Fact-Check & Commentary:

Accusations About Engagement with the Religious Education (RE) Program

The Congregant Action Team has been accused of

  • giving leaflets to children

  • entering classrooms to lobby families

  • yelling and generally causing disruption

  • taking a youth outside against the instruction of the RE Director

FACT: On 9/15, the first day of RE classes, we handed out a special letter to parents/caregivers and a couple of interested youth (16+ years old).

FACT: We entered a classroom only to say hello to a friend, not to lobby families.

FACT: On 9/22, three youth intervened when a Board member harassed a member of the Congregant Action Team and seized some of her belongings. Later, one of the youth (17 years old) chose to accompany the team member outside to advertise the Town Hall, with the knowledge and acceptance of the RE Director. The events of 9/22 are documented here.

Please see our RE Accusations Document for all details of

our activities, the accusations, and our attempts to address them.

Aftermath & Reflection

Congregant Action Team (CAT) member Alyssa was on site for all activities in question, and she wrote rebuttals for each set of accusations: first from Rev. Alison (9/22 sermon), then from the Board (published on its homepage), then from RE Director Leah Ongiri (in a detailed, inaccurate message to RE volunteers), and finally from Rev. Alison again (10/3 Board meeting).

Church leadership ignored Alyssa’s documentation and pleas for help, with one exception: Two Board members responded only to label Alyssa a “bully” and mock her for expecting a prompt response.

Meanwhile, a different CAT member spoke privately with two Board members with whom she had pre-existing friendships. She implored the Board members to consider Alyssa’s testimony and soften or retract the public accusations until the Board did more work on sorting out the facts.

One of the Board members was very stressed and angry, to the point that he was unable to question the factual accuracy of the accusations or the appropriateness of using the pulpit to air grievances with congregants. When the CAT member asked whether the Board had actual evidence of the claims about children, the Board member said (approximate quote), Maybe not, but can she [Alyssa] prove that she DIDN’T approach children? The CAT member pointed out that the Board seemed to be using a “guilty until proven innocent” approach. The Board member retorted (approximate quote), If you make choices like that, you deserve what you get.

The other Board member was more willing to consider Alyssa’s version of events, provided that it was communicated to him by his CAT friend rather than by Alyssa herself. The Board member agreed to advocate for some changes in wording. In the end, a single word was changed: “children” was replaced with “youth” on the Board’s homepage. Other factual inaccuracies remained until the webpage was overhauled in January 2025.

It is worth emphasizing that a Board member was willing to consider the evidence provided by dissenting congregants only because a friend—someone with whom he had mutual respect and trust—implored him to do the right thing. Outside of those private conversations, no member of church leadership or the UUA showed any willingness to consider the appeals of the congregants who had been publicly accused of wrongdoing.

The RE accusations became the focal justification for forming the Safe Church Task Force to investigate whether the actions of the Congregant Action Team warranted a loss of church membership. See Safe Church Chronology & Emails for more information.

The Task Force stated an intention to interview only three people: Alyssa, Bob Bonner (the Board member who behaved aggressively toward Alyssa and youth on 9/22), and Leah Ongiri (the RE Director who shared a verifiably false description of events with RE volunteers). Many other witnesses are available: the youth who intervened on 9/22, an RE volunteer who submitted her own testimony about 9/22, the other CAT members who were present on each day in question… But, the slate of interviewees seems consistent with the Board’s demonstrated preference for maligning dissenters over discerning the truth.