Support the Café

Search our Site

A continuing UTO board member makes a case for change

A continuing UTO board member makes a case for change

One of the difficulties in making sense of the dispute that caused four members of the board of the United Thank Offering to resign in protest over revisions to their bylaws and a new memorandum of understanding drafted by staff members of the Church Center staff is that few of the remaining members of the UTO board have had much to say in public.

That changed a bit this week when Anne Gordon Curran, a United Thank Offering member-at-large from the Diocese of Virginia who is in her second term released a statement explaining why she believes some changes are required in the bylaws of the UTO. We reprint the statement in full.

I have served on the UTO Board for 4 years now, which included active participation in the work and writing of the “Theology of Thankfulness” as a subcommittee of the Ad Hoc INC 055 Task Force with Sarah Carver and Marge Burke. In my time on the UTO Committee/Board, 2009-2012, I began to read about the history of UTO and its development in the Episcopal Church (DFMS) as a part of the Department of Mission and its relationship to the Women’s Auxiliary, Women of the Church and ultimately the Episcopal Church Women; and how it has been a vital ministry of the Church. UTO has represented to the Church financial support when there were requested needs in times of social change and growth as well as the millions of dollars that have supported mission both foreign and domestic since 1883 when the first offering was taken at General Convention in the amount of $371.27 and divided between domestic and foreign fields.

The United Thank Offering has always been under the Department of Mission with the beginning defined by the hiring of Miss Mary Emory as Secretary in 1872. She was hired by authorization of Executive Council to establish a Woman’s Auxiliary to increase funds for the mission fields in the Episcopal Church. As you know, the women, with a challenging beginning, have done a remarkable job over the years. With its energy based in prayers of thanksgiving and the development and ultimate patent of the Blue Box in 1891 representing individual gifts offered through daily thanksgivings, the money generated became the major support resource for mission in the Church. Over the years changes were made in the structure of the United Offering, ultimately the United Thank Offering as designated by resolution at General Convention in 1967. At that time UTO became an organization of the entire Church, even though it was managed by the women of the Church but still under the Department of Mission and Executive Council. The women never held the money, however. DFMS always did, but the “feeling” was that since the women made the decisions about how the money was to be disbursed for granting that the funds were theirs. They were always good stewards and kept impeccable records.

In 1970 the new UTO Committee structure came into effect with representatives from the IX Provinces of the Church, two members from the former Committee of Women, one from Executive Council and 1 from the Lay Ministries Committee (a male). The UTO Committee was responsible to Executive Council with recommendations coming from ECW Triennial. This structure basically remained the same until 2008 when Executive Council, and a tax lawyer thereon, learned that UTO and other organizations of the Church were not operating in compliance with current tax laws to continue to fit the criteria for tax exempt status for their funds. Executive Council eventually decided that UTO was too important a ministry in mission of the Episcopal Church (DFMS) to go the route of a 501(c)(3) organization and requested that a comprehensive study be undertaken to see how this could be remedied. That is when they established the Ad Hoc INC 055 Task Force in October 2008, appointing 10 people in various areas of the Church primarily to show the relevance of the ministry of UTO to DFMS as a funding source for mission in the Church.

This background shows, to me, not a takeover of funds which the UTO Committee has generated over the years, but it shows that the Church in good faith and benefit has invested funds raised by individuals and bequests in the name of the United Thank Offering and has assisted in that effort to help those funds grow for the benefit of mission. With the Memorial and Gift Trust Fund, established in 1989, to support the work of the committee while it continued to gather funds through Blue Box giving with semi-annual ingatherings, the work of the UTO Committee was supported by trust funds for its operations. The monies, however, remained invested in DFMS earning interest, and the organization continued to be governed by Executive Council. A viable question became how could UTO remain under DFMS when its board members were elected by only one part of the Church, the volunteer based organization of the Episcopal Church Women, and be a viable organization of DFMS? According to the tax laws, the organizations of the Church must show legal connections and lines of authority and responsibility to DFMS to be in compliance with IRS regulations which offers the benefit of tax free status. It was clear from the request to the study committee what the goals were and they did a good job showing a relationship through their research and writing and a relevance to mission in the Church. The governing documents, however, were not in compliance. I do not know why that was not recognized in the study group nor why it was not noticed by Executive Council or General Convention, as each body approved the documents along the way. The study was approved by General Convention in its entirety in July 2012 and UTO became officially a board of the Episcopal Church.

During this journey there was turnover in the legal department of the Church; a new chief operating office was hired; a new Director of Mission was hired…..two of these positions were filled after the study was done but not yet approved. The legal position was filled just before General Convention 2012. They were not aware of the details of the bylaws until the UTO Board sent the documents before a July 2013 meeting with the Presiding Bishop and other DFMS leaders. That opened the door for a good look. If our documents stay the way they were written in the study, we are not a legal entity of DFMS. We cannot be defined by another volunteer group (ECW) for our membership nor for our financial accountability. We must work, as a volunteer board, directly under the staff of DFMS and subject to their rules and procedures. “Our money” has always been the money of DFMS.

My summary is that UTO is experiencing a time of major change and clarity. When I look at the history of UTO, I see shifts and realignments but no real changes to the basics….we have always been a volunteer entity of the Episcopal Church whose funds are held and invested in DFMS, and we have always been under the Executive Council for our governance. DFMS being a church organization run primarily by church people and a huge volunteer force, the Episcopal Church has not always had the best alliances in place but they have done the best they could with the understanding they had at the time. At this time in history when funds and support are a challenge to the organization at large, the Church has tried to be good stewards of what they have and reset priorities to make the business of the Church work for all. UTO funds are designated and cannot be used for anything other than UTO work and granting. We ARE the largest mission funding source of the Episcopal Church and I believe the powers that be want to protect that, hence the study and ultimately the required changes proposed for our legal documents. I see no way around this definition for UTO’s relationship to DFMS. In fact, I see it as assurance that we can go forward with security, changing some of our alliances and responsibilities accordingly. Our relationship to ECW as a part of how we are formed and function, cannot continue as they are a volunteer organization of the Church also. They are currently having to show how they are tied to the Church legally as well to be able to keep their funds invested in DFMS. It likely will be a more difficult task for them because they are a 501(c)(3) organization. They are in fact defined as independent. We are not.

When I look at the whole picture, I am proud to be a part of UTO at this time in history. It is a time of change and for the better, I believe. It brings security for UTO to have us so clearly defined to the entity which allowed and encouraged and supported this ministry to exist in the first place. Having permanent staff in New York as the working and legal connection for the work that we do….granting, publications, Face to Face, etc… allows for easier transitions between board changes in each triennium. Yes, I believe that we will still be doing most of what we have done in the past but with a more interdependent relationship with the mission staff at DFMS. Now we will be a part of General Convention and I am not sure how that works at the Triennial/General Convention meetings. I am not clear on what our presence can be. Having staff in the Church Center with oversight and responsibilities for the management of UTO as a ministry of the whole Church, lends continuity and connectedness to UTO for the changing Board. We will not have to keep reinventing the wheel of UTO according to personalities and leadership, strong and weak, which should lend more stability to our job. Just think about it, like women who have moved from the kitchens and pews to be representing the Episcopal Church as deputies, priests, bishops and ultimately the Presiding Bishop, we have moved from a secretary to the Department of Mission to be an organization with full inclusion in General Convention. As the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls has reminded us, quoting our recent past President, Sarita Redd: “DFMS is UTO and UTO is DFMS”. We have said this ourselves….UTO is the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church is UTO. We pray, we give and we support mission in the world. What more can we want?

Thank you for listening and in God’s peace with abundant thanksgivings,

Anne Gordon Curran

Member at Large for Africa, UTO Board

September 12, 2013


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John B. Chilton

Glad to be reassured on that point, because “ELECTED” looked like diminishing to me. Thank goodness I can be wrong about a fact and still be heard. And we can disagree and we don’t have to question motives, competence or autonomy.

Suggested reading for me and us all, in case it applies:

tobias haller

The ECW website has this note in the upper right:

Donations may be mailed, payable to DFMS, in care of Kathy Mank

9559 Kelly Drive

Loveland, Ohio, 45140

Please do not send ECW donations directly to the National Church.

This does not sound like ECW is a corporation, let alone registered as a 501(c)3.

Elizabeth Kaeton

Not to diminish, Jim. I’m not into that. Even with people with whom I disagree. It was to distinguish.

Jim Naughton

Not trying to choose a side here, but Ms. Gordon Curran is an at large member of the board, not an appointed member. She was elected to her position by the other members of the board. In this, she is like Georgie White, one of the four members who resigned in protest.

If there were attempts to diminish Ms White by implying she was not a true member of the board, because she was not a provincial representative, I missed them.

Elizabeth Kaeton

I want to underscore what Ann Fontaine wrote. Please read, mark, compare, contrast and inwardly digest the statement from (appointed UTO board member) Ms. Gordon Curran and that of the five ELECTED Provincial leaders. You can find it here:

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café