Guidelines for Requesting an Agenda Item for Board Meetings

by Posted in Board Minutes

The Executive Committee meets on the first Tuesday of the month at 5:45 at the church to set the agenda for that month’s board meeting. The Board of Trustees meets on the Third Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at the church, usually in the gallery. You can view a list of church governance meeting dates here:

http://www.austinuu.org/wp2013/category/board-docs/2009-2010-meeting-dates/

You can view the online calendar for the Board of Trustees here (may take awhile to load):

http://www.austinuu.org/wp2013/category/board-docs/board-calendar/

Board meetings are open to church members and there is time set aside on each agenda for members to make comments and/or bring items to the attention of the board that do not require extended discussion and/or board action. Such items do not require an additional agenda item.

Committee Chairs or others who have business should first check with the Executive Team (Executive Director or Minister) to see if it is a board-level policy issue or can be resolved more quickly at the staff level. If the issue is one of policy, requiring extended discussion and/or action by the board, please work with the Executive Team to bring the item to the Executive Committee for placement on the board agenda. Please keep in mind that such requests are needed by 5 p.m. on the day before the next regularly scheduled Executive Committee meeting.

In the event that an urgent item of business becomes needed after the Executive Committee has set the agenda for that month’s board meeting, contact the Executive Team as soon as possible. Please reserve this option only for items requiring action that cannot wait until the following month.

The Board of Trustees welcome your ideas and participation and invites you to attend our meetings!

The Handwriting on the Wall

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

First UU Transition Team

Margaret Roberts, Sylvia Pope, Wendy Kuo, Sharon Moore, Nancy Bene, Jim Burson, Michael Kersey

January 17, 2010

Margaret Roberts

Some months ago, I worried that our church would become inactive and even lethargic during the two year transition period between settled ministers.  Fortunately, I had no need for concern.  We have remained a very busy and vibrant congregation.  If you doubt me, I encourage you to check the bulletin boards in the hall adjacent to and across from the office.  There you will see hundreds of photographs documenting many recent church activities.  We have come together to worship, sing, celebrate, play, learn, share ideas, cook, eat, feed and shelter the homeless, and conduct church business.

The timeline exercise which we underwent in October and November confirmed what the photographs of our activities illustrate:  we are a healthy and energetic congregation.  Having read the comments posted by our church membership on the timeline, I believe the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin is experiencing an upswing in attitude and outlook.

Many church members expressed pride in First UU’s long history of participating in works of social justice.  One commenter reminded us that as early as the 1950s, this congregation made efforts to racially integrate Barton Springs.  First UU Church is a longtime supporter of the local chapter of Amnesty International.  Our social action outreach continues today with our sack lunch for the homeless program, our regular assistance at the People’s Community Clinic, and our participation in Hands-on-Housing and Freeze Night sheltering programs.  Did you know that six members of First UU donate 3 hours every week to assist Austin’s North Central Caregivers?  And were you aware that our choir performs at an annual concert each December for the benefit of North Central Caregivers?  In addition to addressing local social issues, our church is responsive to victims of world crises.  We experienced this concern earlier in our service as the collection was taken to help the people of Haiti.

Many comments on the timeline expressed pride in our church community’s ability and willingness to take care of each other through the work of our Congregational Care Committee.  This desire to help each other during times of personal difficulty was evidenced by the generous collections taken during our recent Christmas Eve services.

A number of members expressed pride in the progress of our healing since our minister’s departure 13 months ago.  Almost immediately after Reverend Davidson Loehr’s dismissal, groups were established within the church for people who wished to share their feelings with others.  Outside experts were consulted and workshops scheduled to help us process our grief and rebuild.  Volunteers stepped forward and new leaders emerged to assure that our church life would continue.

Most of us agree that we need to learn to disagree with more civility.  We need to develop methods of arguing with respect.  As UUs, we like to think of ourselves and enlightened and accepting of others who differ from us; we need to practice this acceptance with each other and strive to be open-minded and kind in our interactions with our fellow congregants.

Despite the challenges we have faced during the past 13 months, our members still hold many hopes and dreams for our church.  For example:

1)     We dream of the re-establishment of our warm, loving church environment where members interact with honesty, fair-mindedness and respect, and where we collectively work to promote the interests of our posterity;

2)     We dream of creating a hospitable church community that welcomes new-comers and guests and celebrates diversity of ideas, faith, culture and lifestyle;

3)     We hope for renewed commitment of church members expressed in terms of increased participation in church activities, and increased financial pledges to assure support of our various programs, generous compensation for our staff, and payment of our “fair-share dues” to the Unitarian Universalist Association;

4)     We dream of a super-successful capital campaign so we can remodel and expand our existing building to meet our active congregation’s needs now and in the future;

5)     We dream of having a greater impact on the local, national and international community expressed through more educational outreach and more social action activities; and

6)     We look forward to calling an excellent new minister who fits our church and our local community, and who welcomes a regular professional evaluation as an opportunity to communicate with the church membership.

Some may find this list of hopes and dreams daunting, but I find it encouraging.  Because so many of us have the courage to nurture hopes and dreams for our church, I feel confident that we have a future.  In fact, I believe we have a strong future, because I believe that this transition experience, as tough as it has been, will ultimately prove to strengthen the First UU Church of Austin.

Sylvia Pope

Many of the contributions to the timeline that resonated most for me were those that spoke about our congregation’s commitments to the environment.    As embodiment of our belief in sustaining “the interconnected web of which we are all a part;” we have cultivated native plants on our campus, installed solar panels on our roof, changed to energy-efficient light bulbs and sought to recycle our paper, bottles and cans.  These “green” steps may seem small but they convey our commitment, care and concern for our planet and each other.

Here are some of the thoughts shared on the timeline:

“I am so proud of our church’s environmental efforts – gardens, solar panels, etc.”

Another Proud Moment:  “Garden’s Wildlife Habitat designation and proud of all who worked to make it so.”

Did you know that our landscaping has been certified a Backyard Wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation?  Thanks for the efforts of Dale and Pat Bulla, Barbara Denny and many others who affectionately toiled to transform a humdrum landscape into something wild, beautiful and beneficial to nature.

The All Ages Playground; a welcoming, nurturing place for youth and adults; is a native landscape showpiece that was conceptualized and brought to life by Elizabeth Gray and Earl ??? and many volunteers.  If you haven’t had the time to sit on one of the benches and enjoy the cool breezes on a sunny afternoon, I highly recommend it!

In the Hopes and Dreams portion of the timeline, our environmental commitment was mentioned directly but I believe that is a part of our collective desire to be a community of vibrancy, inclusion and inspiration!

===================================================================================

A second theme mentioned in the Proud section is the strength of our religious education program.   I share a strong interest in RE and I believe that our collective support of this program and our children has kept us together at times when we felt like falling apart.    Does any church have as dedicated and enthusiastic staff and volunteer corps as we do?  I doubt it!  Examples of their energy and creativity are:  the UU Summer Hogwarts School (a fun, unique and free week of community building for our children),  co-hosting  YRUU rallies, the Halloween Haunted hallway and the Christmas pageant.  New members and visitors bring their children to our church because of the warm, welcoming atmosphere.

Sharon Moore

In your notes you talked about 2 of my big passions regarding our church life. One is the quality of the leadership of our senior staff and one is the importance of small group ministry in our church.

You said we should call no more one trick ponies for minister and that we have looked to ministers to make us whole – to save us.

My experience in 3 UU churches tells me that our ministers generally come with 1 of 3 major talents.

  • One is best at administration and strategizing and leads us through all the minutia and vital tasks that make a church run efficiently.
  • Another minister is a great orator who leaves the management duties to the executive director and leaves the pastoral care to a second minister or congregational care team. This person’s strongest talent is in inspiring with words.
  • The third type is a caregiver, a pastoral person who excels in people skills, loves to counsel, visit the sick, perform weddings and memorial services.

All 3 types bring a different set of skills to keep the church strong. Almost never will 1 person have all 3 gifts in abundance. That would be the perfect person, and no one is perfect.

With our new settled minister, we must pool all of our resources, dream our dreams, and work hard to make them a reality.

Many of your notes dealt with wanting us to strengthen community here.

You said, The covenant groups started and are still part of our community. Yes! You said, In Evensong I formed lasting relationships here.

You talked of the positive impact that groups such as sharing suppers, men’s breakfast, adult ed. Classes, Voyagers, Paradox Players, Circle of Friends, Couples Club, and many more groups and committees have had on your lives.

I believe small groups are the key to really getting to know one another. We all yearn for heart to heart contact, to be listened to, validated, and challenged to grow. We can’t go it alone.

You will have several opportunities in the coming weeks to participate in group discussions, working on our church’s core values, covenant, purpose and mission statements that will all help get our church ready to sail on a wonderful new voyage with all of us buying in to where we are going and how best to get there.

Nancy Bene

We are a community. We are a network. A web of interconnectedness.  What we do and don’t do effects all around us.  On the positive side, we are a safe haven where what we do is respected and encouraged.  Our community has existed for over 50 years here in Austin. Through good times and not- so- good times – just like a family. We’ve talked together, dreamed together, argued, laughed, joked, created, destroyed and cried together.

I’m sure you know that the seeds of our present not-so-good times were sown several years ago.  We lost our way toward the principles we value most.  Instead of growing into the workings of a large congregation, we continued doing what we had always done.

Each step taken to break the old ways was difficult and we are in for a few more difficult steps before we can reach out to a spiritual leader and ask him or her to join with us.  We must step back and take an objective look at where we are and where we want to go and then express in writing – for everyone to see- what it is that we collectively hold sacred.

Many of you who posted sticky notes on the time line were proud of this church.  Many thought we could do better.  Now is the time for you to actively influence the direction this congregation will take in the future.  Tell us how we can heal and become the safe haven for spiritual growth translated into action in our community.  There is and always has been a tremendous creative energy in this church.  We can work together to encourage ourselves and others to become the best we can be. I look forward to working with you, all of you, in discovering what this church, as a whole, finds precious. And then sharing our uniqueness, our preciousness within our community – here and everywhere.

Jim Burson

Talk To Me About Our Church

G – O – O – D MORNING —

My name is Jim —

Today I want to ask you to TALK to ME —

The comments that were posted on the Time Line that stood out most to me were of two types —

One type asked for more TRANSPARENCY by our church board –

The other type asked us to be more FRIENDLY to visitors and

new members —  people that we do not know —

These messages tell me that THE biggest challenge that our church faces is –

Not enough communication –

Y’all need to talk to each other –

Y’all need to talk to me –

The members of this congregation need to talk to each other –

And  not only to the friends we know –

But, more importantly, — talk to people we do not know –

Talk to me –

Each of you  –

Must talk to our minister, —-  Janet Newman —

You must talk to the board members –

And,  — the board members must talk to you –

And, —  of  course  —  the board must talk to the minister –

And,  —

y’all, — must talk to me –

I am personally  going  to seek out people that I do not know –

To talk to them –

And to listen to them –

We must have dialogue  —

Not just talking –

But, —  talking  AND listening –

And —  you must listen more than you talk –

Y’all listen to me.—

If we had been talking and listening to each other for the last ten years –

We would not be in the situation we are in now  —

We would have  fewer complaints about TRANSPARENCY ––

Fewer complaints that we are  AN UNFRIENDLY people —

Y’all stop to talk –

Stop to listen to each other –

I’ll listen to you –

My name is Jim —

Y’all  talk to me —-

2010 Sermon Index

by Posted in Indexes
Sermon Topic Author Date
The Work of Christmas Begins Rev. Lena Breen 12-26-10
Gifts of Earth Centered Spirituality Rev. Ed Brock 12-19-10
The Gifts of Christianity Rev, Ed Brock 12-12-10
The Gifts of Judaism Rev. Ed Brock 12-05-10
A Unitarian Universalist View of Prayer Nell Newton 11-28-10
What Thanksgiving Means to Me Rev. Ed Brock 11-21-10
Eight Characteristics of Vibrant and Flourishing Congregations Rev. Ed Brock 11-14-10
Playing above what you know Rev. Lena Breen 11-07-10
Unmasking Courage Chris Jimmerson 10-31-10
Islamophobia and Unitarian Universalism Rev. Ed Brock 10-24-10
Justice, Equity and Compassion in Relationships Rev. Ed Brock 10-17-10
The Joy of Giving Nell Newton 10-10-10
The Worth and Dignity of all persons Rev. Ed Brock 10-03-10
The Opportunity of this moment Rev. Ed Brock 09-26-10
The transformative Power of Gratitude Rev. Ed Brock 09-19-10
The Transformative Power of Loving Kindness Rev. Ed Brock 09-12-10
Experiences that have shaped my ministry Rev. Ed Brock 09-05-10
Salvation – A UU View Rev. Mark Skrabacz 08-29-10
Abner Kneeland and Freedom of Religion Luther Elmore 08-22-10
Forgiveness is for Giving Rev. Mark Skrabacz 08-15-10
Born to Run Eric Hepburn 08-08-10
Surrender as Spiritual Practice Ron Phares 08-01-10
What Fundamentalists Know Gary Bennett 07-25-10
Mission Possible Nell Newton, Eric Stimmel, Chris Jimmerson 07-18-10
Tiger Woods and the Beer Cart Girl Timothy Tutt 07-11-10
A Government by the people Rev. Mark Skrabacz 07-04-10
Between the Head and the Hands FUU Young Adult Group 06-27-10
The fire and the rose are one Rev. Janet Newman 06-20-10
Courage, Commitment, and Claiming Adulthood Rev. Janet Newman and Graduating Seniors 06-13-10
Cloudburst Rev. Janet Newman 06-06-10
Music as meaning in our lives Rev. Janet Newman 05-30-10
A Sacred Connection Christian Schmidt 05-23-10
Measurement of Worth FUCCA Youth 05-16-10
In Honor of Mothers and Others Rev. Janet Newman 05-09-10
The purpose of freedom Kristin Grassel 05-02-10
I do! I do! The joys of volunteering Rev. Janet Newman 04-25-10
Environmentalism and the Culture of Caring Rev. Mark Skrabacz 04-18-10
Liberal Religious Education: Then and Now Lara Douglass 04-11-10
So much in bud Rev. Janet Newman 04-04-10
Excellence in Ministry Rev. Don Southworth 03-28-10
Reverence and Reverends Rev. Janet Newman 03-21-10
Freedom with responsibility Rev. Kathleen Ellis 03-14-10
Spiritual Homelessness Rev. Janet Newman 03-07-10
House rules for our UU game Corinna and Dale Whiteaker-Lewis 02-28-10
The handwritting on the wall revisited Rev. Janet Newman 02-21-10
The faces and phases of love Rev. Janet Newman 02-14-10
The Humanity of Heroism Rev. Janet Newman 02-07-10
I have a dream Rev. Janet Newman 01-31-10
The Covenants We Keep Rev. Stefan M. Jonasson 01-24-10
The Handwritting on the Wall Transition Team 01-17-10
Forgiveness in an unforgiving world Rev. Janet Newman 01-10-10
For the time being Rev. Janet Newman 01-03-10

November 2009 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

by Posted in Board Minutes

First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

First UU Church of Austin, 4700 Grover, Austin, TX  78756 in the Gallery

In Attendance:

Trustees:  Nell Newton, President; Eric Stimmel, Vice-President; Luther Elmore, Treasurer; Chris Jimmerson, Secretary; Sheila Gladstone, Immediate Past President (Ex-Officio); Margaret Borden; Derek Howard; Jeff Hutchens; Aaron Osmer, Youth Trustee; Brendan Sterne; Michael West; Laura Wood.

Executive Team:  Janet Newman, Interim Minister (Ex-Officio); Sean Hale, Executive Director (Ex-Officio);

Staff:  Brent Baldwin, Director of Music, Lara Douglas, Director of Religious Education

Visitors Present: Bill Edwards, Chair of Stewardship Committee

Call to Order

The President called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda

Motion: Luther Elmore – adopt the agenda (Appendix A, 1 [numbers refer to page number where appendices may be found in attached supporting document]).

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Reading and Lighting of the Chalice

The Interim Minister read the opening words and the President lit the chalice.

Visitor’s Forum

There were no visitors other than those scheduled to present for an agenda item later in the meeting.

Consent Agenda Items

Minutes from the Prior Meeting: The Trustees had reviewed the minutes from the October 2009 meeting prior to this meeting (Appendix B, 2).

New Members and Resignations: The Secretary reported that the following had become new members since the last meeting: Suzanne Chambers, Daniel Chambers, Carolyn Lindell, Emily Sorensen, Kim Sorensen, Peg Frederick Frey, Brandon Labash, Kirsten Clay, Veronica Miller, Stephanie Mayoral Armond, Jacob Hodges, Emily Hodges, Jerry Perkins, Alice Morrow Harris, Ruby Edmond, Bonnie Nieves, Jose Nieves and Daniel Lillie.

The Secretary reported that two members had resigned since the last meeting, Mark Skrabacz, who is now in Kerrville, and Jane Laessie, who had written a very nice note wherein she had said that she had come to the realization that she is a Quaker

The Secretary reported that the following members had not made a pledge in the last 18 months and had not responded to a letter the church had sent them requesting that they contact the church if they wished to remain members; thus, they were being considered as having resigned: Moriarty, Thomas; Edwards, Leslie; Reynolds, Claire E.; Quarles, Kim; Quarles, Rob; Bostick, Bruce; Soto, Jo; Bottler, Carolyn; McAfee, Sean; Sosa, Jennifer; Doggett, Lisa; Williams, Don; Garland, Mathew; Robinson, Colleen; Fajkus, Michelle; Couvillion, Marion; Couvillion, Shirley; Garza, Bianca; Kaulfus, Jack; Nada Brahmananda, Swami; Ford, Chris.

Reports: The Trustees had reviewed the consent agenda items prior to the meeting.  These included:

Executive Director: Sean Hale (Appendix C, 9)

Director of Religious Education: Lara Douglass (Appendix D, 12)

Director of Music Programs: Brent Baldwin (Appendix E, 15)

Treasurer: Luther Elmore (Appendix F, 16 – also see Finance Committee Reports Appendix K, 35)

Bridge Builders Action Plan Update: Margaret Borden (Appendix L, 50)

BB A-Team Report: Chris Jimmerson/Brendan Sterne (Appendix G, 29)

A Trustee requested information on what was included in the potential contract from the Bridge Builders Action Team report. The Team reported that there was not yet a contract; however, after screening several candidates, two had submitted excellent proposals in terms of proposed work scope and procedures. Of the two, one was much more cost-effective and seemed best suited to the needs of the church. A Trustee asked why actual pledge collections thus far this year were going so well compared to prior years. The Treasurer commented that the reason was unknown. Several trustees noted that this might be due in part to the efforts of the Executive Director to collect credit card pledges on cards that had expired and such. The Treasurer also commented that the special Spring Campaign had contributed. The Treasurer pointed out that there had been a positive trend in plate collections for September and October.

Motion: Michael West – accept the Consent Agenda Item Reports.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Discussion and Action Items

Stewardship Update: The Chairperson of the Stewardship Committee gave an update, noting that total pledges through November 16, 2009 had been $436,194 (see full report attached as Appendix M, 51). He recommended a resolution (Appendix H, 30) to rescind the July 2010 resolution the board had made to present a balance budget for 2010, as there is a need to build the congregation and future pledges and the budget cuts necessary to achieve a balanced budget might well make building the congregation and future pledges extremely difficult.

2010 Budget Discussion: The Trustees began a discussion of proposed changes to the budget based on recommendations and further discussions that had occurred since the presentation of the draft balanced budget (Appendix N, 52) presented to the members of the congregation at the Pre-Congregational Meeting that had been held on November 8, 2009.

Resolution to Rescind Prior Resolution to Present a Balance Budget for 2010

They began with a discussion of the proposed resolution noted above to rescind the July 2010 balanced budget resolution. The Treasurer noted that the calculations for moving funds to the Memorial Savings Fund would be done at the end of the year and that there would be enough funds held in the Schwab Accounts by the operating fund that a withdrawal from the Memorial Savings Fund to finance any deficit would not be needed.

Motion: Michael West – Approve the proposed resolution amending the second bullet point to state that any shortfall would be financed from the Operating Fund Reserve rather than the Memorial Savings Fund.

Second: Derek Howard

Discussion: A trustee noted that the third bullet point would also have to be changed and that the discussions of the budget to be held later in the meeting might also alter the specifics of the proposed resolution; thus, all that was needed to proceed was a motion to rescind the July 2009 balanced budget resolution.

Michael West withdrew his motion.

Motion: Brendan Sterne – Rescind the July 2009 resolution requiring a balanced budget in 2010.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: There was no further discussion

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Potential Changes to Budget Proposal — Income

The Trustees then began a discussion of several changes to the proposed 2010 budget (Appendix O, 57) that had been discussed at and since the Pre-Congregational Meeting, beginning with new revenue projections. Based upon current pledges, the Trustees felt comfortable increasing budgeted pledge revenue from $400,000 to $450,000. Also, based upon current year miscellaneous income, the Trustees also felt comfortable increasing budgeted miscellaneous income for 2010 by $500.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Increase budgeted pledge income for 2010 by $50,000 and budgeted miscellaneous income for 2010 by $500.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 9, Negative – 0, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Potential Changes to Budget Proposal – Expenses

Church Closure – The Trustees discussed the proposal to budget for closing the church during the summer of 2010 to achieve approximately $50,000 in expense savings. Given the discussion of this at the Pre-Congregational meeting and the need to rebuild the church, several Trustees felt that this was not realistic or advisable.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Do not include a proposal to close the church during the summer of 2010 in the budget the Board of Trustees (BoT) recommends to the congregation.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 7, Negative – 2, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Reduce Overall Earnings Package in Next Minister’s Contract by $5,000 – This would in effect treat the next Minister the same as all other church staff, as church contributions to the UUA pension plan for staff had been cut from the 2010 proposed budget.

Motion: Luther Elmore – reduce the compensation package in the next Minister’s contract by $5,000.

Second: Michael West

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Increase the Director of Music’s Salary – this increase would be to balance this salary against the loss in total salary and benefits this employee would receive if the church were to switch to the UUA recommended health benefit, which is to pay 80% of the costs for staff and 50% for their dependents (currently the church pays 100% for staff but 0% for their dependents). The Trustees noted that the decision as regards what benefit policy to enact was now under the authority of the Executive Team; however, the Executive Team did not object to this particular policy change recommendation. The Treasurer noted that he supports the idea of the policy change but thought it should be delayed one year to allow further examination.

Motion: Brendan Sterne – Increase the Director of Music’s salary to offset the increased costs he will incur due to having to pay 20% of the costs of his health insurance.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Restore $12,000 to the Religious Education (RE) Budget – This would restore $10,000 in previous personnel reductions and $2,000 in other expense reductions for RE, leaving $5,000 in proposed cuts that RE would draw from their restricted fund to cover.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Restore $12,000 in expenses that had been cut from the proposed RE budget.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: Cutting RE would harm future church growth as RE is an area of the church that is currently experiencing large growth.

Vote: Affirmative – 9, Negative – 0, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Restore $20,000 in budget expenses for building repairs and maintenance – in prior discussions, the BoT had thought this was a budgeted line item for emergency building repairs and thus might better be taken from long-range savings; however, this has been an ongoing yearly expense and thus would be more properly considered an ongoing operating expense.

Motion: Derek Howard – Restore $20,000 in building repairs and maintenance expenses to the proposed 2010 budget.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 9, Negative – 0, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Increase budgeted utilities for 2010 by $4,000 and increase budgeted gift/donation/contributions by $350 – these were recommendations from the Finance Committee to reflect a more accurate projection of likely utilities expenses and to add line items for gifts to a) partner church of $150, b) UU Service Committee of $100 and c) UU United Nations Office of $100.

Motion: Derek Howard — Increase budgeted utilities in the proposed 2010 budget by $4,000 and increase budgeted gift/donation/contributions by $350.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative 8, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Split the Plate – The current 2010 budget proposal eliminated split the plate for a cost savings of $15,000. Other options such as restoring one Split the Plate per month (an expense increase of $7,500 to the proposed budget) or restoring it back to twice per month (an expense increase of $15,000 to the proposed budget) had been discussed.

The Trustees discussed the proposal with some Trustees reasoning that 2010 was a difficult financial year requiring the church to concentrate its resources internally in order to rebuild. Other Trustees expressed concern that Split the Plate is an important part of our social action for many in our church and cutting it entirely might distract from rebuilding; thus, restoring at least one per month might be worth the additional deficit amount it would create.

Motion: Luther Elmore – suspend Split the Plate for 2010.

Second: Jeff Hutchens

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 5, Negative – 4, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

The motions as approved above would result in the proposed budget for 2010 containing an approximately $32,050 deficit.

Transfer of $2,400 from the Caring Fund to continue paying a custodial benevolence to Victor Gonzales – this would be a transfer on the balance sheet and would not affect revenue as regards the operating budget.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson — The First UU Board of Trustees approves the use of $2,400 ($200/mo) in payment of custodial benevolence to Victor Gonzalez during the year 2010.

Second: Michael West

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

The Trustees then discussed the need to vote on a motion to present to the congregation a 2010 budget as amended by the above votes.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Present to the congregation a 2010 recommended budget as amended by the prior approved motions with an approximately $32,050 deficit.

Second: Luther Elmore

Discussion: One Trustee noted that they would vote against the motion based upon concerns over the effect of eliminating Split the Plate on congregational members. Another noted that they would vote against it because they believe that the congregation must have a greater debate over the consequences of running deficit budgets when pledges are not enough to cover expenses.

Vote: Affirmative – 7, Negative – 2, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Congregational Meeting Planning: The Secretary noted that final versions of the following documents would be needed for the December Congregational Meeting:

  • The budget proposal as amended by the prior motions.
  • A document “redlining” the proposed minor changes to the Financial Assets Management Policy (FAMP).
  • A document showing the proposed policy level changes to the FAMP
  • A document showing the proposed changes to the bylaws to match the above changes to the FAMP.
  • A document showing the Membership Committee’s proposed changes to the bylaws.

The Executive Committee will prepare before the meeting to ensure that mechanisms exist to fairly ensure that the Rules of Procedures as adopted at the beginning of the meeting are followed.

Contract Signing Authority: The Finance Committee and Executive Director had agreed to leave this policy as is until they consider a larger revision to financial policies and procedures early next year.

Director of Religious Education (DRE) and Director of Music (DoM) Reporting: The Interim Minister had proposed the policy as contained in Appendix I, 31. The Trustees discussed whether the last sentence (noting that these positions would report to the Settled Minister once he or she has been hired) was needed or could be addressed at the time a Settled Minister is hired. Since this had always been the intent for the organizational structure of the church, the Trustees believed the sentence could be left as presented. Another Trustee recommended that the clause containing a projected time period for the ministerial transition period be removed from the first sentence of the proposed policy, as this time period could vary.

Motion: Brendan Sterne – Adopt the proposed policy as amended by the suggestion to remove the clause on a projected time period for the ministerial transition period. (The policy would now read: “During the Church’s ministerial transition period, the Director of Music (DoM) and Director of Religious Education (DRE) shall report directly to the Board.  Although they are expected to collaborate and work collaboratively with the Interim Minister(s), the Interim Minister(s) will work with them as a colleague, not as a supervisor.  Once the Church hires a new Settled Minister, this paragraph shall become null and void and the Director of Music and Director of Religious Education shall report directly to the Settled Minister.”)

Second: Luther Elmore

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: All Affirmative.

Board Covenant: The Interim Minister facilitated a discussion on developing a covenant of right relationship among board members. She noted that the reasons to have covenants included:

1.)   They make the rules for interacting explicit,

2.)   They serve as guidelines to help new people coming in to know what is expected of them and what they can expect from others and

3.)   They provide guideposts for reviewing right relationships from time to time.

She provided some examples of covenants (Appendix J, 32).

The Interim Minister facilitated brainstorming among the trustees on when they had felt meetings they have attended went well and why, stressing what behaviors had resulted in the success. She listed the results on an easel pad. The Interim Minister and President agreed to work together to consolidate this list and bring back suggestions that could serve as the basis for developing a board covenant.

With no further business, the President adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Jimmerson

Secretary

Appendices (Supporting Documents)

Bryan and the Social Darwinists

by Posted in Audio available, Gary Bennett, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

William Jennings Bryant and the Social Darwinists

Gary Bennett

December 27, 2009

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Reading

BRYAN, BRYAN, BRYAN, BRYAN – Vachel Lindsay

In a nation of one hundred fine, mob-hearted, lynching, relenting, repenting, millions, There are plenty of sweeping, swinging, stinging, gorgeous things to shout about, And knock your old blue devils out.

I brag and chant of Bryan, Bryan, Bryan

Candidate for president who sketched a silver Zion,

The one American Poet who could sing outdoors,

He brought in tides of wonder, of unprecedented splendor,

Wild roses from the plains, that made hearts tender,

All the funny circus silks

Of politics unfurled,

Bartlett pears of romance that were honey at the cores,

And torchlights down the street, to the end of the world.

There were truths eternal in the gab and tittle-tattle.

There were real heads broken in the fustian and the rattle.

There were real lines drawn:

Not the silver and the gold,

But Nebraska’s cry went eastward against the dour and old,

The mean and cold.

It was eighteen ninety-six, and I was just sixteen

And Altgeld ruled in Springfield, Illinois,

When there came from the sunset Nebraska’s shout of joy:

In a coat like a deacon, in a black Stetson hat

He scourged the elephant plutocrats

With barbed wire from the Platte.

The scales dropped from their mighty eyes.

They saw that summer’s noon

A tribe of wonders coming

To a marching tune.

Oh, the longhorns from Texas,

The jay hawks from Kansas,

The plop-eyed bungaroo and giant giassicus,

The varmint, chipmunk, bugaboo,

The horned-toad, prairie-dog and ballyhoo,

From all the newborn states arow,

Bidding the eagles of the west fly on,

Bidding the eagles of the west fly on.

The fawn, prodactyl and thing-a-ma-jig,

The rakaboor, the hellangone,

The whangadoodle, batfowl and pig,

The coyote, wild-cat and grizzly in a glow,

In a miracle of health and speed, the whole breed abreast,

The leaped the Mississippi, blue border of the West,

From the Gulf to Canada, two thousand miles long:-

Against the towns of Tubal Cain, too cunning for the young,

The longhorn calf, the buffalo and wampus gave tongue,.

These creatures were defending things Mark Hanna never dreamed:

The moods of airy childhood that in desert dews gleamed,

The gossamers and whimsies,

The monkeyshines and didoes

Rank and strange

Of the canyons and the range,

The ultimate fantastics

Of the far western slope,

And of prairie schooner children

Born beneath the stars,

Beneath falling snows,

Of the babies born at midnight

In the sod huts of lost hope,

With no physician there,

Except a Kansas prayer,

With the Indian raid a howling through the air.

And all these in their helpless days

By the dour East oppressed,

Mean paternalism

Making their mistakes for them,

Crucifying half the West,

Till the whole Atlantic coast

Seemed a giant spiders’ nest.

And these children and their sons

At last rode through the cactus,

A cliff of mighty cowboys

On the lope,

With gun and rope.

And all the way to frightened Maine the old East heard them call,

And saw our Bryan by a mile lead the wall

Of men and whirling flowers and beasts,

The bard and the prophet of them all.

Prairie avenger, mountain lion,

Bryan, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan,

Gigantic troubadour, speaking like a siege gun,

Smashing Plymouth Rock with his boulders from the West,

And just a hundred miles behind, tornadoes piled across the sky,

Blotting out sun and moon,

A sign on high.

Headlong, dazed and blinking in the weird green light,

The scalawags made to moan,

Afraid to fight.

II

When Bryan came to Springfield, and Altgeld gave him greeting,

Rochester was deserted, Divernon was deserted,

Mechanicsburg, Riverton, Chickenbristle, Cotton Hill,

Empty: for all Sangamon drove to the meeting-

In silver-decked racing cart,

Buggy, buckboard, carryall,

Carriage, phaeton, whatever would haul,

And silver-decked farm-wagons gritted, banged and rolled,

With the new tale of Bryan by the iron tires told.

The State House loomed afar,

A speck, a hive, a football,

A captive balloon!

And the town was all one spreading wing of bunting, plumes, and sunshine,

Every rag and flag, and Bryan picture sold,

When the rigs in many a dusty line

Jammed our streets at noon,

And joined the wild parade against the power of gold.

We roamed, we boys from High School,

With mankind,

While Springfield gleamed,

Silk-lined.

Oh, Tom Dines, and Art Fitzgerald,

And the gangs that they could get!

I can hear them yelling yet.

Helping the incantation,

Defying aristocracy,

With every bridle gone,

Ridding the world of the low down mean,

Bidding the eagles of the West fly on,

Bidding the eagles of the West fly on,

We were bully, wild and wooly,

Never yet curried below the knees.

We saw flowers in the air,

Fair as the Pleiades, bright as Orion,

-Hopes of all mankind,

Made rare, resistless, thrice refined.

Oh, we bucks from every Springfield ward!

Colts of democracy-

Yet time-winds out of Chaos from the star-fields of the Lord.

The long parade rolled on. I stood by my best girl.

She was a cool young citizen, with wise and laughing eyes.

With my necktie by my ear, I was stepping on my dear,

But she kept like a pattern, without a shaken curl.

She wore in her hair a brave prairie rose.

Her gold chums cut her, for that was not the pose.

No Gibson Girl would wear it in that fresh way.

But we were fairy Democrats, and this was our day.

The earth rocked like the ocean, the sidewalk was a deck.

The houses for the moment were lost in the wide wreck.

And the bands played strange and stranger music as they trailed along.

Against the ways of Tubal Cain,

Ah, sharp was their song!

The demons in the bricks, the demons in the grass,

The demons in the bank-vaults peered out to see us pass,

And the angels in the trees, the angels in the grass,

The angels in the flags, peered out to see us pass.

And the sidewalk was our chariot, and the flowers bloomed higher,

And the street turned to silver and the grass turned to fire,

And then it was but grass, and the town was there again,

A place for women and men.

III

Then we stood where we could see

Every band,

And the speaker’s stand.

And Bryan took the platform.

And he was introduced.

And he lifted his hand

And cast a new spell.

Progressive silence fell

In Springfield,

In Illinois,

Around the world.

Then we heard these glacial boulders across the prairie rolled:

“The people have the right to make their own mistakes….

You shall not crucify mankind

Upon a cross of gold.”

And everybody heard him-

In the streets and State House yard.

And everybody heard him

In Springfield,

In Illinois,

Around and around and around the world,

That danced upon its axis

And like a darling broncho whirled.

IV

July, August, suspense.

Wall Street lost to sense.

August, September, October,

More suspense,

And the whole East down like a wind-smashed fence.

Then Hanna to the rescue,

Hanna of Ohio,

Rallying the roller-tops,

Rallying the bucket-shops.

Threatening drouth and death,

Promising manna,

Rallying the trusts against the bawling flannelmouth;

Invading misers’ cellars,

Tin-cans, socks,

Melting down the rocks,

Pouring out the long green to a million workers,

Spondulix by the mountain-load, to stop each tornado

And beat the cheapskate, blatherskite,

Populistic, anarchistic,

Deacon- desperado.

V

Election night at midnight:

Boy Bryan’s defeat.

Defeat of western silver.

Defeat of the wheat.

Victory of letterfiles

And plutocrats in miles

With dollar signs upon their coats,

Diamond watchchains on their vests

And spats on their feet.

Victory of custodians,

Plymouth Rock,

And all that inbred landlord stock.

Victory of the neat.

Defeat of the aspen groves of Colorado valleys,

The blue bells of the Rockies,

And blue bonnets of old Texas,

By the Pittsburgh alleys.

Defeat of the alfalfa and the Mariposa lily.

Defeat of the Pacific and the long Mississippi.

Defeat of the young by the old and silly.

Defeat of tornadoes by the poison vats supreme.

Defeat of my boyhood, defeat of my dream.

VI

Where is McKinley, that respectable McKinley,

The man without an angle or a tangle,

Who soothed down the city man and soothed down the farmer,

The German, the Irish, the Southerner, the Northerner,

Who climbed every greasy pole, and slipped through every crack;

Who soothed down the gambling hall, the bar-room, the church,

The devil vote, the angel vote, the neutral vote,

The desperately wicked, and their victims on the rack,

The gold vote, the silver vote, the brass vote, the lead vote,

Every vote?…

Where is McKinley, Mark Hanna’s McKinley,

His slave, his echo, his suit of clothes?

Gone to join the shadows, with the pomps of that time,

And the flame of that summer’s prairie rose.

Where is Cleveland whom the Democratic platform

Read from the party in a glorious hour,

Gone to join the shadows with pitchfork Tillman,

And sledge-hammer Altgeld who wrecked his power.

Where is Hanna, bulldog Hanna.

Low-browed Hanna, who said: “Stand pat”?

Gone to his place with old Pierpont Morgan.

Gone somewhere… with lean rat Platte.

Where is Roosevelt, the young dude cowboy,

Who hated Bryan, then aped his way?

Gone to join the shadows with mighty Cromwell

And tall King Saul, till the Judgment day.

Where is Altgeld, brave as the truth,

Whose name the few still say with tears?

Gone to join the ironies with Old John Brown,

Whose fame rings loud for a thousand years.

Where is that boy, that Heaven-born Bryan,

That Homer Bryan, who sang for the West?

Gone to join the shadows with Altgeld the Eagle,

Where the kings and the slaves and the troubadours rest.

Sermon

The scene is frozen in our consciousness, one of the defining moments of Modern America: Clarence Darrow heroically defending Science and Intellectual Freedom by placing the champion of the forces of darkness and ignorance on the stand, forcing William Jennings Bryan to show to all the world that he believes absurdities, defends the indefensible, and uses his power to force others to do the same. You’ve seen the play: this yokel believes Adam and Eve were the first human pair, doesn’t know or care where Cain got a wife; believes some sort of whale or fish swallowed Jonah; in short the whole enchilada, whatever the Bible says, however absurd, however much in contradiction of science or even of itself; coming soon to your local school district to punish teachers for teaching biology, geology, physics or history. The Dragon, having been metaphorically slain by St. Clarence, obliges by dying on the Spot, presumably from shame at having been publicly exposed as a charlatan.

I’m afraid I’m going to make several demands on you today, and the first is to suggest that things are not always what they seem, that we have in fact merely caught a man of great and noble character at a bad moment. One of the rarities of Bryan’s career was that, before the Scopes Trial, he had in thirty years lost many political races and crusades, but had steadily gained in esteem through them all. More than almost any other American politician, Bryan had the knack of losing the battles, but winning the war. His causes were adopted, one by one, by people who had originally seen him as a dangerous radical. But in Dayton, Tennessee, he as prosecutor technically won the case, while in the great court of public opinion, in the major newspapers of his day and in the play Inherit the Wind a generation later, he lost the reputation he had gained over a lifetime.

A biographer suggests mitigating factors in Bryan’s behavior after 1920. The diabetes that claimed his life shortly after the Monkey Trial may have been diminishing his mental faculties and clouding his judgment. And we know that he disapproved of laws of the Tennessee model which included punishment for disobedience; he believed strongly in the power of moral persuasion and disapproved of the use of force in most cases. Bryan was not after publicity; rather, as the most revered Christian statesman in America, he was steadily pushed by others, first into a position of national leadership in the fundamentalist movement, and then into helping prosecute a violator of a law to which he had objected. In the end Bryan saw his faith on trial, and he could not back down.

But this is not all there was to William Jennings Bryan. He was one of the greatest men of his time, and it is doubtful that any other American has ever made such a great positive impact upon our public life and then been so thoroughly forgotten.

For the rest of the story, we go back to the year 1896, a turning point in American political history. After the Civil War, American cities and industries and railroads had blossomed, but the wealth created was concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Prices were jacked up by high protective tariffs and the spread of monopolies; labor conditions were abominable, with extremely long work weeks, widespread child labor, unsanitary and dehumanizing sweatshops; company towns that sucked workers’ wages away faster than they could earn them; wages depressed by seemingly endless stream of immigrants fleeing even worse conditions abroad. Attempts by workers to better themselves were bludgeoned to death by management-hired private thugs as well as regiments of public thugs called up by governors beholden to the rich. One of the grandest of these grand larcenies was the adoption of the Gold Standard in 1873. By removing silver as currency while withdrawing paper money from circulation, the plutocrats who ran the government systematically shrank money supply over the course of two decades, even as the population and real wealth of the country exploded. The result was one of the greatest deflations in world history. Debts incurred in the 1860s and ’70s became far larger and harder to repay as time went on. The massive deflation in the US housing market over the last two years, where houses are in many cases worth far less than what is still owed on their mortgages, may give us a sense of what it was like to live in that time, especially for Western farmers. Since prices of monopoly-controlled goods did not share in the price reductions, farm prices fell all the faster.

Both major political parties were owned body and soul by the rich. We think of Democrats as the Party of the Left, more or less, but for half a century before 1896 that had not been the case. The Democrat Grover Cleveland cleaned up some governmental corruption by creating the Civil Service, but had nothing to say about the growing economic inequities, and fittingly lost control of his own party after doing nothing about the suffering engendered by the Depression of 1893.

With the deepening poverty and despair, radical movements began to flourish, particularly in the West and South. The Populist Party grew in the 1880s, but like all American third parties, it was ultimately doomed to irrelevance and extinction. By the way, regardless of what the media might proclaim, there are not now nor were there ever “conservative populists” any more than there are “conservative progressives” or “conservative liberals.” The Populists were angry, but they were also as intelligent, well-read and principled as were the radicals who had made the American Revolution; they even managed to bring Southern blacks and whites together in a party of common interest, something demagogues have not tried to do in any era. In the Democratic Convention of ’96, radicals of this stripe were in control; they nailed together a platform calling for a progressive income tax, control of monopolies, and a return to silver coinage as a way of halting deflation. Then they waited for a candidate.

Bryan, the final speaker on platform issues, became man of the hour by delivering a speech for the ages. Once this was a treasured statement of progressive American principles in much the same way as the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address; perhaps it should be again. These are his concluding remarks:

I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty – the cause of humanity ….

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between “the idle holders of idle capital” and “the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country”; and my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side are we, “the idle holders of idle capital”or upon the side of “the struggling masses”? This is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class that rests upon them.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country …. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor the crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

The campaign was far and away the most scandalous in American history. Republicans owned most of the newspapers then as now, and they painted Bryan in the most pejorative terms imaginable. A Jacobin, an Anarchist, a Socialist (there were no Communists yet, or he would have been one of those too), a demagogue. Mark Hanna extorted from frightened businessmen a war chest which in real terms was in the range of $200-$500 million, in a nation far smaller and poorer than our own; Standard Oil’s contribution alone almost matched the entire Democratic campaign fund. Teddy Roosevelt made plans for a last military stand if the “Reds” won, and John Hay made plans to rendezvous with other emigrŽs in Paris. A number of bosses told their employees not to bother to show up the next day, should Bryan win.

That all this should be the reaction to a candidate who brought back the words and ideas of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, illustrates better than anything else the death grip which wealth had gained on America in 1896. In the end the popular vote was close, the electoral vote less so, but Bryan lost.

A pattern had been formed for Bryan’s career. In 1900, new and massive gold strikes in the Klondike and South Africa temporarily eased the vice grip of deflation. But in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, we had become an imperial power in a world mad with colonialism; Bryan dared to campaign against imperialism, saying it was unworthy of America’s ideals and suggesting that we should begin preparing our new colonies for self-government. He lost again, but in 1901 accidental president Teddy Roosevelt became the first of Bryan’s former political enemies to begin adopting his policies, now rechristened the “Square Deal.”

A third principled defeat followed in 1908, but after Woodrow Wilson won in 1912 in a close three-way election, Bryan was appointed Secretary of State. Wilson was another former enemy, but he now called for a New Freedom, also straight from Bryan’s platforms. Aside from his foreign policy responsibilities, Bryan was instrumental in shaping several of the key domestic reforms, most importantly the creation of a new way of banking called the Federal Reserve System.

On most foreign policy issues, the President and Secretary of State thought alike. Their guiding principles were distaste for imperialism, respect for the autonomy of other countries, a desire to spread American values of democracy and human rights, and the attempt to create an international structure of law to curb war and other primitive national atavisms. As is the case today, some of these principles came into conflict with one another; as a result, the level of intervention in the Caribbean and Central America was almost as great as in the “We stole it fair and square” days of Teddy Roosevelt. Still they laid a foundation for a future Good Neighbor Policy to the south and for supra-national organizations to mediate disputes elsewhere.

Only in one area did Bryan and Wilson disagree, and that finally led to the Secretary’s resignation: he was a pacifist who rightly believed that Wilson’s policies toward Germany would lead us into war. Who was right? Without American intervention, Germany would have won, and the result would have been an unpleasantly authoritarian Europe. But given the way events actually played out, the imposition of a draconian peace treaty on Germany, which enraged its people while keeping their economy weak and its democratic government unpopular and the withdrawal from European affairs of the only state capable of controlling it or resolving its grievances peacefully, all of which pretty much guaranteed some variant of Hitler and World War II, it would probably have been better for America to stay out of World War I. Finally, at the end of the war, Bryan’s last failed political crusade was attempting to persuade Americans to join the League of Nations.

While he despaired of his failures, meanwhile, items from Bryan’s agenda continued to be adopted: direct election of senators; progressive income tax; women’s suffrage; prohibition; moving colonies to self-government. And a number of states were adopting Populist reforms such as initiative, referendum and recall. Franklin Roosevelt, coming to power after the Nebraskan’s death, abolished the gold standard, established a principled foreign policy in Latin America, and helped create the United Nations as what Bryan hoped the League of Nations would be. In short, much of the decent middle-class, internationally respected America he campaigned for had come into being by the time some of us were coming of age in the mid-twentieth century.

But we are back to that strange period of his life, starting in 1921, when Bryan abandoned the world of politics and began to champion the teaching of bad science in the schools. It mystified his contemporaries among liberal reformers and has continued to baffle those who know enough about him not to be satisfied with Elmer Gantry / Pat Robertson-type caricatures. We mentioned his illness and pressure from followers as possible reasons. But we also know that he had come to believe that the evils he had been fighting his whole political life had been caused or exacerbated by the influence of one man. For the malefactors of great wealth, the monopoly-seeking capitalists, the gold standard purists, the imperial expansionists continued to expound a world view in which what they were doing was natural and right and inevitable, as they invoked the name of Charles Darwin.

Darwin was a scientist and his theory of evolution through natural selection, first explained in Origin of Species 150 years ago last month, is one of the great documents in the history of science; but his achievement did not exist in a vacuum. The 19th century, particularly in England, America and a few other countries, was a time of rapid change without parallel in world history. The development of industrial capitalism, huge corporations and what seemed a widening distance between wealth and poverty, resonated with the notion that progress in the world came through savage competition; the very phrase “survival of the fittest,” though appropriated by Darwin, was actually coined by the English political philosopher Herbert Spencer and meant to apply to human culture. His basic premise was that government should stay out of the way and let human beings compete for survival as the only path to evolutionary improvement of the species; if the strong survived and the weak failed, then that was what nature intended. It was a very popular idea among the new industrial barons, and both Darwin’s and Spencer’s ideas were pushed and funded by them. Spencer’s ideas did not survive him long in England or Europe, but lived on in the United States and were later pushed by intellectuals like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

In Europe, Darwin’s name was invoked to push other ideas, such as that of German Premier Otto von Bismarck, that affairs among nations are ultimately settled by “blood and iron;” Marxists saw competition as between economic classes. And everywhere Darwin was used to push racism. The economic and military supremacy of the West was seen as proof that its peoples were more highly evolved and were natural masters of the world; all other races were natural selection’s losers, destined to be slaves. We can group these assorted ideologies under the banner of “Social Darwinism.” Though some were ideological support for actions that would have taken place in any case, others were the direct result of popular beliefs about evolutionary biology. There was the pseudo-science of eugenics: legislators, judges and juries were persuaded to disregard their natural sentiments and authorize sterilization of the unfit. Many of the frightened Republicans who were terrified of Bryan considered his followers to be subhuman; the Darwinist H. L. Mencken was only a particularly skillful writer among the many who habitually used images of apes and subhumans to describe Bryan’s followers and most other liberal politicians and political groups.

Thus it was that Bryan, who as a young man had been open-minded about the origins of humanity, came to be convinced that Darwin’s theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world. “The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate,” Bryan said, “Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak.” He believed that the Bible countered this merciless law with “the law of love.” It was not any principle of Biblical inerrancy that motivated him, but a desire to cut off a poisonous political philosophy at its root, to promote a national myth that would motivate the young to high ideals. He prepared himself as a prosecutor not to defend the stories of Genesis, but to present to the court and world the image of Jesus as “Prince of Peace.”

He completely misunderstood his political adversaries, of course. In a Monkey’s Paw sense, his wish for the defeat of Darwin in the political arena came true, in that challengers to the teaching of evolution are strong in much of the United States. But I’m not sure he would appreciate the victory. We might say Social Darwinism has simply evolved, adopted protective camouflage, or mutated. Much of modern fundamentalism shares the same policies at home and abroad as did the Social Darwinists, but uses the language of evangelical Christianity, though there are usually very few teachings of Jesus himself in their dogma. Those Christian groups which preached social justice and were open to the findings of modern science, on the other hand, have declined in numbers and influence. Secular culture in the West has also changed. The horror of Social Darwinist moralities finally climaxed in the 1930s and ’40s when perhaps 100 million human beings were murdered in Nazi and Communist atrocities and in the battles of World War II. There has been a massive reaction in the West since then; for much of the second half of the last century, it was impolite in intellectual circles to imply that any human characteristics beyond eye, hair and skin color might be due to genetics. In general, secular culture in both Europe and America has promoted policies far more progressive than have today’s fundamentalist Christians.

At the same time, the popular understanding of evolutionary biology is better grounded. Natural selection never involved “survival of the fittest” within hunter/gatherer tribes, but pushed trust and cooperation to form cohesive groups that could protect and educate children. Since individuals never had to survive on their own, they were able to carry a much wider variety of genetic traits, and this in turn has given the human species much more flexibility in adapting to different environments; genetic variation has been one of the greatest strengths of humanity, not as eugenicists asserted a weakness. And until recent times, there was very little or no competition for survival between tribes, which were scattered too thinly to interact at all; nationalism and racism could never have been factors in human selection. Thus the major tenets of Social Darwinism have no basis in actual human evolution; it was an ideology that emerged from a particular culture and economic system, not from any insight into the reality of human nature. Bryan too was a product of his time, but one worthy of our highest respect. I would like to end with these words of historian Henry Steele Commager:

. . defeated candidates are usually forgotten and lost causes relegated to historical oblivion, but Bryan was not forgotten and the causes which seemed lost triumphed in the end. He refused to acknowledge defeat, not out of vanity or ambition, but because he was sure the causes which he championed were right, and sure that right would triumph in the end. And, right or not, most of them did. Few statesmen have ever been more fully vindicated by history. ltem by item the program which Bryan had consistently espoused, from the early nineties on into the new century, was written onto the statute books – written into law by those who had denounced and ridiculed it. Call the list of the reforms: government control of currency and banking, government regulation of railroads, telegraph and telephone, trust regulation, the eight-hour day, labor reforms, the_ prohibition of injunctions in labor disputes, the income tax, tariff reform, anti-imperialism, the initiative, the referendum, woman suffrage, temperance, international arbitration. These were not all original with Bryan, but it was Bryan who championed them in season and out, who kept them steadily in the political forefront, who held his party firmly ‘to their advocacy ….

For Bryan was the last great spokesman of the America of the nineteenth century – of the America of the Middle West and the South, the America of the farm and the country town, the America that read the Bible and went to Chautauqua, distrusted the big city and Wall Street, believed in God and the Declaration of Independence. He was himself one of these people. He thought their thoughts, and he spoke the words that they were too inarticulate to speak. Above all, he fought their battles. He never failed to raise his voice against injustice, he never failed to believe that in the end justice would be done. Others of his generation served special interests or special groups – the bankers, the railroads, the manufacturers, the officeholders; he looked upon the whole population as his constituency. Others were concerned with the getting of office or of gain; he was zealous to advance human welfare. And when the [rest] . . . are relegated to deserved oblivion, the memory of Bryan will be cherished by the people in whom he had unfaltering faith.

October 2009 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

by Posted in Board Minutes

First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, October 20, 200 at 6:30 p.m.

First UU Church of Austin, 4700 Grover, Austin, TX  78756 in the Gallery

In Attendance:

Trustees:  Nell Newton, President; Eric Stimmel, Vice-President; Luther Elmore, Treasurer; Chris Jimmerson, Secretary; Sheila Gladstone, Immediate Past President; Margaret Borden; Derek Howard; Jeff Hutchens; Aaron Osmer, Youth Trustee; Brendan Sterne; Michael West; Laura Wood.

Executive Team:  Janet Newman, Interim Minister; Sean Hale, Executive Director

Staff:  Brent Baldwin, Director of Music, Lara Douglas, Director of Religious Education

Visitors Present: Bill Edwards, Chair of Stewardship Committee; Jacob Williamson, Chair of Membership Committee; Stephan Windsor, Chair of Finance Committee

Call to Order

The President called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda

Motion: Margaret Borden – adopt the agenda (Appendix A). 

Second: Luther Elmore

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Reading and Lighting of the Chalice

The Interim Minister read the opening words and the President lit the chalice.

Visitor’s Forum

There were no visitors other than those scheduled to present for an agenda item later in the meeting.

Consent Agenda Items

Minutes from the Prior Meeting:  The Trustees had reviewed the minutes from the September 2009 meeting prior to this meeting (Appendix B).

New Members and Resignations:  The Secretary reported that the following had become new members since the last meeting: Rebecca Frazier-Smith, Chris Smith, Susan Stolar, Erik Mackdanz, Merlyn Dyches-Bessent, Stephanie Larsen, Juliette Owens, Stphen Owens, Daesene Willmann.

Reports:  The Trustees had reviewed the consent agenda items prior to the meeting.  These included:

Interim Minister: Appendix C

Executive Director: Appendix D

Director of Religious Education: Appendix E

Director of Music: Appendix S

Treasurer: Appendix O

Internal Audit Committee: Appendix F

 The Interim Minister reported that she would be giving a sermon on loss on the next Sunday, including loss that church members may still be feeling over the dismissal of the Settled Minister and asked for the Board of Trustee’s support in raising this potentially emotional issue.

A Trustee reported that the church had been paid $175 for the old phone system hardware by a wholesaler. The Treasurer noted that the church is projecting a loss of near what had been budgeted for the year and the members present discussed that the contingency options developed earlier in the year could be reexamined should cash flow become threatened. The Treasurer also noted that plate collections were down around $10,000 compared to the prior year though whether this could be attributed to a decrease in the number of people attending or to other reasons was unclear.

The Bridge Builders Action Team reported that they were still working to clarify responsibilities for some of the items in the report. The Treasurer asked that the members present review the options for what the Internal Audit Committee might examine (on page 29 of the board materials) as this is a decision the board will eventually make.

Motion: Michael West – accept the Consent Agenda Item Reports.

Second: Chris Jimmerson

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Discussion and Action Items

Policy Proposal on Contract Signing Authority: The Chairperson of the Finance Committee presented a proposed contract signing authority policy (Appendix G) that closely mirrored current check signing authority and noted that currently there is no definition or limit on who can contractually obligate the church. He noted that the Executive Director (ED) would be presenting an alternative policy proposal on contract signing authority and the differences between the two essentially came down to how far and how quickly the Board of Trustees (BoT) wanted to move toward policy governance (PG).

The ED presented the alternative proposal allowing the Executive to sign contracts that fall within budgeted expenses with some limitations depending upon length of the contract (Appendix P) and answered several questions regarding it. The trustees discussed the following:

  • There are some practical issues regarding requiring a BoT level signature on relatively small contracts that fall within already approved budget parameters.
  • It was noted that the minister would not sign contracts.
  • The ED’s proposal seemed to be in the spirit of where the church is moving with PG.
  • How would the policy be monitored? Through monthly reporting and if so at what level?
  • Perhaps the single signature authority in the Finance Committee proposal could be raised to a higher dollar level as a potential compromise.
  • How many contracts are signed each year? The ED answered that there have been very few.
  • A Trustee noted that contractual authority for the ED may be needed to administer his budget.
  • The Treasurer suggested that perhaps the ED and Finance Committee could get together before the November BoT meeting and draft a new version that combines and compromises between the two.

Motion:  Michael West – Adopt the proposal from the Finance Committee for now and ask the Finance Committee and then ED to bring back a combined version at the November meeting.

Second: Derek Howard

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: All Affirmative

Overview of the UUA Recommended Policy for Funding Staff Medical Insurance:  The Chairperson of the Finance Committee gave an overview of the UUA recommended policy versus current church policy (Appendix H). The UUA recommends paying 80% of the costs of medical insurance policy for the employee and 50% for their dependent children. Current church policy is 100% for the employee and none for their children. Changing would mean very little in costs to the church. The Finance Committee is recommending that the BoT consider voting on making this chance at their next meeting.

Membership Committee Bylaws Change Proposal:  The Chairperson of the Membership Committee gave an overview of changes to the bylaws that the committee was recommending (Appendix I). He noted that the committee had been tasked with clarifying membership requirements and developing a new member orientation class. The recommended changes to the bylaws included adding a requirement to attend the new member orientation and adding language requiring that the contribution of record be “generous within the member’s means” (to avoid the mindset of contributing $1 to maintain membership).

He noted that the committee had engaged in long discussions over whether the new member orientation should a requirement or strongly encouraged and that there was not unanimous agreement but that there was ultimately consensus around the need to address engagement of new members.

He also noted that the committee would take responsibility for administering and tracking of the orientation, that the classes would be offered at least quarterly and that current church members would not be required to attend.

The Trustees discussed the following:

  • A Trustee asked how much this would effect youth membership and the committee Chariperson answered that it would not effect it.
  • The classed would be 2 sessions of 1.5 to 2 hours each.
  • The Interim Minister had worked with only one church that had required a new member class but had not really implemented the requirement.
  • There were some concerns expressed around whether the class a required would make it harder to join and become a member, which would indicate a preference for using the phrase “strongly encouraged” rather than making it a requirement.
  • Some concerns over the practical logistics of tracking such a membership requirement and making sure that this did not fall to staff were also expressed.
  • A Trustee noted that language such as “strongly encouraged” and “generous contribution” are not specific enough requirements to be placed into the bylaws and might better work within the context of the covenants that were being developed within the church. A “new member covenant” might address these issues.

The Trustees were in consensus that adding a new member covenant that would address these and other issues would be an exciting means to implement the new member class and raise contribution expectations and new member engagement.

The President asked that the Membership Committee revise the recommended bylaws changes to require the signing of such a covenant and then work with the Interim Minister and those she is assembling to develop covenants to put language around contribution expectations and participation in the new member orientation into the covenant.

Stewardship Committee Update: The Chairperson of the Stewardship Committee gave an update on the Fall Canvass (See Appendix R for details). As of the date of the meeting, 147 pledges totaling $320,000 of the $650,000 goal had been made. The Trustees and Chairperson of the Stewardship Committee discussed the following:

  • Stewardship does not yet have a final projection for the canvass.
  • The canvassers have encountered a number of persons who were unhappy over the dismissal of Davidson Loehr and faced a backlash over this. Eight people have refused any pledge and others who pledged last time have not returned phone calls and email messages.
  • The Interim Minister would like to meet with any canvassers who encountered anger and hostility.
  • Several Trustees noted that if the Team Leaders could come up with estimates of the number of times this happened that it would be useful information to have.
  • Having the pledge table set up in the gallery has gone well.

The Board of Trustees’ meeting was adjourned for a break and for the Trustees to place their comments on the timeline outside the sanctuary.

Proposed Changes to the Bylaws and FAMP: The Treasurer presented proposed changes to the Financial Assets Management Policy and to the bylaws regarding it (Appendix J), the first of which were grammatical and clarification revisions to the FAMP. The bylaws changes and corresponding revisions to the FAMP were more substantive and would bring the voting requirements on the FAMP and the Memorial Saving Fund in line with the bylaws rather than requiring two votes at to consecutive, regularly scheduled congregational meetings. Besides bringing the FAMP into compliance with the bylaws, the changes would also act to make it easier for the congregation to react and take action should a financial crisis occur.

During discussion, it was discovered that a few other changes to the FAMP and a Policy and Procedure on the Memorial Savings Fund would need to be made for consistency and Trustees recommended that a ‘redline” version of the grammatical and clarification revisions to the FAMP be brought to the congregation to make it easier to see that these were relatively minor changes. The Treasurer agreed to work with the Finance Committee to make these revisions and to bring them to the Executive Committee for placement on the agenda at the Congregational meeting.

Personnel Policy: The ED and Chair of the Human Resources Committee had met on the policy and presented the revised version of the personnel policy (Appendix K). The Trustees discussed the following:

  • The policy details what the Executive Team may not do, so you would not have a situation where for example an executive could be mistreating staff but being judged as complying with policy because the church was doing well overall.
  • Such a policy makes it vital that the board monitor reports. There is a danger in becoming complacent and not monitoring the Executive Team.
  • A Trustee expressed reservations that since some of the staff will still be reporting to the board during the interim period, the Executive Team would be making decisions for that staff even though there is not a direct reporting line. The Executive Team responded that this was on the program side and that these folks are already functioning well and as a team, with the Interim Minister ultimately responsible.
  • A Trustee asked that reports for monitoring be not just when an exception to the policy occurs but include progress also.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – approve the policy as presented.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: There was no further discussion

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Laura Wood)

Policy Establishing Executive Team: (Included as part of Appendix K above). The Trustees had reviewed this policy revision.

Motion: Derek Howard – Approve the policy change as presented.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: There was no further discussion

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 0, Abstain – 2 (Laura Wood and Luther Elmore)

Executive Committee Request for Authority to Establish Agenda and Determine Mailing Items for Congregational Meeting: The President noted that The Executive Committee will meet again in time to meet the calendar requirements for notice and such of the Congregational Meeting but that the next full board meeting would be too late and thus asked for the above authority for the Executive Committee.

Motion: Margaret Border – Authorize the Executive Committee to establish the agenda and determine mailing items for the congregational meeting

Second: Jeff Hutchens

Discussion: There was no further discussion

Vote: All Affirmative

Board Internal Covenant and Covenant with Minister: The Interim Minister presented two examples of covenants (Appendix L) and described the process of developing them, as well as work she had been doing with groups within the church to develop their covenants. She asked for volunteers who would like to help develop such covenants for the BoT and congregation.

Discussion of Proposals to Prepare for the Joint Board and Finance Committee Budget Meeting: The ED presented several proposals (Appendix M), which included:

  1. Increasing the budgeted contributions to $50,000
  2. Increasing rental income to $60,000
  3. Funding all office staff positions at UUA midpoint
  4. Increasing ED professional expenses
  5. Matching rental expenses to rental income by investing 30% of gross rental income in the program support budget

Trustees expressed several concerns around proposal 5 and logistics involving implementing it. This was counterbalanced by the recognition that the ED and staff need to be able to manage increased rentals and or decreases in rentals as they occur (they are often unpredictable).

Motion: Aaron Osmer – Extend the meeting by 15 minutes to allow discussion to continue

Second: Luther Elmore

Discussion: None

Vote: Affirmative – 8, Negative – 0, Abstain – 1 (Laura Wood) (One Trustee had had to leave the meeting)

The ED explained that eventually he would like to implement a new system for setting staff salaries based upon a range of issues. The Trustees discussed the remaining budget proposals; however, there was not consensus involving several of them, so the President recommended that the ED develop them and/or their rationale further and bring them to the joint board and finance committee meeting.

Motion: Margaret Borden – Extend the meeting by another 15 minutes

Second: Aaron Osmer

Discussion:  None

Vote: Affirmative – 7, Negative – 1, Abstain – 1 (Laura Wood)

The Interim Minister offered that discussion and/or action on disability insurance and Director of RE and Director of Music reporting could be postponed until the November meeting.

Bridge Builders (BB) Implementation Consultant: Funding Mechanism: The Secretary presented a proposal for funding the costs associated with the above from the Long-Range Fund rather than the operating budget. The BB Action Team and the members of the Executive Committee (EC) that had been at the last EC meeting had discussed the proposal as potentially a more fitting way to engage a consultant (Appendix Q). The Interim Minister passed around a copy of the current mission. The Secretary stressed that the work on values/mission/vision and policy governance (PG) were vital to the church and had been called for by the congregation in the BB Action Plan. The Trustees discussed the following:

  • Question — is there a defined use for the Long-Range Fund? Response — its description was vague and included in a preamble in the FAMP but that it was never defined specifically as were some of the other church funds.
  • Question — could a consultant work with the church to revise the current mission and thereby save money? Response – the process of defining mission/vision/values is often said to be more important that the actual statements that are the end result and therefore, especially given how long it ahs been since the church looked at its mission, there is a need to start “from the ground up”. Also, part of the consultant’s work would be helping the church with PG and we do not have this expertise internally.
  • There is $10,000 currently in the budget draft for 2010 that would come out if we use this mechanism instead.
  • The ED stated that the only description of the fund was in an introduction to the FAMP and described it as seed money for capital funds. He also noted that the FAMP requires the Board to review restricted funds annually and to reallocate those that are no longer active or for which their original purpose does not apply.
  • A Trustee noted that the policy description of the Long Range Planning Committee fit well with this type of activity and that the fund’s intent is likely tied to that of this committee. Another Trustee noted that this seemed an appropriate use of the fund as this planning is needed before any other long-range plans such as a capital expansion could be considered.
  • The President noted that work on values/mission/vision should not be put off another year.

Motion:  Margaret Borden — authorize an expenditure of up to $15,000 from the Long-Range Fund to fund the costs of a consultant and related costs for one year to help the church implement the mission/vision/values and policy governance aspects of the BB Action Plan

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion:   There was no further discussion

Vote: Affirmative – 5, Negative – 2, Abstain 2 (Laura Wood and Aaron Osmer)

Rental Rate Adjustment and Wording Clarification: The Trustees had reviewed this proposal prior to the meeting (Appendix N).

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – approve the proposal policy revision as presented.

Second:  Brendan Sterne

Discussion:  There was no further discussion

Vote:  All Affirmative

Adjourn

With no further business, the President adjourned the meeting at 10 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Jimmerson, Secretary

Appendices (Please note, clicking on the link to the left will open a file containing all appendices from the meeting in your browser window, which may be slow because it is a large file. You can also right click on the link to download it instead).