 |
|
|
|
|
PART FOUR
HOW ONE
PLAN APPEARS The material in this PART is presented separately
since it is not basically an integral part of the Manual. It is
condensation of the plan of functional merger prepared for the Commission
some months ago. Presentation of the plan is preceded by a discussion of
the problems to be involved in making and adopting such a plan. It will be recalled from the introduction of this
Manual that the purpose of the Commission in having a functional plan for
merger prepared for its consideration was to gain a vantage point from
which perspective could be obtained and knowledge about the many problems
to be encountered might be enhanced. In so doing, the Commission does not
endorse this or any other plan nor should churches and fellowships
conclude from the presence of this material in the Manual, that the
Commission has taken a position. The mandate of the Commission states that
it shall prepare a plan for merger or an alternative to merger after the
churches have had an opportunity to study the whole matter and make
recommendations to the Commission concerning their wishes. If, for example,
the churches indicate a preference for merger and for a particular pattern
of merger, the Commission will develop such a plan in full detail and
submit it to the churches for further review, particularly for the benefit
of their delegates to forthcoming denominational business meetings.
Precisely the same process will be followed if the churches indicate a
preference for not merging, coupled with the desired pattern of future
relationships between the two denominations. CHAPTER XIII
PROBLEMS
TO BE CONSIDERED IN A FUNCTIONAL PLAN OF MERGER Making major changes which affect two democratic
denominations, such as the American Unitarian Association and the
Universalist Church of America, means a careful consideration of
involvements and ramifications.
Without regard to merger, normal annual or biennial national
business meetings are always characterized by wide discussion and often
intense debate. Action upon
some form of merger will precipitate a great volume of discussion,
particularly in connection with problems involved in making changes.
Their degree of seriousness will vary from person to person.
The viewpoints of laymen and clergy are likely to differ because of
their differing experience.
This chapter is concerned with a review of the various kinds of problems
involved in a functional plan of merger.
These have been touched upon in preceding pages, but are brought
together here in somewhat amplified form.
Choosing a
New Name There are many arguments surrounding any change in
name, with some persons feeling that much would be lost if the name of
either denomination is dropped. This applies with special force for some people in both
denominations. On the other
hand, there are leaders in both denominations who feel that changing a name
is not important, if liberal religion will be the gainer in the long run.
As has been stated previously, if there is some form
of merger between the two denominations, it may be that some form of
hyphenated name involving Unitarian and Universalist might be used.
However, whatever name is adopted, it should be based on principles.
Some of these include: the nature of the proposed organization or
the structure of the denomination, the basic nature of the units which are
being brought together, and, the central idea or principal characteristic
of the new body. If the new
body is to be an association, or council, or church, the name should
correspond. In view of the
wide-spread orthodox usage of church in denominational title, and of the
common characteristics of both Unitarians and Universalists which were
previously recited, it seems clear that the words, church, council and
association do not enjoy equal value in the judgments for selection and
adoption of a name. Merely for purposes of illustration, the following names are
listed without rank or preference: Church United Liberal Church Free Church of America American Independent Church Liberal Church of America Council Council of Independent Churches Council of American Liberal Churches Council of Free Churches Independent Church Council Liberal Church Council of America Association Association of Independent Churches Liberal Church Association of America Association of Free Churches American Association of Liberal Churches United Liberal Fellowship Undoubtedly, many other possible names could be
developed by interested persons.
It will be noted that illustrations of possible hyphenated names are
not listed since they are so obvious. The State
of Incorporation The problem of where to incorporate a new body is not
an easy one. With the A.U.A.
incorporated in Massachusetts and the U.C.A. in New York, an obvious
problem exists if any consideration involving some form of merger is given,
particularly if any new body is to have any serious amounts of assets.
Moreover, the state of incorporation has much to do with where
annual meetings may be held: witness the current problem of the A.U.A. in
this connection. However, if the Massachusetts law by special legislation can
be ameliorated in favor of allowing religious body corporate meetings to be
held anywhere, then the problem with incorporating in Massachusetts
disappears. In any event, even
though a new body should be incorporated in Massachusetts, the problem of
getting approval by the States of New York and of Massachusetts to form the
new consolidated corporation and to transfer assets would involve
considerable further legal exploration, particularly of funds.
By—Laws Careful comparison will reveal that significant
differences exist between present A.U.A. and U.C.A. by—laws.
On the other hand, many persons may likely feel it will be best not
to have some form of jousting over whose articles and sections shall be
included, but to begin anew and make a fresh start.
In any event, consideration will need to be given to what any set of
by—laws should include. It
should be remembered that by—laws are very important since they constitute
the main framework on which all else rests, hence they have top priority. By—laws include many items, the number depending upon
the wishes of the groups the framers represent.
Illustrations of such items are: Name of
organization Purposes
of organization Time and
place of meeting Officers,
their manner of appointment or election and duties Governing
Board (such as A.U.A. Directors or U.C.A. Trustees), size, composition,
manner of selection, duties and responsibilities
Representative body (delegates from composing units), manner of selection,
certification, rights, privileges, duties and responsibilities
Representative body (delegates from composing units), manner of selection,
certification, rights privileges, duties and responsibilities Manner of
conducting meetings in re resolutions, elections, special business, by—laws
changes, etc. While some may feel that by—laws are the business of
specialists to create and interpret, whatever by—laws are considered will
have profound effect and influence on all members — laity and clergy.
This problem is cited, therefore to draw attention to its
importance, and to urge all interested persons to consider the elements
they would like to see if a new set of by—laws becomes necessary. Frequency of Meetings Consideration needs to be given to frequency of
national meetings. One
denomination is used to annual meetings while the other meets biennially.
It is not a matter of whose practice is better, but involves what
would be best for the new denomination or association.
Therefore, the purpose of a national meeting, the kinds of business
activities which need attention at what probable time intervals, the cost
of meetings, interruption of administrative work at various levels, and the
like all need consideration and review before it can be decided whether to
have national meetings annually, biennially, triennially or quadrennially. The Plan
of Organization What plan of organization to adopt is always a
problem. The nature of the new
denomination or whatever has great influence upon form of organization,
particularly as to centralization and decentralization balance.
In general, a good principle is to have organization as simple and
uncomplicated as possible. There is a considerable difference between the present plans
of top organization of the A.U.A. and U.C.A., respectively.
Any new plan of organization considered should be based upon that
form which will get the job done best with the least amount of personnel
and which offers little if no chance for confused responsibilities and
duties. Moreover, it should
offer opportunities for non-staff participation at as many points as
possible through advisory committees, advisory councils, etc.
Neither denomination separately or combined would be large enough to
justify strong separate functional area boards such as many of the large
orthodox denominations use.
Organization is only a means to an end, it should not become all important,
yet giving it too little attention sooner or later leads to problems and
difficulties. The plan of
organization suggested in Chapter XIV contains the application of good
organization principles to institutional needs. The members of the churches have a right to expect a good
plan of organization and should take some part in making suggestions as to
what they want. Titles of
Principal Officers Liberal religious organizations face a dilemma
concerning what to call their principal officers. On the one hand, they
like the titular head idea, but at the same time do not wish such a person
to be all powerful. Hence the
selection of a proper title for the titular head and other officials bears
considerable importance. Both
denominations use the title, President, for their respective titular heads,
but their meanings are very different.
In the A.U.A., the President is the titular head and also
administers all headquarters functions.
In the U.C.A. the President is titular head only, although usually
he is also chosen as chairman of the Board of Trustees.
Except giving one official entirely too heavy a load, as is the case
in the A.U.A., the use of President in the title of the titular head has
few, if any, objections. A real problem appears, however, if the plan of
organization for any new body calls for a separation of the titular head
functions and the administrative functions, as would be the case in the
A.U.A. It is difficult to know precisely what to title a chief executive or
administrator who is not also the titular head.
While many of the orthodox denominations use the terms: General
Secretary, Secretary, Executive Secretary, and so on, such terms appear to
be largely permissive and fail to connote comprehensive responsibility.
The liberal religious denomination needs a title at this point that
will not connote excessive power and authoritarianism, but on the other
hand must not be too weak in its impact on denominational members.
While some merely illustrative titles are suggested in the Proposed
Plan appearing in the final chapter, they are not conclusive.
Here again is a problem for people to discuss and make suggestions.
Internal
versus External Top Level Functions Liberal religious denominations are noteworthy for the
application of democratic principles, for expressions of individualism and
for considerable independence of views and action.
Any casual scrutiny of either the
A.U.A. or the U.C.A. shows these characteristics at work.
This is particularly true of the habit of showing independence by
what appears to be nearly a plethora of independent organizations.
Every once in a while, rumor brings hints of even more thoughts of
creating additional independent bodies.
A serious question to be faced is simply what functions should the
headquarters of any new denomination have?
The problem under this topic revolves around the
functions of service and also of publications.
Should either be internal or should both be external?
Can a denomination succeed if any of its principal functions is a
separate independent body?
There is no hard and fast answer to this question.
However, it appears only logical to think there should not be two
denominational journals for one denomination.
Also, it appears reasonable that a substantial function like service
(somewhat akin to missionary work except that conversion and new members
are not part of the goal) belongs rather closely administratively and
operationally to other major headquarters functions such as extension and
ministry. However, these are
problems for the people of the churches to think about and also for the
members of the governing boards of independent bodies such as service and
publications to consider.
Whatever the merits and achievements of independent bodies, and they are
considerable, the main question is simply what will be best for a united
liberal church in the long run? Financing
and Funds Whatever plan is adopted, money will have considerable
bearing not only upon decision making, but upon implementation of the
decision. Involved here are
such questions as do both denominations have enough income to operate an
effective merged denomination, what about funds each holds, and what about
fund raising? Data presented
in Chapter VIII showed the respective financial resources and operating
budgets, and the suggested Plan in Chapter XIV discusses over-all
financing. The first question
can be answered in the affirmative.
The question of funds is a very involved and complicated one which
will require considerable legal attention and which no one can adequately
answer until such a study is made.
The only real problem involved is whether a major part of all funds
presently held can be transferred and either used for or held in trust by
any new organization. The
offhand probabilities are that in the long run, the fund situation can be
met satisfactorily and does not need to be answered before the question of
whether or not to merge is decided by the churches. Fund raising is another problem.
As has been related, it is an internal function at the U.C.A. and an
external function at the A.U.A.
In both instances the respective plans appear to work reasonably
well. The question arises,
however, as to whether all fund raising should be either internal or
external. It would not be
difficult to put the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. fund raising efforts together in
one function, whether inside or out. At
the present time, the main principle involved in both efforts, is to have
one drive and not many annual efforts.
Seventeen agencies now depend upon the U.U.A. and there is no easy
quick answer to meeting the needs of these agencies if the function became
an internal one acting solely on behalf of the new organization.
While it could become internal and campaign for all organizations,
this would have involvements that would not be too satisfactory for all
concerned. It has been
suggested that the fund raising function remain external for a time until
many more relationships are worked out such that unless they find income
from some central source will be forced to devise ways of securing their
own funds which may mean additional campaigns, and the like.
Ministerial Matters Although there have been expressions of somewhat
wide-spread concern regarding the status and welfare of ministers in any
new organization, these in general appear to be largely groundless, if the
long run pull is considered and not the immediate.
It has been shown that pensions constitute no really serious
obstacle. Although respective
fellowshipping rules are not identical in concept or in practice, there are
no insurmountable problems. As
in every denomination, there are some church pulpits which are eagerly
sought after, so there are some in both present denominations.
It is reasonable to assume that if something better than either
denomination is achieved, the problem of competition for the better
positions will resolve itself on the basis of merit.
Undoubtedly there would be some disappointment in both ranks of
ministers, but in general this is a minor factor compared to having an
opportunity to make a real advance.
The people of the churches will undoubtedly think on these things at
great length and based upon all facts obtainable, decide these kinds of
problems in their own ways and on their own terms.
Headquarters Personnel
If there is some form of merger, attention would need
to be given to the problem of proper staffing of the headquarters
functions. A problem arises as
to whether all present Unitarian and all present Universalist headquarters
personnel can expect to be appointed to positions in a new organization.
If an adequate set of job descriptions is prepared setting forth the
requirements for all positions, any screening group would certainly make
selections on the basis of merit, experience, training, personality,
fitness, etc. While it is reasonable to assume that this process would mean
the appointment of some present personnel, it does not mean that all staff
members would be Universalists or would all be Unitarians. This problem is recited not because it is one which the
churches will decide in detail but is one about which thought needs to be
given. Any move toward some
form of merger means a different headquarters than either denomination now
has.
Regions and State Conventions One of the real problems involved in any plan for
merger or of cooperation, involves Regions and State Conventions.
Both denominations recognize the need for keeping intermediate
organization patterns as effective as possible.
Even assuming that Universalists might accept a regional in place of
a state plan, as evidenced by two factors:
the Midwest Convention, and the growing attitude favorable to a
regional plan, consideration must be given to the number of local units to
be comprised, to the ability of a regional officer to serve that many
units, to adequate budgets, and finally to the whole question of funds held
by State Conventions. All but
the last problem are relatively easy to solve, assuming willingness on the
part of the Unitarians and Universalists to have them solved or to solve
them. The fund question is
parallel to the national headquarters fund question.
Once again, legal study and interpretations would be necessary.
However, it is believed that this question should not deter making a
decision whether to move towards merger or away from it.
Some persons hold that some or all of the foregoing
problems make any move towards merger wholly inadvisable.
Others feel that these problems are not insoluble and should not be
made a basis of having no merger or postponing action on the question.
In addition to the inherent problems, there are some other questions
which concern some persons in both denominations such as sectarian advance;
possible differences in the two ministries; the large number of small
churches, particularly in the U.C.A.; a few differences in theology, and so
on. These are not treated in
this chapter as problems, but some attention to them occurs in the
Discussion Guide.
|
