FCUCC Hendersonville Church Council Minutes
March 10, 2021 Council members present:
Karla Miller
Phil Taylor Linda Yopps Mindy Myers
Sheryl Mendenhall LiB Shore Ken Whitney
Dawn Kucera Ron Miller Mark Acker
Gary Cyphers Guests present: Miss Darcy
NOTE FROM CLERK: There was no meeting in February. GENERAL:
Moderator Phil Taylor called the meeting to order at 10:05 am.
Phil led the devotional, a Daily Devotional from 9 March - with the theme of don’t carry heavy things. Phil reviewed Zoom meeting protocols.
Dawn established that a quorum was present.
Agenda was approved as presented. Sheryl moved, Dawn seconded, all approved.
Minutes of the 13 January 2021 meeting were approved as presented. Ken moved, Sheryl seconded, all approved.
Comments by Guests No comments.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. On-line votes
There was one on-line vote. 27 January - Reconciliation Leadership Team approval - 12 Yes, 1 Abstention, 1 No.
2. Annual Congregational Meeting - All The following comments were made:
Phil commented that it was long, and complicated to put together - kudos to all involved.
Others: Everyone was heard, all who wanted to, spoke. Parts felt like a verbal assault. Maybe next time, use a timer. Karla and Mark weathered the meeting well - God bless you.
3. Stewardship program update - Sheryl
4. Treasurer’s Report - Ron
1. Through February, we are doing well - income is up, expenses are down. Our investments are performing well. Ask him if you’d like to have a detailed report mailed.
2. Gary complimented Ron on the hard work to learn the new software, likes the new breakouts - and Mark thanked him on behalf of the church. As of now, no one else knows the software. Ron will work on getting a back-up (check with Joan), Linda volunteered to be temporary back-up, but we need a permanent back-up. There was further discussion on hiring an assistant, and various means of backing up the data. We do have hard drive backup.
5. Conflict Resolution Update - Phil / Karla
The dedicated email box has received 5 mails. All have been acknowledged and sent a consensus response. There will be a Zoom meeting on Wednesday, 24 March, at 7 pm. Focus will be on education in three areas: 1) chronology of events and context; 2) UCC policy as it pertains; 3) breakdown of consultant report.
6. Live Streaming
Discussion on the need for live streaming, even after we go back to in-person worship, looked at the quote for the equipment (though we will need more, such as a camera), and tech assistant to run it.
Discussed option to have congregation vote on the whole package: whether or not to do live streaming and how to acquire the tech assistant function. Bottom line, it is easier to do an employee than a service contract (IRS implications).
-- Dawn moved, Mindy seconded that we accept the quote for live streaming and pursue that action, and approve getting tech support. Unanimous approval.
[LATER UPDATE - Further research has shown that live streaming is more complicated and more expensive than we first thought, or as reflected in this estimate. More research needs to be done before going forward.] NEW BUSINESS:
1. Letters to Council
A. Letter from Suzie Edell and Hilliard Staton, with comments on Council, HRM, and the new Reconciliation Team. Entered into the record and attached to these minutes.
B. Letter from Jan and John Caldemeyer, with commentary on various stages of the conflict situation. Entered into the record and attached to these minutes.
C. Letter from Lewis Rice, Attorneys at Law, offering to represent our interests RE: the Ecusta Trail. Council declined to act on this.
2. Building Physical Changes to Reduce COVID Transmission Mindy reported the following:
A. Air Purification systems that kill the COVID virus for all five HVAC systems, ultra-violet light on three of them. The quote of $4379.94 includes parts and labor, and a 15% discount for being an existing customer; changing filters more frequently.
Discussion comments: Press ahead, will be key to starting to open building for small groups. Money will be taken from Property Maintenance Fund.
B. Window replacement. All Fellowship Hall and Parlor windows are painted shut, single pane, no screens. There are a total of 20 windows in the Fellowship Hall and Parlor – these are the areas most likely to be used for groups when we re-open. Replacement will be in $7,800-$8,800 range. After discussion, these were not
considered a high priority at this time. 3. Karla’s Report
- Discussed the UCC Southern Conference and WNC Association roles: there to educate and support congregations. Some personnel transition, including the retirement of Rev. Colleen Sampson. - Barbara Rathbun will be the next president of the Southern Conference Board.
- Let’s Keep Talking - last meeting had 100+ attendees, they are hitting the pause button for now. - Racial Justice group is active.
- Church retreat on 8 May - Virtual, speaker is Paula D’Arcy, 8 May, 9.45 am - 12 noon. - Planning underway for Maundy Thursday, Palm Sunday, and Easter.
- Resumed being volunteer on-call Chaplain at Pardee one night a month. - Will be on vacation 15-25 June.
4. Ministry Reports
Larger Community, Worship, Members and Friends - no report.
Physical Resources - Work in the garden is starting. Office lights and emergency lights have been replaced or repaired.
Human Relations:
Welcomed Becky Rowland and Maralee McMillan as new members.
Will be comparing the Charter with the UCC document “A Sure Foundation”. Working on job description for IT tech assistant.
Comments for the Good of the Order – none. Phil read a modern version of the Lord’s Prayer.
Next Council meeting will be Wednesday, 14 April, via Zoom. Dawn Kucera
Clerk
3 Attachments:
1. Letter to Council from Suzie Edell and Hilliard Staton
2. Letter to Council and congregation members from John and Jan Caldemeyer 3. Live streaming estimate from Advanced PC Solutions
Attachment 2 - Caldemeyer Letter: February 22, 2021
Dear Bob
We are sending this letter through you to the group of members who signed the August 2020 email expressing concern over the “Revised Protocol for Departing Clergy”. For transparency we are sending a copy to Council Moderator, Phil Taylor.
We, John and Jan Caldemeyer, have experienced the last many months of church controversy from something of an outside perspective. While we have been members of FCUCC for a few years now, we have not developed personal relationships with the ministers who have served here, nor have we developed many social relationships with other church members.
We enjoyed Reverend Weidler’s ministry at FCUCC, and felt nothing but gratitude and affection for him. When he retired, we sent him off with the warmest of good wishes. We were excited when the pastoral search committee recommended Reverend Miller and we cast a “yes” vote for her with enthusiasm. We have been impressed and appreciative of her ministry style and the growth in our numbers.
When the “Revised Protocol for Departing Clergy” arrived in March of 2020 we accepted it without concern because we were familiar with policies of this type from previous churches. In addition, Jan is a minister’s daughter and well acquainted with the practice of departing clergy and family separating completely so that the new minister can become the spiritual leader of the congregation. We felt then and now that the policy would have been protective of all concerned because boundaries prevent conflict. We found the timing appropriate because it would affect departed and current clergy equally. Further, we thought that the ENDING of the prohibition on social contact with departed clergy was appropriate and necessary. We did not have a personal concern with the policy revision thus we did not see a conflict coming.
When the email from a concerned group of FCUCC members arrived in August of 2020 we read it carefully and thoughtfully. We felt that this “signature group” made some valid points. We could see that there were procedural aspects of the policy revision that could have been handled better, and perhaps differently. We noted the “Opening and Affirming” viewpoint but did not think that it was applicable because we viewed the revised policy from an employer/employee perspective. Since we did not have a friendship with Reverend Weidler, we were not personally affected by the renewed prohibition of social contact, but we we felt sympathy for those who were affected. We understood the signature group’s frustration regarding follow up discussions after the revised policy was published. We think that the simultaneously developing COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for at least some of the disconnect.
We agreed with Council’s desire to seek an outside consultant for conflict resolution and we appreciated that most of the signature group concurred. We were pleased when the mediation plan included listening sessions because we wanted to hear the thoughts of the whole church body. While the signature group was organized and had a mechanism for collaboration and idea exchange, there was certainly no coordination among those who hadn’t “signed on”. It was during our listening session that we heard directly about Richard’s pain and feelings of mistreatment via one of the participants who signed the August email.
After reading the report from the “Center for Congregational Health” (CCH) it became evident that a great many people knew of Reverend Weidler’s intense feelings. Reverend Weidler himself wrote of his pain in a letter entitled “Injustices I Experienced” (Addendum F, CCH Report). The consultant’s report was detailed and we appreciated the breakdown of congregational responses. For the first time, we had a sense of what members outside the signature group were thinking. More and more our feelings moved to the question “What about the Church?” We also wondered why the intense need for shared worship with Reverend Weidler? Why wasn’t it enough to freely associate socially?
The CCH report was concerning and yet we had hope that with their prescribed guidelines, compassion, and the eventual return of in person worship, the church could heal. We did not form an opinion on what the outcome should be because we understood that part of the healing would require listening and adjusting on all sides. We actually thought that tensions would ease as we moved through the holidays and into the new calendar year.
Our optimism was quickly dashed by the 3 ½ hour congregational zoom meeting of January 31. We were surprised and appalled by the tone and aggressiveness of several of the speakers from the signature group. It felt to us that many of the statements were coordinated, personal in nature, and the words “you ain’t seen nothing yet” still ring in our ears despite the passage of now 21 days. We felt that the conflict overshadowed the entire meeting and that the signature group sent out an “our way or we take the highway” vibe. Right or wrong – that was our perception. We were
surprised to learn that many of the signature members STILL felt that they had not been heard. From our point of view their voices had been communicated clearly and often through email, website posts, listening groups, and now the zoom meeting.
The congregational meeting shook us up. While some participants were evidently
experiencing a cathartic release, we were experiencing the face of Reverend Miller as she sat quietly through the ordeal. What we didn’t hear was her voice. Reverend Miller didn’t react to provocation, didn’t defend herself despite some very pointed remarks, and she didn’t speak of the injustices she had experienced. In fact, we know nothing of Reverend Miller’s personal feelings regarding the conflict. Though we have sent two brief notes of encouragement over the last months, we have received ONLY thanks. We revisited Reverend Miller’s letter (Addendum G, CCH Report) and even there found that her writing focused outwardly on the church and her commitment to it. Reverend
Miller’s letter was in stark contrast to Reverend Weidler’s letter of personal grievance. Can you imagine the stress on our congregation had Reverend Miller decided to share private details of the conflict or to make her grievances public? After considering the tone of the zoom meeting we now wonder and worry about the messages that Reverend Miller receives OUT of the public’s view.
We also saw the face of Mark Acker as the zoom meeting touched on topics of the budget, and even the legitimacy of his Pastoral Associate position taken on last year. Like Reverend Miller, Mr. Acker remained silent and respectful. Also, like Reverend Miller, Mr. Acker has not spoken publicly about his personal feelings regarding the conflict. Despite email exchanges with him, and a shared book club the topic of the conflict has NEVER been discussed.
Regarding the signature group – We see the names of good people who are frustrated and concerned. We believe that the group’s efforts were honorable and well-intentioned.
Regarding the HRM – We see the names of good people who were tasked with revising a policy. We feel that they did their due diligence by researching, seeking outside advisement, and spiritual guidance through prayer. We do not see any malice in their attempt to form a just and appropriate departing pastor policy for our church. We are grateful for the HRM and their work on behalf of the congregation.
Regarding the Council – We see the names of good people who take the needs and business of the church seriously. We believe that Council had the long term interest of our church at heart thus they passed the “Revised Protocol for Departing Clergy”. We can imagine that following the policy announcement, the Council’s attention rightfully shifted to the pandemic and its affect on the church. We are grateful for their leadership and steady hand over the last many months.
Regarding Mr. Acker – We see a beloved person who raised our worship to new heights with his music ministry. We see a person who added invaluable strength to our church leadership from the music room to the pulpit and to our congregation through personal outreach. We are grateful for Mr. Acker.
Regarding Reverend Karla Miller – We see a good person and leader who came to our pulpit bringing excitement, a new energy, and a focus on growing us as a congregation. We believe that Reverend Miller has maintained professionalism and dignity throughout this crisis, and we are grateful for her leadership.
Regarding Reverend Richard Weidler - We entered this season of conflict with no negative feelings towards him. We now find ourselves questioning his professionalism and decorum. We wonder if Reverend Weidler’s conduct is an example of exactly what the revised policy was meant to prevent. It appears to us that Reverend Weidler has allowed his personal needs and desires to trump the wellbeing of our church.
We believe that Reverend Weidler is a good man. We would prefer to remember to remember Richard as he was in the pulpit rather than as someone who divided us.
This has been a difficult letter to write. By nature, Jan and I avoid confrontation especially in matters of faith and feeling, but the high emotions of this situation have pushed us to share our view. We are determined that First Congregational United Church of Christ will be our last church home. We look forward to the day when we are peaceful again. We will do our best to contribute to that goal, and we will accept the decisions of the “whole” because that is what a healthy church does.
Sincerely
John Caldemeyer
