Fact-Check & Commentary:
Request for the Member List
On 9/30, the Congregant Action team used an Oregon Law to request the church’s member list, with the intention of emailing congregants about our petitions.
The Board did not attempt to work with us or even acknowledge our request.
Instead, they spread news of our request to the entire congregation in ways that triggered genuine fear about privacy and safety.
Now, the Board is trying to amend the Bylaws to prevent congregants from making requests like ours.
FACT: On 10/8, we amended our request: to be permitted to send a mass email to all members via the church’s established email list. In other words, we would never see or possess anyone’s personal information.
FACT: The Board did not comply with our original request or our amended request, nor did they provide evidence of an exemption. In other words, the church willfully broke Oregon Law to prevent us from sharing our petition with the congregation.
FACT: Privacy-minded individuals likely would have concerns about other aspects of how the church handles contact information, if only the church were transparent about it. But, the Board has ignored requests to examine its privacy practices broadly.
Please see our Member List Request Document for all relevant emails,
public announcements, the Bylaws amendment, and forum excerpts.
Reflections on Privacy and Democracy
We feel badly that some congregants heard the Board’s ominous announcements and genuinely feared for their privacy or even safety. Consider this Email re: Privacy & Political Violence from a congregant who seemed to fear that the CAT’s possession of the directory would lead to a leak of personal information online, which would lead to congregants becoming the target of political violence.
We contend that widespread fear could have been avoided if only the Board had worked directly with the Congregant Action Team to enable direct communication with the congregation by email—which was the only thing we wanted, and it was exactly what the Board wished to prevent.
The irony of the whole panic is that the congregant directory is shared as a matter of routine with many congregants, including the whole Lay Ministry team and Nominating Committee. The directory is shared as a PDF, such that anyone who possesses it has it forever, not just for the duration of their service as a church volunteer. And, the directory includes the information of non-members and even visitors. Based on the reaction to our request, we suspect that many congregants do not realize that their information already is shared widely, and not in a secure format.
Instead of re-examining its information-sharing practices broadly, the Board is focusing narrowly on a Bylaws amendment that would exempt the church from providing the member list upon request. The amendment was explained at a forum on 1/26, and several congregants offered thoughtful questions and concerns. (Read the explanation and comments: 1/26 Forum Excerpts About Member List Amendment.)
We’ll highlight an objection from a congregant who, ironically, is a non-Trustee member of the Governance Committee, an outspoken defender of the ministers, and a critic of the Congregant Action Team (1/26 Forum Excerpts, p. 5; livestream 1:21:25):
I think prohibiting access to the membership list is anti-democratic. We have provisions for people to petition to be candidates for the Board. If you can’t reach out to congregants to request that they support your petition, which requires 5% of membership, it’s much more difficult for congregants to do that.
I’d like to see the board consider options, such as letting people opt out of release of their membership information. But personally, I would feel my rights were being denied if the Board prohibits members from reaching me in regard to issues or their request for candidacy or whatever.
Well said. How sad that the Board’s “solution” to privacy concerns is to design anti-democratic barriers for the Congregant Action Team and then codify those barriers in the Bylaws.