Open letter to President Morales

Dear President Morales,
As a UU and a half-time Arizonan I wish to commend your courage and commitment in the struggle for justice not only in Arizona but for the entire nation. Justice has not been served with your conviction as that constitutes a violation of your civil rights to peacefully demonstrate against discrimination and unjust laws. Your action is exemplary of our shared principles and tradition of acting in truth to abusive power.
It is also in this vein that I request that you act against another injustice--although much smaller inconsequence. This time I write as a husband, a UU, and a specialist in international relations having formally served two UU presidents and two Executive Secretaries of IARF--and offered my services to three others including you and your international advisor, Rev. Cherry.
My wife, Dr. Judit Gellérd, was wronged by the UUPCC executive committee in taking away a title, Honorary President of the PCC, given to her after her volunteer service and founding of the Partner Church movement and serving as the first Executive Secretary--again as a full-time volunteer for which she forfeited her medical career. (See Appendix A. See also the Commission on Appraisal’s Section on Internationalism)
The Transylvanian Unitarian Church has experienced this action as a humiliation of one of its honored representatives. They have responded in several ways: the Executive Committee of the Transylvanian Unitarian Church sent a letter to the PCC Board on May 17, 2011, asking for a reversal in the most diplomatic and polite manner. The Transylvanian Unitarian Church Ministers’ Association responded by giving Dr. Gellérd a special honor, and there were extensive discussions of the “American” injustice among ministers and lay members. (See Appendix B)Other gestures followed on both sides of the Atlantic. The entire San Francisco Partner Church committee wrote questioning the action. (See Appendix C) As word spread in the Unitarian churches of Hungary and Transylvania, special gestures were made or arranged, such as the publication of a full-page interview with Dr Gellerd in the “New York Times” of Hungary, an interview at the national Kossuth public radio in Hungary, and an invitation as a keynote speaker at the annul international Unitarian gathering at Szejke.
The Transylvanian Unitarian Church is a small denomination with closely knit ties. An insult (as it is understood here in Transylvania) to one of their own is an insult to all. I realize that Rev. Cherry has advised you and written to Dr. Gellérd that this matter is not a concern that needs attention from him or your office. However, an attempt was made to address this matter at GA last month and an illegal proceeding was used by the UUPCC to validate their action. (See Appendix D) Please note that a small injustice about an honor being removed is only the surface of a much more complicated set of issues that call into question the current management of the Partner Church Council. (See Appendix E) If not addressed now, there may be further damage to the UUA and its international leadership later.
I respectfully request that you correct this injustice since the UUPCC must follow UUA principles and procedures or be given a separate existence as a profit-making venture in international tourism.
I respectfully submit more detailed Appendices below which do not get to the bottom of these issues but outlines them to draw your attention to problems that this issues has revealed.
Sincerely,
George M. Williams, Ph.D.

Appendix A
UUPCC Issues and Violations
In February, 2011, the current PCC board stripped Dr. Judit Gellérd of her title of Honorary President of the PCC in the Board’s semi-annual meeting. The Transylvanian Bishop and Lay President sent a letter to the Board on May 27, 2011: “In our Transylvanian culture, a honorary title grows together with the person that was honored by it; making posterior changes to the title inevitably affects the interpretation of the person’s merits. The executive committee would have appreciated if the UUPCC board found a better solution to one of its organizational problems, than one that affects a person’s public image. We consider that in a culture that acts according to the values of our Unitarian tradition, organizations should pay better attention to the personal consequences of their business.” (See full text below: Appendix B)
Representative of the many protesting letters against the PCC Board’s decision was one by the Board of the San Francisco First UU Society sent to the PCC Board President. (See full text below: Appendix C)
The issue was addressed at the PCC annual meeting at the UUA GA 2011 with a motion by the Rev. Dr. David Keyes who moved that the title be reinstated. The setting of the PCC annual meeting had multiple illegal and unethical elements. (See Appendix D)
Consequently, as President of the UUA, it is respectfully requested that you take direct action to set aside the PCC’s vote and call for an electronic ballot by the Partner Church movement membership on this issue.

Appendix B

To the members of the UUPCC Board of Directors

Dear Mr. Chairman, dear Sisters and Brothers!

We write you at the request of Rev. dr. Gellérd Judit, to inform you that at its meeting of May 17, 2011 the Executive Committee of the TUC took note of the recent decision of the UUPCC board to discontinue the position of the honorary president. While the executive committee respects this decision as an inner matter of a partner organization, it also made its members feel saddened about it.

The importance of Rev. dr. Gellérd Judit in laying down the foundations of the partnership movement is largely recognized in Transylvania, both by the public opinion and the TUC leadership. The executive committee felt that these merits were affected by the discontinuing of dr. Gellerd’s honorary position. In our Transylvanian culture, a honorary title grows together with the person that was honored by it; making posterior changes to the title inevitably affects the interpretation of the person’s merits.

The executive committee would have appreciated if the UUPCC board found a better solution to one of its organizational problems, than one that affects a person’s public image. We consider that in a culture that acts according to the values of our Unitarian tradition, organizations should pay better attention to the personal consequences of their business.

Finally, the executive committee considers some of issues raised by dr. Gellerd, occasionally in her capacity of the honorary president, for instance the ones related to the travel service, as important ones for the interests of the international partnerships of our congregations. Therefore, we look forward to having a dialogue with you about these issues before too long.

We wish you well in carrying out the mission of the organization! We hope that the close ties of our institutional relations will not be negatively affected by this affair, and that we will find the best ways to work together for the benefits of our congregations.

Kolozsvár, May 17, 2011.

Sincerely yours,
Rev. Balint Benczedi Ferenc, bishop
Dr. Mathe Denes, lay president

Appendix C

Partner Church Committee. First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco.
1187 Franklin Street San Francisco CA 94109. 415.776.4580


Richard Van Duizend
Chair, Unitarian Universalist
Partner Church Council
600 Langston Lane
Falls Church, VA 22046 April 15, 2011


Dear Mr. Van Duizend,

We understand that the Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council (UUPCC) voted in a closed session to remove Dr. Judit Gellerd as Honorary President. If this is correct, we ask for her immediate reinstatement and seek the Board’s rationale for such a radical decision.

As we understand it, the role of “honorary president” recognizes the extraordinary vision, dedication and personal sacrifices of an individual without whom the Partnership Church movement might not even exist. All of us who share the blessings of partnership churches – sponsoring and sponsored congregations around the world – as well as the staff and board of UUPCC, stand on the shoulders of Dr. Gellerd.

Since the title “honorary president” does not confer or imply any current responsibility or obligations within the organization, we find it difficult to imagine circumstances that could justify stripping Dr. Gellerd of this honorific title. Our Partner Church Committee feels deeply troubled that such a decision and the manner of its execution do not reflect the values of Unitarian Universalism.

It is out of our deep respect for the Partnership Church movement, past and future, and for Dr. Gellerd, that we respectfully request the Council reinstate her as honorary president.

Yours in community,

Carrie Steere-Salazar, Chair, UUSF Partner Church Committee

Jim Barnett, Partner Church committee member

Marguerite Blumenthal, Partner Church member

Mary Castiglia, Partner Church committee member

Nancy Evans, Partner Church committee member

Michele Garside, Partner Church committee member

Linda Koza, Partner Church committee member

Eric Langhirt, Partner Church committee member

Liz Macera, Partner Church committee member

Maria Solis, Partner Church committee member

cc: Cathy Cordes, PCC Executive Director


Appendix D
UUPCC Annual Meeting
What happened in terms of democratic procedure at the UUPCC GA annual meeting 2011?
1. The business meeting was held inside of a $30 luncheon
2. David Keyes’ motion came up at the end of a 2 hour-long program, when only 37 remained in attendance (representing nearly 200 congregations).
3. Members of the UUPCC Executive Board – including the paid staff, Executive Secretary/CEO Cathy Cordes – voted on their own decision that was in question by the membership.
4. At the same time, the official Transylvanian Unitarian Church representative was denied a vote. (Is not the Partner Church movement composed of a partnership of North American members and members of all other churches in the movement?)
5. The husband of the Executive Secretary/CEO was recognized as the last speaker and stated that the vote was a matter of confidence in the Board and their action, the reasons for which were too vague for anything other than “trusting the board’s decision.” He also voted.
6. Final vote count: 13 pro, 15 con, 9 abstained. This vote must be set aside as it allowed the board, the CEO and her husband as well as PCC employees to vote on their own questioned action. [“...quite a few who did come [to “open seats”] left before my motion came up two hours into the meeting. Other partner church and international sessions at GA were well-attended. That said, yes indeed, interest is waning, and has been for several years. The partner church movement has gone from a hot and trendy passion to a calm staple of our religious movement. Such is the way of relationships. Going back to the 1860s, it has been the pattern of American Unitarianism to get excited and involved with other lands, and then to turn away when the going gets tough or unglamorous. We must not let that happen again.” (Rev. David Keyes)]
All these irregularities disqualify this business meeting and vote as adhering to the standards of the PCC ByLaws, the principles of the UUA or any democratic ideal for conducting a democratic meeting. Only in the corporate world can this be considered a democratic, representative, accountable, or just procedure. It violated Robert’s Rules of Order which are the de facto rules of the general meeting of the PCC. Further the prevention of a full vote by the members of the Partner Church movement about the action of the PCC Board violates the principles of the UUA--both in spirit and practice.
Why a Corporate Model is not in accord with UU Principles
1. A corporate business meeting is done in a way to quiet the voices of the small shareholders and “rubber-stamp” the decisions of the Board of Directors and/or the CEO, so the organization can be efficiently controlled by the Board and/or its CEO. A corporate business meeting is usually conducted with the least general members present, often at a paid banquet or remote setting that requires unusual expense. The meetings have special rules about how items get on the agenda, who can speak and how long, etc., etc., etc. Corporate lawyers are there to make sure that unpleasant matters will not disrupt the interests of the company, its “bottom line.” (Many of these features were used for this PCC annual business meeting.)
A democratic business is open to every member (without definitional tricks) with equal voting rights. It is conducted by Robert’s Rules of Order, a time-tested way of conducting full, transparent, fair and democratic meetings. There is a disqualification process of the Board or CEO (reclusion) that does not allow those who are questioned or being judged to judge their own action (or vote concerning their own self-interest or activity).
2. In a Corporate meeting the decisions of the Board can only be challenged with the utmost difficulty, since the meetings are “rigged” to be an annual or semi-annual formality. There is no notion of “reclusing” the Board or CEO from voting on their own decisions as would be the case in a democratic procedure (where the Board, which represents the membership, cannot be the judge and jury of its own decisions). In a representative organization, the elected officers are responsible to the membership who have the final say concerning the Board’s actions which are done on their behalf. Anyone who understands representative, democratic organizations knows that the annual meeting has the value of affirming, questioning, or reversing decisions of their representatives.
This incident is far more important than the unusual action of stripping the founder of the Partner Church movement of a title (not the Sister Church program in the 1920s). Let me state my position clearly as an historian: this incident clarifies why Dr. Gellérd was in conflict with this Board and its unilateral decisions without any voting representation from any partners beyond North America. And as she was systematically removed from the meetings, discussions, telephone conference calls, emails, and finally, any discussion concerning this issue by UUA members were denied publication on the PCC Chat. This has been deliberate and documented. Censorship in the UUPCC Chat and the PCC News in order to suppress any dissenting voices must be ended.
What was Judit Gellérd protesting?
The pilgrim service was started by Dr. Gellérd and Rev. Dénes Farkas. They raised money for a van and then the profits from taking UUs to their partner churches allowed the purchase of a second van and money was banked in America for a third one. This was a Transylvanian-run, self-sustaining pilgrimage service. At this point CEO Cathy Cordes and the PCC began employing John Dale of Atlanta in an American-run, profit-making, large bus travel service. Not only was the goal different (tourism to a larger Romania) but the local Transylvanian-run pilgrim service was ended, having a severe effect on some of those involved as well as on the spirit of the visits that allocated only a day or two with partners - a practice that the Transylvanians protest. The monies raised in the van pilgrim service were banked with the PCC in America, the PCC Board voted to take the money for its use. Dr. Gellérd objected and forced the PCC to at least give the money they had raised back to Transylvania as flood relief. This was done.
The PCC Travel Service has become a Tourist business. It is involved in profit-making as a non-profit organization. (While the PCC board’s position is that it is accord with non-profit law and there are standard accounting practices, there are profits. Both churches could have legal and financial difficulties in their respective countries from this arrangement. After long and heated criticism from Dr. Gellérd, the PCC last year gave 30% of its profits back to Transylvania, but still keeps 70%.
Appendix E
Corporate Model of Leadership and Non-Representative Governance
When Ms. Cordes became director of the UUPCC, she introduced the corporate or business model of board meetings: open discussion inside the board meetings but a unified account with only the board’s final decision to be shared with the Partner Church movement’s members or the public. There would be no gossip about who said what after the meeting. This seemed reasonable. But it meant that in essence one would be able to have closed board meeting--only the board’s final decisions and a “memorized elevator talk” would leave the meeting.
When Dr. Gellérd was stripped of her vote on the Council and no other representative from any of the other “partners” (Transylvania, Khasi Hills, Philippines) was added or could vote, Dr. Gellérd did not end her opposition to the Board’s decisions when she thought they were morally wrong. These issues are still alive in Transylvania and amount to an untreated illness infecting the Partner Church movement. There are growing complaints in Transylvania about paternalism and even “American Imperialism” by the PCC Board and its Tourist Service – at the same time that there is praise and love for the church-to-church partnerships and individual UUA friends who have done so much good over twenty years of committed partnerships.
Without representative governance, the Council (i.e., the Board) controls all aspects of the Partner Church movement without the larger Partner Church membership ever knowing what the full implications of the Board’s actions are. And since the nominating committee recommends new board members who fit into a corporate board, the Board continues without real transparency or accountability to its membership. Imagine an open electronic election with nominations arriving from the entire membership and the entire membership voting--not a slate of candidates “rubber-stamped” by a handful of members at the least attended annual meeting.
Our great ones – James Luther Adams, George Hunston Williams, Conrad Wright, Sidney Mead among many others – tried to teach us that liberal religion and liberal democracy may not be diluted with corporate mentality and practice since the very essence of a corporation is to limit individual liability, responsibility and accountability.
Plea for Justice
Again, I respectfully request that you correct this injustice since the UUPCC must follow UUA principles and procedures or be given a separate existence as a profit-making venture in international tourism.
Sincerely,
George M. Williams, Ph.D.