Ministers as Bosses
This (regrettably long) article is motivated by complaints of resigning staff about how they have been treated by the ministers, when acting in the capacity of bosses.
We hope it helps you understand the structural problems as well as the history of unsuccessful efforts to improve the situation.
We reference the Governing Policies, abbreviated GP, when possible.
Background: Policy Governance
First Unitarian Church adopted policy governance (also called policy-based governance) under Rev. Marilyn Sewell. In policy governance, the Board identifies end goals that reflect the church’s mission. Meanwhile, the staff (under the Senior Minister) implements the goals. Policy governance differs from shared management, in which the Board and staff collaborate on implementation.
The pros and cons of various governance models are extensive, and we’re not equipped to discuss them all or make broad recommendations. Also, there are (of course) many ways to implement policy governance.
Here, we attempt to unpack some of the contradictions within First U’s specific implementation of policy governance with regard to staff well-being.
Minister = Boss
Under policy governance, the Senior Minister has full authority over management of the church (GP 2.3). In other words, the Senior Minister is the boss of all the staff.
The Senior Minister nominates an Executive Team (ET) to carry out church management. Our ET is Rev. Alison Miller (Senior Minister), Rev. Tom Disrud (Associate Minister), and Kathryn Estey (Church Administrator).
In theory, the composition of the ET can (and probably should) change to meet the needs of the church. The Board is tasked with ensuring that the ET is competent to manage the church (GP 2.2), but evaluations of the ET’s competence are lacking—keep reading to find out more. In reality, the ET has comprised the same three positions since Marilyn Sewell’s time.
As part of managing the staff, the ET can hire and fire without Board oversight. The ET conducts performance reviews of the staff. The ET negotiates with the union. Staff who perform religious functions (e.g., music ministry) are not protected by employment discrimination law. (Unionized staff have more protections.)
Okay, But Surely a UU Church Treats Its Employees Well…?
It’s supposed to! According to Governing Policy 3.2.4:
The Executive Team shall ensure that all staff members and volunteers are treated with dignity and fairness and shall ensure a safe working environment for staff and volunteers.
And, according to Governing Policy 2.5, the Board is supposed to ensure that the ET is doing its job:
The Board shall oversee the ministry and management of the church to determine the progress being made toward the realization of the church’s mission and to ensure that Board policies are being observed.
Governing Policy 2.5.1 specifically requires an annual evaluation of the ministry, plus collaboration with an external consultant once every three years.
In theory, if the ET were not fulfilling its obligation to staff, the Board would notice it during the annual evaluation and could address it accordingly. In practice…
The Annual Review of the Ministry is Kind of a Joke
From Nicole’s statement:
Every year, the Board conducts an annual review of the ministry, for which the Executive Team asks church employees to submit numbers and narratives. For example, how many children and youth are registered? What’s the average attendance in our classrooms on Sundays? What are some program highlights from the year?
In practice, however, this is an annual ritual of calling a thing a thing it is not. This process allows the Executive Team to write their own evaluation based on the numbers and narratives provided by various church departments. The bosses use the work of the employees to show that they, the bosses, are doing a good job. If this was an actual review, feedback from church employees would be used to determine if the Executive Team was ensuring a safe working environment for staff and volunteers in which all staff members and volunteers are treated with dignity and fairness.
Technically, the ET writes the annual review collaboratively with the Governance Committee. The final draft is presented at a Board meeting for approval from everyone else. (We cannot comment on who does the actual writing, nor does it really matter for the issue we’re exploring here.)
To corroborate Nicole’s description of the content of the evaluation, here is the actual description of the 2022-23 report’s two components (see pg 25 of the 2024-01-02 Board packet):
A detailed report from the Executive Team, including historical data on attendance and pledging throughout the past several years.
A Board-led summary of responses from an open-ended congregational survey in which a small subset of congregants give voice to their experiences of congregational life in the past year.
Component 1 seems to be exactly as Nicole described. Component 2 is, indeed, a congregational survey with a tiny sample: 64 participants in 2022-23. The results are displayed as “word clouds.” You can skim the 2022-23 evaluation for yourself to get a sense of its rigor and scope. (Again, it begins on pg 25 of the 2024-01-02 Board packet.)
Notably absent from the annual review process: input from staff about their working conditions and their experiences of being managed by the ET.
What Has Been Tried to Improve Oversight?
Staff have tried for years to institute mechanisms for Board oversight and/or the collection of feedback from staff about their bosses.
One strategy involved union negotiations. From Nicole’s statement:
With every contract negotiation between the Executive Team and the union since we unionized in 2015, the union has asked for a performance review to be included as part of the annual review of the ministry. We proposed reciprocity—yes, performance reviews for us, and performance reviews for you as bosses. Every single time, the ministers said no. They insisted that a union contract was not about their conduct as bosses, to which we responded that their conduct—who they are as ministers behind the pulpit versus who they are as bosses behind the scenes when no congregation is present to bear witness—directly impacts the working conditions of every church employee.
In 2023, outside of union negotiations, staff put together a petition to request modest, practical adjustments to a few governing policies. A relevant excerpt:
- We, the staff, under the Executive Team’s administration and alongside them, dutifully participate in the day-to-day realization of the church’s ministry. We do not believe it is possible for the Board to be able to get a holistic understanding of the ministry without some mechanism of input from the staff.
- Further we do not believe it is possible for the Board to be able to compile enough information about the members of the Executive Team as managers without some measure of staff perspective.
The petition was delivered to the Governance Committee, and it’s unclear what happened from there. The 2024-01-02 Board Packet mentions “staff input” as an agenda item, but there’s no discussion. (If anyone wants to do deeper dives on topics like this, go for it. We welcome input. Board Packets from the past two years are downloaded and searchable here.)
Staff also have made one-off requests for opportunities to provide feedback anonymously to Rev. Alison, for instance, about potential changes to staff meetings. Specifically, staff asked to provide feedback anonymously as they had already experienced poor reactions to constructive criticism, and they did not feel safe speaking openly. Rev. Alison declined on the grounds that anonymous feedback is against the guidance of the UUA. (Side note: This often-cited UUA article is worth a read. It is more nuanced than you might guess from Rev. Alison’s references to it. The article describes reasons for using “solicited confidential feedback,” mediated by a trusted person. It sounds to us like the staff’s fear of retaliation was a good reason. But, this wouldn’t be the first time that Rev. Alison applied this UUA article inappropriately.)
Future Directions
We have heard some mentions of an HR Advisory team, which apparently is up and running, according to the 2024-05-01 Board Packet. It sounds like it has potential to address some of the concerns raised by staff. We cannot find any details other than the fact of its existence. (Please send us a tip if you know more.)
Otherwise, it may be up to congregants to fight for the well-being of church staff. We know it can work—in 2014-15, pressure from congregants contributed to successful unionization, which initially was against the wishes of the ministers, Board, and UUA. It may be time to stand in solidarity with our staff once again.
This article was written by the congregant action team. We are doing our best to learn and distribute accurate information about how the church operates. Please contact us with any questions, feedback, or corrections!