Tag: governance

UCV Denominational Affairs Zoom FORUM, 7 pm, 3 May 2023

•

Final CUC Resolutions for 2023 regarding

1) Bylaws,
2) Goals and Strategic Priorities
3) Repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery
4) Budgets for 2023 and 2024

are in a folder here:

Earlier DRAFT resolutions are here.
Earlier COMMENTS sent to CUC from UCV members are here.  

There was a CUC AGM Plenary on Motions Round Table, 9 AM – 10:30 AM Pacific, on Sat 29 Apr 2023.
There were 32 participants including 7 from UCV. Contact CUC or one of the UCV delegates for further information about this event. 

Click here for a link to the UCV zoom Forum at 7 pm on 3 May 2023 (open to all UCV Members and Friends) to discuss the final versions of the CUC resolutions. The Forum is intended especially to address the needs of the six delegates who the UCV Board has appointed to represent UCV at the CUC AGM.

1st Image Credit: David Neel, “Just Say No”. 1991.
Print 5/135.  Photo: Keith Wilkinson

2nd Image Credit: Daphne Naegele. “Many suns cannot penetrate the darkness”. 1989.
Acrylic – oil pastel on paper.  Daphne (1967-2007) was a long-time member of UCV.
Photo: Keith Wilkinson

Vancouver Unitarians Cherish Our Ministers

•

How do we see ourselves as we transition to our next settled minister?

Our minister is of central importance to all dimensions of UCV life. They are the source of the most engaged, alive and motivated times in many members’ lives, and are often directly responsible for people choosing to join and participate in our community. Their stimulating and thought-provoking homilies strongly shape the faith and worship experiences that support personal and spiritual growth, as do the varied services and ceremonies they create. Members deeply value a minister who leads, challenges, and inspires with compassion, who helps us integrate our principles and shared values into our everyday lives, and who walks the talk with us.

Over 130 congregants answered 8 Thought-Provoking Questions about their experiences in the UCV congregation. The Congregational Identity Team (CIT – Rob Dainow, Leslie Hill, Marg Fletcher, Naomi Taylor, John Boyle) analyzed these responses into the six major, interdependent themes shown in the figure. MINISTRY is one important theme.

The full CIT report is available online here. You can read more about how the CIT collected and analyzed the 130 responses on page 3, or about how MINISTRY is so important to our congregational identity on page 11.

Explore the history of the Congregational Identity Team and its work here: ucv.im/cit.

Engagement and Buy-In Checklist for Big Projects and Complex Decisions (DMTF Weekly Lesson #4)

•

Process Leaders:

  • Are mechanisms in place to confirm and regularly reconfirm congregational buy-in to both the decision-making process and to the possible or probable outcomes of the decision-making process?
  • Is there focused, facilitated, widespread brainstorming about the issue before committing to go ahead or start down a particular path, with all options discussed? Does that include the history of past explorations and projects?
  • Is there an “engagement leader” or team who will track and coordinate communication to/from members and who may recruit volunteers?
  • Has a survey been considered to see how aware members are about the process and if their expectations align with the plan?
  • Are there opportunities periodically during the decision-making process for small group/committee discussions as well as whole-congregation forums? Does this include ample time and patience to hear from as many as possible, and to reach as much convergence as possible on next steps? Are those concerned about or
    opposed to the project strongly encouraged to attend such sessions?
  • Are there sufficient opportunities for congregants to get information and to ask questions about the decision and the decision-making process?
  • If the project/decision involves building or altering a physical structure, are there models to view the proposed location and appearance?
  • Are there multiple well-advertised ways for congregants to provide input (e.g., by emails and bulletins, posters, web-postings, announcements in Sunday services)?
  • Are the decision-making leaders and groups seeking out all voices (including those historically underrepresented*, dissenters, and others with unstated points of view) right from the beginning of the decision-making process? (*Underrepresented members include IBPOC, youth, and others traditionally not heard from: people with language issues, less education, immigrants who have been taught never to contradict people especially their leaders, and people who are not able to get to forums or access online meetings.)
  • Is there a clear mechanism for registering dissent?
  • Is dissent explored early in big processes?
  • Has every effort been made to let the dissenters know they have been heard and that there is a will to include their concerns in making the decision (even if their concerns may not be fully resolved)?
  • If the dissent surfaces later in the process, is it clear whether this represents concerns about new information and information not previously addressed or represents ongoing resistance from the start (the latter not being amenable to a shift in willingness unless the whole project is changed)?
  • If there are big or frequently expressed concerns, will a facilitated process be considered to hear and respond to these?
  • When not many members are engaged or when some groups are underrepresented, is there a mechanism to gauge the degree of and determine the cause of apparent nonengagement and possible nonagreement?
  • Is there an inventory of members’ skills and expertise to support or possibly replace outside experts for some or all aspects of the project?

Members:

  • Do the members agree that the process leaders may proceed even with some residual disagreement, provided all efforts have been expended to understand and resolve these disagreements?
  • Do those with concerns or who dissent agree to abide by the stated processes for feedback, and also agree to follow the Covenant of Healthy Relations?
  • Are congregants informed about and encouraged to take responsibility to engage in the decision-making process by:
    • attending meetings
    • asking questions
    • keeping track of project-related communications and events
    • discussing with others
    • encouraging others to engage
    • assuming leaders are acting in good faith?

Planning and Leadership Checklist and Democratic Process Checklist for Big Projects and Complex Decisions (DMTF Weekly Lesson #3)

•

From: The Decision-Making Task Force report, UCV’s Redevelopment Exploration 2016 –2020: 

A Review of the Process with Lessons for the Future

LEADERSHIP AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

PLANNING: 

  • Is there agreement on the problem we are trying to solve: the key decision we are asking?
  • Is there widespread discussion and agreement from the outset about the values and principles guiding the planning process, consistent with our UU principles and our Covenant of Healthy Relations?
  • Has there been a process to develop a clear vision and goals for the project?
  • Is the project consistent with the vision (and mission, if applicable) of UCV? Does the planning include considering the impacts for the more distant future, i.e., 10, 20, 30 years down the road?
  • If some goals seem to conflict with one another, has there been a process to elicit common goals and/or prioritize the goals (e.g., Convergent Facilitation, sociocracy)?
  • In a prolonged process, is there an opportunity to revisit these values and principles to remind the membership?
  • Is there broad agreement that the outcome of the decision-making process will be accepted, knowing that it will be arrived at for the greatest community benefit?
  • Does the planning/leadership group have clear terms of reference from the outset?
  • Are the project scope and parameters, including constraints and projected costs, defined and clear to all?
  • If there is disagreement about the goals and constraints, is there a system for participatory decision-making such as Convergent Facilitation or sociocracy? Is there conscious awareness and agreement in the community about how these decisions are made?
  • Are there clear go/no go parameters that all understand?
  • Is it understood by all that the scope and parameters will be revised only for very compelling reasons such as a big change in conditions, with widespread buy-in for the changes?
  • Are there clear timelines and contingencies for not meeting those timelines?
  • If the timeline is extended, is this a conscious choice that is transparently justified?
  • Has a protocol been established for naming, dating and filing documents to facilitate retrieval?

LEADERSHIP: 

  • Is there an overarching body (board, delegated individuals and teams) providing consistent oversight andsupport for the decision-making process, with continuity throughout the project?
  • Is a leadership/planning team assigned to any projects and decisions that are complex and/or that potentially involve divergent positions?
  • Is there a mechanism to check in with the project leaders to see what support they need?
  • Are the leaders of the process and the other leaders involved equipped to lead a robust participatory decision-making process?
  • Is there clarity about
  • roles and responsibilities, such as who makes decisions on what aspects of the process (e.g., committee, delegated overarching body, board or congregation)?
  • whether the minister will provide leadership and support for the decision-making process?
  • expectations of congregation members?
  • Are definitions and steps of the process clearly documented and accessible by the general membership, with the input of experts (inhouse or external) included?
  • Is there general agreement that once approval for a next step has been granted by the congregation, and dissent has been addressed as far as possible, all while following the Covenant of Healthy Relations, the leadership team of the project may proceed without revisiting the addressed concerns — and if necessary, a facilitated process be undertaken to explore continued dissension?

For prolonged projects, is there a process to rotate leads or co-leads periodically (e.g., two people leading the process and then two people on the steering committee observing and learning in order to take over after an agreed term)?

Is there a reassessment of UCV’s capacity (human resources, finances, time, expertise) at every key decision point?

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS 

  • If a decision is to be made by majority vote, is the voting threshold for congregational votes clear from the outset (e.g., simple majority, two-thirds, etc.) and is this consistent with UCV’s bylaws?
  • When voting on a project, is it clear what the alternative is (status quo or something else)?
  • Are mechanisms other than majority approval in place for decisions along the way, such as Convergent Facilitation, sociocracy, and “gradients of agreement”?
  • If a final vote is undertaken, for efficiency, have written questions and oral answers been considered for the vote-related discussions?
  • Is a vote wise and useful at the endpoint of this project? Have alternatives been considered?

Trust Checklist for Big Projects and Complex Decisions (DMTF Weekly Lesson #2)

•

From: The Decision-Making Task Force report, UCV’s Redevelopment Exploration 2016 –2020: 

A Review of the Process with Lessons for the Future

  • Is there trust and support for the leadership of the project? Is there a process to build trust and robust buy-in for the leaders’ decision-making?
  • Is there explicit commitment from all members to trust in the good intentions of everyone involved?
  • Is there transparency of the board’s processes and role in the project?
  • Is the minister’s position on the project clear (or are their reasons for not taking a position clear)?
  • Is the board sufficiently involved so that when a new board is elected, there is institutional memory of the status and history of the project, sufficient continuity of board members, and a clear record of the board’s actions regarding the project?
  • Do all members agree that regardless of how well they have followed or engaged with the process, they will respect the leadership and authority of the planning team, and will go first to that team with any concerns? Then, if not satisfied, do all agree they may next approach the overarching body?
  • Do all members commit to trust that the project leadership will be the point of contact with outside consultants, and agree to go through the project leadership team with any questions or concerns?
  • Are those who facilitate group processes trusted to hold all points of view with equal care?

Healthy Relations Checklist from the Decision-Making Task Force (DMTF Weekly Lesson #1)

•

Healthy Relations Checklist

*Note: these are recommendations from the Decision-Making Task Force and not all are in place as official UCV policy.

  • Do we have a recently reviewed and affirmed congregational Covenant of Healthy Relations*?
  • Is the Covenant posted prominently in UCV’s physical spaces, and easily located on the website?
  • Do all committees, task forces, and other groups agree to the Covenant as individuals and as groups?
  • Is the Covenant reviewed periodically, and is there a process for considering and incorporating feedback about the Covenant?
  • Are new members asked to review and agree to the Covenant of Healthy Relations?
  • Is there at least one service per year devoted to the Covenant of Healthy Relations?
  • Does the Covenant include a system to track, intervene, and follow up on concerns and conflicts?
  • Is there a process for addressing conduct that does not uphold the Covenant, including recommended actions that bystanders can take?
  • Has a healthy relations advocacy team been established as a consistent presence in the community?

When a big project or decision-making process is undertaken:

  • is there conscious commitment of UCV leaders, project leaders, and congregation members to abide by the Covenant of Healthy Relations throughout the process?
  • are we collectively committed to a healthy process, and do we all collectively commit ourselves to taking individual and collective responsibility for making it work?
  • is a “healthy process” clearly described (and posted/circulated) so that all know what we are committing to?
  • as UCV members, do we put the collective community’s needs over our own personal preferences?
  • do members commit to sharing information that is (and can be confirmed to be) as factually accurate as possible? When errors in information and assumptions have been identified, do members agree that they will withdraw erroneous material?
  • Will the healthy relations team (or delegated members) work alongside the planning team for the duration of big projects with a mandate to help watch for and follow up on possible misunderstandings or disgruntlement? Does this healthy relations team have a protocol for dealing with questions and comments that impugn any person’s character or integrity?
  • Are there opportunities and resources to learn and practice elements of collaborative/ compassionate communication, participatory decision-making, and bystander intervention training?
  • Are values and commitments reviewed in the whole community, both at the start of and during big projects/decisions, as well as in an ongoing way, as part of the life of this community?

 

*Note: The Covenant of Healthy Relations (COHR), also referred to here as the Covenant, refers to the Covenant of Healthy Relations that was congregationally developed and approved in 2005 and reaffirmed by the Board in 2020, to be distinguished from other UCV covenants developed for specific purposes.

Practising the Art of Inclusion – President’s Message February 2022

•

from Mary Bennett, UCV Board of Trustees President

“How can we get young people involved?” is where the conversation started at our board retreat. We decided to set up a task force!

After toying with names like “Beyond Boomers” or “Generational Transformation” the board settled on the simple term “Generational Inclusion” and charged the task force with exploring what practices are required to ensure that all generations feel invited to actively engage with the important religious and spiritual work of our community. Vice-President, Bruce McIvor and I are just getting started on this work and I hope members from all 7 “living generations” will engage in this conversation.

Currently the Canadian Unitarian Council are creating video recorded interviews and hosting forum discussions to help us welcome people from diverse relationships and families, people of all dis/abilities and people of all classes. I’ve watched the first series and they’re very enlightening. I encourage you to register.

The focus on anti-racism over the past years has resulted in our own very active IBPOC affinity group as well as “IPA” – IBPOC Plus Allies team – to plan initiatives that bring to our awareness the lived experiences, heritage and culture of people of colour within our congregation. 

With the leadership of board members, Diane Brown, Bruce McIvor and Jenny Malcolm the board is beginning a journey of “decolonizing our board.”  

In 1995 we were one of the first congregations in Canada to complete the Welcoming Congregation Program which focuses on welcoming to LGBTQ plus persons. 

It’s inspirational and moving to hear the stories of people who have different lives than our own, whether because of age, race, class, abilities, gender or sexual identity and there are, as well, some simple practices we can all use in practising the art of inclusion.  

Make space; take space is now the phrase used to remind us to notice who is in the room–whether literally or on our zoom screen–and find ways to include those who for whatever reason are not being heard. 

There are well-developed methods for encouraging all voices to be heard such as dynamic governance/sociocracy and convergent facilitation. There are also everyday opportunities to simply notice frequently how much space each of us is taking and then learning a few lines to even things out when they’re out of balance.  A study I read many years ago said people who spoke a lot in a group underestimated the amount of time they talked and those who talked relatively little overestimated the time they spoke.

Back to the generational inclusion focus, did you know that Gen Z (those between age 11 and 26) is “the most diverse group – in terms of not just race, but also gender. .. It’s the most likely group to have individuals who identify as nonbinary. They expect diversity to be a top priority. That means things like gender-neutral bathrooms, equal pay for equal work, and support for racial inclusion movements. ” (Deloitte study)

Seen on instagram recently: If you’re over 45 and don’t have an under-30 mentor (not mentee) then you’re going to miss fundamental shifts in thinking that are happening. 

If you are willing to experiment with some ways to get to know the “others” in our congregation, I’d love to hear your stories about making space and taking space. If you’re under 30 and willing to be a mentor to one of us who’s over 45, I’d especially love to hear from you. 

Send me a note to [email protected] and share with me how we at UCV can continue to develop our skills in the art of inclusion. Meet all the board members at ucv.im/board and review our Covenant of Healthy Relations here ucv.im/covenant

Reference:

Here’s a summary of the 7 living generations and an analysis of UCV’s data about generational distribution at UCV. It may not be what you think!

Thanks to Keith Wilkinson for preparing this document.

Generations Table 2022-01-24

16

Statement on the 8th Principle by UCV Board President Diane Brown

•

Dear Unitarians,

Leadership does not mean “objectivity” or not taking a stance; leadership means defining yourself within the values of the organization and sharing that perspective and why you believe it. It also means listening. I am, as President, committed to doing both.

Full disclosure; I believe in the proposed 8th Principle and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

I know there is concern out there about recent events at the CUC. I would just like to add that my work on the UCV Board is to move us forward in a way that is truly inclusive and progressive, that furthers and deepens our stated collective vision.

That means we will be encouraging dialogue within our congregation, hosting an 8th Principle Forum, requesting everyone read the Dismantling Racism Study Group report and it’s recommendations which are attached below and on the website, and dedicating a service to the 8th Principle. In this way, more people can fully participate in discussion and understanding of the 8th Principle as a crucial next step.

The lack of inclusion of more voices, and the technicality that brought about the demise of this recent attempt to adopt the 8th Principle, will not exist, and we will all be able to walk forward together.

Moreover, we at UCV do not have to wait for the CUC to adopt the 8th Principle. After substantive discussion, we ourselves can put it to a vote, hopefully providing vision and leadership to our sister congregations.

Finally, Rev Lara shared some history with me that I would like to share with you all now.

There is some very interesting history around how the existing 7 principles were affirmed.  There were only going to be 6 of them, as people felt that interdependence was implicit in them, but others felt it necessary to explicitly name our responsibility and connection to the planet and its inhabitants. Now the 7th principle is a covenant to action for the environment and all non-humans on our Blue Boat Home.

The proposed 8th principle may seem to be implicit in the wording of the other 7, but recent studies https://cuc.ca/dismantling-racism-study-group/ and decades of experience have proven otherwise, so the people who are most impacted are asking to have it spelled out.

We Unitarians dream of a future where all of the principles we affirm to promote no longer need to be written, because they are simply lived. But we are not there yet.

In active faith and hope,

Diane Brown

UCV Board President

Board Meeting Observer Guidelines

•

Attending UCV board meetings as an observer

Here are some guidelines which are intended to offer clarity to observers and guests and to support the board in effective governance.

Our board wants to encourage transparency and inclusion while maintaining focus on the governance and strategic priorities of the board. We want to create safe conditions in which board members can speak freely and work effectively.

  1. Please confirm in advance to [email protected] (Mary Bennett, Board President) [email protected] (Lynn Armstrong, Board Secretary). If there’s a particular topic or time you’re interested in please let us know. We post dates of our meetings at https://vancouverunitarians.ca/eventlist/
  2. All observers (as well as board members) commit to keeping what they hear confidential.  Only a board designate is permitted to record the session. All are welcome to take notes. 
  3. On zoom, observers keep their cameras and mics turned off. Guests turn on their video and mic when they are presenting. It’s helpful if you rename to put an O- in front of your name and ensure your real name is on your zoom profile. We usually have Tech Support who can assist.
  4. Whether on zoom or in person, if an observer’s behaviour disrupts the meeting, they’ll be asked to leave. 
  5. On occasion the board deals with confidential material and go “in camera” – i.e. private. Observers and guests will be asked to leave at that time.  
  6. We encourage members who are engaged in conflict with one or more board members to find direct ways to resolve issues outside of board meetings.  

Please feel free to contact the Board president or secretary if you have any questions about these guidelines.

Names and brief bios of all board members can be found here:

https://vancouverunitarians.ca/about-us/governance/board/

 

 

 

 

 

Candidates for the Board of Trustees

•

Candidates for the Board of Trustees to be elected: November 24th, 2019

from Marg Fletcher, Chair Nominating Committee

Thank you to all who participated in the process and particularly to those who agreed to stand for the new Board.

Nominating Committee Slate for UCV Board of Trustees 2019/20

President:  Diane Brown     

Diane is the artistic director of Ruby Slippers Theatre. She and her son Dylan are long-time members of UCV.  Diane is also a Past President of the church, an active member of the UCV Environment Committee and a fourth Sunday greeter. Her return to the board is rooted in the desire to help steer UCV through some transitional challenges ahead, assuring that the important work of the Church – environment, social justice, refugee, children and youth programs, to name only a few – are properly and promptly supported, and our sustainability as an organization secured.

Vice President:  Gordon Gram

Gordon found his “church home” at UCV when attending UBC in the 1960s, thanks to his wife Charlene and mother-in-law Marjorie Smith, who was a member for over 75 years. “A few years ago we actually had four generations of family attending church.”  Now retired, Gordon has had a career with lots of variety that includes overseas work in book publishing with Prentice Hall International, government experience with the BC Agricultural Land Commission, and a number of roles in commercial real estate and land and project development. Volunteer work has included serving on several boards: MSA Community Services Abbotsford, Seniors Housing Society New Westminster, Katherine Sanford Housing Society Vancouver and Douglas Park Community Association Vancouver.

“In the fall of 2001 we moved to within walking distance of the church, and it was perfect timing to hear Steven’s first sermon in the spring of 2001 and become a fan.”

Gordon has served on Buildings and Grounds and has been on the three committees that have examined the merits of redevelopment. In 2018 he led the Nominations Committee.  

“I see serving on the board as an opportunity to make a contribution, to engage in challenging work, and to have some fun.”      

Secretary:  Mairy Beam 

After one year of serving as secretary to the UCV board, Mairy is past the worst of the learning curve and eager to continue perfecting the role. Well, maybe not perfecting, but moving in that direction. Mairy is active in the RE program and the Earth Spirituality events. This will be a year where important decisions are made on redevelopment, an interim minister, etc.  It will be exciting to be in the midst of it all.

Treasurer: John Taylor

 

Members-at-large:

Jennifer Fell

Jennifer first came to UCV in 2008, along with her partner Lorimer and their three kids. At various times, all three kids attended the Religious Education program. Jennifer’s youngest daughter, Juliet, is now part of the youth group. Jennifer continues to find the UCV community to be an important part of her life.

Carolyn Grant

Carolyn has been a member of UCV since 2006.  She has served on a number of committees including the board for two years around 2010.  Mostly you can find her at the front door on the third Sunday handing out orders of service — something she had been asked to do as a “one-off” and 13 years later is still there. She brings to the board a keen desire to make sure the congregation remains financially sustainable and that our governing policies continue to evolve, so that we can thrive in the years to come.

Michael O’Neil

Michael O’Neil and his wife Catherine Stewart have been members of UCV for about 27 years. They joined when their two children were young and spent the early years teaching Sunday school and were involved in a number of committees and activities. Over the past 12-15 years Michael and Catherine have re-engaged in various aspects of UCV life on a regular basis. 

Michael considered being a member of the board for some time, but a busy hospital-based medical practice was a significant barrier. He has been involved over the past few years with the redevelopment committee and participated in various other events at UCV. Now working part-time affords an opportunity to be a more active member of the board and committees. 

Michael feels that this is a very important time in UCV’s history: there are a number of significant discussions and decisions that have to be made in the next few months and years. The transition to a new minister is always a critical time for a congregation and the question of re-development has many aspects to be considered. He wishes to be part of this dialogue and hopefully be able to give some thoughtful input and also some historical perspective. 

Michael feels that the long-term future and growth of the UCV community is of paramount importance for maintaining just and rational voices in our broader society. 

Past President: Leonie Armstrong

Members-at-large 

Continuing in their second year of a two-year term as members-at-large are

 

Letter from Nominating Committee Chair

Dear Members

Here is the Nominations Committee Slate to be voted on at the AGM on Sunday, November 24, 2019.

The process is explained here including how members can nominate other people to stand for any position on the board in case you wish to do so.

I am the chair of the current committee, Laureen Stokes is a member and we sought input from a large group of individuals representing many committees, ages and other constituents of our congregation who either volunteered to serve on the Board or provided names of members they thought would be good to contact.  We also were able to consult with three past presidents of the Board, Keith Wilkinson, Patti Turner and Diane Brown. Several requests for input were put in orders of service over the past month or two. Thank you to all who participated and particularly to those who agreed to stand for the new Board!

According to our bylaws:

The Nominations Committee (NC) shall prepare a report nominating candidates for the roles of President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and for member-at-large positions that are vacant or becoming vacant (in bylaw 48).
The NC shall deliver the slate of recommended nominations (the “Nominating Committee Slate”) at least 35 days prior to the Annual General Meeting. (in bylaw 50)
Members may make additional nominations for officers or members-at-large by preparing a petition for each nomination (a “Nomination Petition”) which shall:
a) be signed by not fewer than 10 voting members in good standing
b) include the written consent of the nominee
c) be filed with the chair of the NC at least 7 days prior to the AGM (bylaws 51 and 52)

With respect and appreciation,
Margaret Fletcher, Nominations Committee Chair
778-772-1120
[email protected]