I’ve gone through the Ministerial Fellowship Committee Rules and Policies, in an effort both to clarify this complicated system and to highlight some problem areas. The results are in the thumbnail to the right. Click on the thumbnail to actually see the flowchart.
Limitations of the Flowchart
While I’ve done my best to make it as accurate as possible, inevitably it collapses details of the process, and it’s possible I’ve misinterpreted some of the rules and regulations. Also, it doesn’t include the UUA staff responsibilities in the process, although that actually is a limitation of the rules and regulations themselves.
Brief Questions and Comments About the Process
There are five numbered red circles in the flowchart. They correlate with the following questions and observations:
Q1: At the start of the process, what constitutes “unusual circumstances”? Apparently the MFC can intervene and a complainant is not always required.
Q2: When the minister doesn’t cooperate and fellowship is terminated, it’s not specified if the complainant is told. While it’s stated that this is published in the UU World, it’s safe to assume not all complainants read or even get the World. And even if they did, is this the best venue for them to learn the outcome?
Q3: When a voluntary resolution happens, my informal understanding is it can enter a conditional loop (with various stipulations the minister must meet), although that wasn’t clear to me from the policies. Also, what may not be apparent to UUs who haven’t experienced this process, the complainant is almost completely excluded from a voluntary resolution. It’s like a settlement being made without the plaintiff’s consent.
Q4: As is true with Q2, it is not specified whether or not the complainant is told. While not telling the complainant seems to have been the MFC’s practice for some time, I don’t see where the rules and policies bind the committee to this.
Q5: It is only at this point, late in the process, that confidentiality is clearly stipulated. Why is it not stipulated earlier in the process?
Other Observations
It’s interesting to note that the process is clear about notifying the complainant when the minister is absolved, but not if the minister is found guilty. This correlates strongly with how the process is perceived by many observers — unbalanced and protective of ministers who have misconducted themselves.
Similarly, it is unclear if and how ministers’ employers will be told when they are found guilty.
While simplifying and clarifying the process (including specifying when and how UUA staff members are involved) seems in order, I would also advocate getting rid of all of the steps involved in creating a complainant, and rather than having the “unusual circumstances” step, go straight to a vote of the MFC Executive Committee on whether a misconduct review process is in order. Given the way the first step reads, the MFC does already have the power to proceed and involve victims as witnesses rather than requiring that they be complainants.
Another telling imbalance is the language used — referring to the alleged victim as a “complainant” (Policy 14.2), while repeatedly calling the defendant a “minister.” The process has a veneer of being like a court case, but in fact it isn’t. In a way, the complainants have the worst of both: they don’t have the built in equality of a court case, but neither do they have anything resembling religious support or ministry.