Beliefs

Coming of Age Story
The CUC and The UUA

CANADIAN UNITARIAN INDEPENDENCE:

LOSS, RISK, AND OPPORTUNITY

A Working Paper Written by

Charles Eddis

Minister Emeritus, The Unitarian Church of Montreal

May 9, 2001

In his well-known poem, The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost began,

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."

and ended,

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

This week, as the Canadian Unitarian Council holds its annual meeting in Montreal, two roads diverge in the woods before us, and our choice will make all the difference. There are just two roads. The choice is stark and clear. We shall have an independent association of Unitarian congregations in Canada, or we shall be swallowed up in American continentalism as we have not been for over thirty years.

How did we ever get into the position when such a drastic, dramatic choice was suddenly before us? To understand how it came about, we must look back at the history of our funding over the last thirty or so years.

By coincidence, the Canadian Unitarian Council came into official being in Boston in May, 1961, the same week and year that the Unitarian Universalist Association came into being by the consolidation of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America. The UUA provided a small annual grant to fund the CUC. In the year that followed, the UUA districts were formed, including the five international districts to which most Canadian congregations have belonged. When the UUA went into a funding crisis, Canadians grew restive under the lack of interest and support from the UUA. In 1969 the $4,000 annual grant to the CUC was reduced. Canadians were giving between $25,000 and $30,000 each year to the UUA, for programs and services that were geared overwhelmingly for American consumption. The 1969 CUC annual meeting debated a resolution introduced by Toronto Unitarians for Canadian Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists to give their money to the CUC instead of the UUA. After lengthy debate, the motion was defeated by a vote of 29 to 21.

This was a sudden vote by a small group of people. Yet it was a crisis. To resolve the conflict, in November a joint negotiating committee of the CUC and the UUA was set up. The result, ratified by both boards in February, 1970, was the first CUC-UUA Accord. It provided for the first time that one of the four members-at-large on the UUA Board would be from Canada, and that the CUC would be responsible for all fund-raising in Canada. The Accord also allowed the CUC to join our international connection, The International Association for Religious Freedom, in its own right directly, instead of Canada being represented only through the UUA.

It was further agreed that the first $15,000 raised would be for the CUC, the second $15,000 for the UUA, and any amount above the $30,000 divided equally. A second Accord in 1972 gave the CUC incentive to raise more than the first $15,000 for the CUC. It provided for equal division of funds raised, after the first $8,000, which was for the CUC.

To this point, all proceeded normally. Then came the first development that put us on this road through the yellow woods. In 1978 the Veatch Fund, generated by North Sea gas rights owned by a Unitarian church on Long Island, began matching annually all funds raised for annual funding purposes by the UUA and the CUC. This arrangement required the third Accord. Its end result was that the CUC kept for its own use all the money it raised, plus $4,000, while the UUA still got for its share all the money the CUC raised, less $4,000.

Then in 1983 another fund appeared, the Liberal Religious Charitable Society. Because of restrictions in the bequest, the UUA could only spend this money outside of the United States. Accord number four was then worked out. The CUC agreed to pay all the money it raised, less $4,000, to the UUA. The UUA, in return, would give the CUC the same amount out of the restricted funds of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society.

The net result, give or take $4,000, was that for every dollar the CUC raised in Canada, the UUA got two,- and the CUC kept for its own use all the money it raised. This was sufficient for the CUC to hire its first executive director, a full-time position, to add to its administrator, then Thelma Peters.

This double dipping, as Bert Christensen, one-time CUC President and later UUA Board member called it, was, as Bob Hope’s theme song went, "swell while it lasted." In 1987 the party ended. The Veatch Fund stopped giving annual matching grants. Instead, it gave the UUA U.S. $20 million outright to complement its annual fund raising. In addition, the UUA broke the trust of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society, so that it could spend its income in the United States if it wanted to. The UUA income outside its own fund raising remained as before. The free ride in the UUA for the Canadian congregations, however, was over. The UUA wanted CUC payment for services rendered to Canadian congregations.

Three more Accords followed, in 1987, 1991 and 1994. All were attempts to reach an agreement as to what the Canadian congregations should be paying the UUA for what, given the existing organizational structure, was as its share of the costs of operating the UUA and its districts. Each Accord went into more detail and made more provisions. Not one seemed satisfactory for long.

In 1998 the seventh Accord was dissolved by mutual agreement. The CUC agreed to continue annual payments to the UUA, and the UUA to continue to deliver services until the CUC and the Canadian congregations decided what services they wanted and from whom and a new Accord was agreed to.

Ongoing discussions between the CUC and the UUA agreed on criteria for a new relationship. They called for equal relationship, less dependency, equitable/fair, congregation centered (not governance centered), permanence/stability, and partnership.

Meanwhile in 1997 the CUC Board appointed a Commission on the Delivery of Services to Congregations. What services did our congregations want, and from whom? It was clear we could not have everything we had and wanted. We could not with the status quo afford to pay our fair shares for the UUA, the districts, and the have the CUC do what we wanted it to do. They would come today to twice what we are now paying as full shares, about $120 per member instead something like $60. That is why we have had the surveys, consultations, reports, and negotiations of the last four years, involving virtually every congregation in Canada as well as the UUA Board. Finally, the annual CUC meeting in Calgary in May last year authorized the CUC Board to negotiate a new arrangement of district services with the UUA in the areas of Religious Exploration, extension, growth, and communications, with more services in these areas provided by the CUC .

In short, the rapid flowering of the CUC we have witnessed under the existing regime was made possible by the double dipping of the UUA, where, in effect, the CUC kept all funds raised in Canada, and got most UUA services free, paying in district dues only a fraction of the cost of district services. From the day we hired our first executive director, we were getting much more than we were paying for, and more than we could ever hope to continue receiving. Something had to give. What it will be will, I hope, be decided in Montreal this week.

One other point needs be kept in mind: the CUC annual meeting in Calgary last year voted for "evolution," not "revolution." No one there then dreamed we would be facing the big step it is now proposed by both the UUA and the CUC Boards that we take. It is the UUA that has insisted upon this big step. We have no choice. The proposed Accord, number eight, is to be the last one. Either we accept it, or we go back more than thirty years, to the days when Canadian congregations paid their annual contributions directly to the UUA, and the UUA will again be free to raise money in Canada. If we do not accept the proposed new Accord, the UUA will again become fully continental. We shall be expected to pay our fair share in the UUA Annual Program Fund, currently $66 per person per year, as well as district dues, now running about $16. Any money to fund any CUC activity would have to be extra.

The UUA has made it clear it cannot make plans in a way that allows for gradual evolution. It is currently reorganizing its districts and services in ways it hopes will hold for an indefinite number of years without significant changes. It has accordingly proposed an Accord in which we shall be largely on our own, the terms of which have been agreed to by all those involved in the negotiations, with the exception of one Canadian on the UUA negotiating team.

In general terms, the proposals are as follows:

(1) that the Canadian Unitarian Council become responsible for developing and providing all services and resources for its congregations in Canada, except for youth, young adults and the ministry;

(2) that Canadian congregations cease to be members of the Unitarian Universalist Association and of its districts. The Unitarian Universalist Association will become in effect the national organization for its 1,000 or so congregations in the United States, and the Canadian Unitarian Council for its 50 plus congregations in Canada;

(3) that the Unitarian Universalist Association set aside about one and a half million U.S. dollars of its trust funds as of December 2000, to be handed over to the CUC on July 1, 2002; (the earnings of the twelve previous months will also be delivered then. The CUC Board plans to add these earnings to the CUC capital funds.)

(4) that Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists in both countries shall be free to attend all conferences in either country, and to continue to belong to continental associations such as those for ministers, Religious Exploration directors, musicians, artists, administrators, the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office, Christians, humanists, pagans, Buddhists, gays and lesbians, et cetera; and

(5) that a Joint Commission be established concerned with each other’s health and development, to share ideas, insights, and expertise and further the growth of our movement.

There will inevitably be some weakening of ties north and south as we function more east and west. The proposals have generated grief, dismay, and bewilderment for some, and insecurity for others. We shall no longer be involved in official district and UUA business meetings south of the border. That some will welcome.

How will we fare if we go ahead with these proposals, recommended by the CUC Board?

The situation reminds me of a story I heard from John Wood, a Universalist minister who was the District Executive of the Central Midwest District with offices in Chicago thirty years ago. The story was a propos of nothing in a speech he gave. It seemed out of place at the time. I have treasured ever since:

A man from Massachusetts bought a vacation cabin in Maine. He loved the view from the living room window. All it lacked was a fireplace. So he inquired around, and called in a stone mason who could build just the type of stone fireplace he wanted, with the necessary chimney. The man came, looked at the cabin, and shook his head. "Won’t build it, " he said, and took his leave. The new owner called in a second stone mason. He too came, looked at the cabin, and shook his head, leaving with another cryptic "Won’t build it." The visitor from away went out again on another search for some one to build the fireplace with the necessary chimney. He found such a third stone mason. He showed up at the cabin in due course, looked around, and nodded, said "Yes." He would built the fireplace and chimney.

Not long after, the new owner was in the general store. The man behind the counter asked him if he had found some one to build his chimney. "George Bates," answered the visitor. "Ah yes, George!" commented the storekeep. "Yes, George will build it all right. It won’t work. The chimney won’t draw. The fireplace will smoke. It’s on the wrong side of the house, the house being where it is. But George will do it. He’ll build your fireplace as you want it. Nobody else would."

I have had fifteen years experience in the districts we had before we joined with the Universalists in 1962. (They were called regions then, and I lived and worked in four of them and was the president of one and acting executive director in another.) Since 1962 I have been in two Unitarian Universalist districts, and been involved in internal funding and leadership decisions in both. I was also the first president of the CUC, and was involved in setting up the UUA, helping the merger commission and serving on its first Program Committee from 1961 to 1965. I have held many denominational positions since then.

I tell you, this chimney will work. It will draw fine. Indeed, we shall get more services at much lower costs from the CUC than we shall if we keep our congregational memberships in the UUA and pay our way in it. This is a financial reality I would scarcely have credited even a month ago. But I have seen the possible shape of things to come in a memorandum dated April 19 by Brian Kiely of Edmonton, the chair of the Implementation Task Force. It is only a draft representing current thinking of CUC Board members, but for me it is manna from heaven.

As a Commerce and Finance graduate, I fastened on the section on Finance and Budget. The present CUC budget is roughly $400,000. The CUC Board projects new income to begin at $265,600. This will come from the $1.5 million in U.S. funds endowment transfer from the UUA ($115,000), the redirection of district dues ($80,000), an increase in Annual Program Fund ($41,800), and the saving of the annual budgeted payment to the UUA ($28,000).

The preliminary proposal, which we shall discuss in the coming year and vote on in developed form at the 2002 annual meetings in Kelowna if we go ahead, is that the new funding will go entirely to fund new services. With a new capital campaign, the income should grow to include the new program staff of three two-thirds time across the country, based perhaps in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal ($180,000), new administration ($35,000), new programs and extra district services ($50,000), and $25,000 annually for growth and extension projects. The three staff persons will each have a speciality to share across the country, in Religious Exploration, or growth and extension, or electronic communications, public relations and visibility. The Religious Exploration specialist would become full-time as soon as possible. With a new CUC capital campaign, we are looking at an annual budget which before long could reach $700,000 a year.

The proposals are that we form across the country three to six regional councils of volunteers working with the program staff, developing and offering congregations skills in Religious Exploration, growth, finances, youth, young adults, and social action. We shall keep our Canadian regional ministerial fellowship committee, funded by and working with the UUA Department of Ministry, and our Compensation Committee, which will be partly funded by the UUA. Preliminary proposals are that we hold CUC business meetings every two years instead of annually, with regional conferences and smaller national ones in the in-between years. If we accept the proposals, all this will be widely discussed and worked on in the coming year.

In spite of the distances involved in doing things in Canada, it appears that clearly we shall be able to do more for ourselves on our own than we would for twice the cost staying in the UUA. What we want that the new Accord does not provide and we cannot do for ourselves, it is agreed we can purchase from the UUA, to the extent we can afford it.

I conclude with four points of caution and encouragement:

First, it is important that we keep up our associations with our fellow religious liberals south of the border. This will require some continued organizing and attendance at various binational conferences, such as leadership schools, Religious Exploration, ministers meetings and summer camps. It means especially attending the main annual event, the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association, an annual worlds fair for Unitarians and Universalists. We will no longer be expected to sit through the long business meetings with a thousand and more other delegates. But we will continue to be welcome at all sorts of meetings to meet and hear interesting people, acquire new skills, insights, and ideas, shopping for spiritual and intellectual vitamins and minerals for ourselves and our congregations. The border should remain wide open for a continuing rich and inspirational interchange.

Secondly, we should maintain an open, integrated, binational ministry. We are for the foreseeable future too small, too few in numbers, to maintain a strong and effective ministry on our own. We should encourage Canadians to continue in some numbers to prepare for the ministry at our schools in the United States at Harvard, Chicago, and Berkeley, California. We should encourage Canadian ministers to be open to serving American churches in the course of their careers. We should encourage American ministers to consider coming to Canada. We should offer compensation that is competitive with that in the United States for similar congregations. We should not become an economic ghetto, served by a small pool of talent that wants to stay home.

Thirdly, we should continue to draw on UUA experience with its good old American know-how. We have know-how here too, of course. But we should not cut ourselves off from the wider pool of experience and knowledge. Much of this we can obtain by continued associations such as I have mentioned. We should plan to supplement this, by purchasing services from the UUA from time to time for special needs and problems. Perhaps at least one of our professionals should sit in on the annual week-long gatherings held by the American field professionals in Boston at UUA headquarters.

Fourth and lastly, we must continue to be responsible and generous in our financial giving to fund the CUC. For the last fifteen or so years, the Canadian congregations have been almost perfect in paying their fair share annually to fund denominational activities. I’ll wager it is as good a record as you will find on any part of this continent. We shall have to maintain that tradition if we are to flourish.

If we do, I am beginning to think we shall thrive with a new will and new sense of purpose.

This week, we must decide either to move ahead or to go back. There is only one way to move ahead. If we do not choose to accept the recommendations of the CUC-UUA negotiating team, which were approved with just one dissenting vote, we shall become tied to the UUA as we have not been for more than thirty years. If we reject the proposals, we may become divided among ourselves as some congregations divide what they can afford between the CUC and the UUA, instead of paying their full share to the UUA. The CUC will be seriously weakened. Support of the UUA may be less than whole-hearted. If we do what the UUA itself has encouraged us to do, we shall all be in the CUC exclusively as our primary association, with affiliations, as the CUC letterhead lists them, to the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the [British] General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, and the International Association for Religious Freedom. We shall relate to the UUA as Canadians relate to Americans, with all sorts of travel across the border that divides us, with friendship, sharing, and all sort of personal and institutional ties.

This month, we have to make a decision of fateful importance. These past three years and more our Canadian leaders have done their best to consult us, to inform us, and lay out the decision before us. Now, after the final hours of discussion, ready or not, delegates from Saint John’s to Victoria, gathering in Montreal May 18-21, must decide and cast their votes as representatives of our congregations. It may well be a day that will go down in our history for many years to come. I hope and pray we shall be ready, and will make the right decision, and know we have done so.