required a packet to be sent to all delegates, allowing each candidate a one-page flyer. It passed, and we now have information to aid in voting on candidates. I would like to see something similar for resolutions. Action items carry their rationale within their text, so those who are opposed to them do not have an equal opportunity to get their objections in the hands of the delegates prior to GA. Business resolutions appear in the program with no reasoning or arguments pro and con. Debate on the floor has little value, and, although mini-assemblies are a help, it would be better if delegates had information before the meeting.

Some issues need more publicity than others. For example, the special task force on the nominations of president and moderator came up with a report that was mentioned in the board notes. This is an issue known to be of wide interest. The proposal for the study came from the floor at GA. Not only should the report itself be published, but an announcement of its availability belongs on UUA-L. This is a perfect subject for discussion because it is a difficult issue and one that many people see as needing a solution. What I’m suggesting is that the UUA look to its members to help clarify and perhaps even solve an issue instead of always looking to a small group of insiders. Topics like this can be aired long before they get to GA for a vote.

Conclusion

My message may sound as though everything is wrong. Naturally, my purpose is to point out things that need improvement. But a lot is right. The variety and ease of use of the email lists are a pleasure, and all the list managers I have encountered have been sensitive and conscientious. The encouragement of new lists is much appreciated. The web site is beautiful, and navigation is clear. The UU World is the best it has ever been, and InterConnections is an extremely useful publication. General assembly coverage is thorough, prompt, and readable.

A question should be asked whenever an action is being considered: Have we opened this up to our members? I don’t fault the board or administration for not having made things more open. I’m sure it’s not through a desire to be secretive, but is more a matter of never having thought of it. Also, until electronic communications, there was no feasible way to keep large numbers of people informed.

There is a heavy emphasis in this report on electronic communications because that is what has changed the availability of information. The concern is inevitably raised that it is elitist. I hope that concern has passed, along with the concern that some people don’t have telephones. Public libraries all have internet access as do most of our congregations, so anyone who does not have it has made that choice; the lack is not because of the inability to afford it.

Another argument used against more openness is the assumption that no one is interested. Yes, in general only a small percentage of people avail themselves of the opportunity to become educated and offer their opinions on issues. But the more opportunities that are provided, the more people will become involved. When interesting issues capture people’s imaginations, they become involved — first in the issue at hand, then in other aspects of the UUA. More of them may think of themselves as Unitarian Universalists and not just as members of their local congregations.

Some argue that our democracy is representative. But placing the decision-making in the hands of a few does not preclude keeping the many informed and giving them opportunities to be heard. Decide whether being open is a priority, and, if it is, there are ways to ensure decisions are being made in the open. Instead of saying it is too difficult to accommodate our congregations' members, ask how they can be accommodated.

Thanks for providing this opportunity for me to be heard.