A continuing UTO board member makes a case for change

by

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

Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail
newest oldest
Notify of
John B. Chilton
Guest
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:

https://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/relationships/ten_tips_on_addressing_conflic.php

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
tobias haller
Guest
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.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Elizabeth Kaeton
Guest
Elizabeth Kaeton

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

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jim Naughton
Guest
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.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Elizabeth Kaeton
Guest
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: http://125-years.blogspot.com/2013/09/0-false-18-pt-18-pt-0-0-false-false_14.html

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Elizabeth Kaeton
Guest
Elizabeth Kaeton

The statement from 5 elected provincial members makes it pretty clear that Ms. Gordon Curran, (in an appointed, not elected position), is in the decided minority.

I also question her statement that ECW is an independent 501 (c) (3). I do not believe that it is. Perhaps she is confused. It's easy enough to do. I believe that ECW operates under the IRS standing of 815, the way many organizations affiliated with TEC do. The 11 member independent Episcopal organizations who are part of The Consultation - IntegrityUSA, The Episcopal Women's Caucus, Union of Black Episcopalians, etc., - have members who are Episcopalian, but the organizations have independent 501 (c)(3) status. Not so, I believe, with ECW, as Ms. Gordon Curran states.

The Board of the UTO entered into good faith negotiations with "the leadership" of 815, given the parameters of advice given by the Advisory Committee appointed by Executive Council, whose report is in the 2012 Blue Book. This same body advised by-law changes which were approved by General Convention. It appears the good faith of the UTO Board members was not well placed. Well, except for those who see mission as raising money with no decision making into how that money is distributed. It's so sad, I believe it makes Jesus weep.

I see no other way forward for UTO, given this grave breach of trust, than for the board of UTO to seek independent financial status with the IRS, while remaining interdependent with TEC in the same way that ER&D does.

Finally, I would point out that saying, “DFMS is UTO and UTO is DFMS” (from the COO) is different from saying "UTO is the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church is UTO". (from the former, now deceased President of the UTO). It's a subtle but important difference. The first speaks of a fiduciary relationship; the second speaks of a spiritual, community relationship.

And alas, therein lies the rub.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Michael Russell
Guest
Michael Russell

I suspect this will become a classic case study of how to take the wind out of the sails of an effective fundraising powerhouse.

If the provincial reps timeline is accurate and UTO asked to be spun off and were refused, then is outcome is tragic.

Most Rectors and charitable fund raisers learn that you never kill a "cash cow". I fear that this is what has just happened.

No nimble, no innovation, no creative reorganization. Do we really expect anything to come with the present leadership?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Priscilla Cardinale
Guest
Priscilla Cardinale

I am stunned by the way the concerns of the former colleagues are brushed aside and dismissed without the courtesy of addressing them directly and openly. My first, second, and third read of this statement is "thank goodness those at 815 have what it takes to keep us under their control -- we need to be told what to do and how to do it by our betters" whether that was the intent or not. I am deeply saddened by this statement and knowing that this member continues to serve tells me that the UTO will most likely become a powerless subsidiary of 815 and lose forever the autonomy of the women who have historically run it, all with open arms of welcome. May God have mercy and may God's will be done.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Ann Fontaine
Guest
Ann Fontaine

And 5 elected provincial representatives make a different case.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Ann Fontaine
Guest
Ann Fontaine

And a new blog covering the issue from the point of view of a resigned member is here.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)