Comments on: Peter Morales’ “Repelling fewer visitors” can’t be easily dismissed — an endorsement

By: juuggernaut

juuggernaut — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:23:45 +0000

Larry, I deleted the paragraph wondering about your participation. I’m glad you issued this correction because others must have scratched their head about a possible connection here as well, in both cases, it looked odd.
As for motives, I’m afraid we’re not in some spiritual vacuum but regardless of our overarching good intentions we’re still talking about institutional politics where motives on different levels will always play a role.

By: Larry Ladd

Larry Ladd — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:00:42 +0000

Martin,
This is Larry Ladd. There are important lessons to be learned from the Pathways start-up. We should focus on those lessons as we chart our growth for the future. Personal attacks aren’t helpful in learning from the Pathways experience nor in a campaign for UUA president.
I was not in a personal relationship with Laurel Hallman at the time I was asked to participate in an independent review of lessons to be learned from the Pathways experience. Had I been in such a relationship I would not have agreed to serve on the panel. I was appointed because of my long-term demonstrated commitment to UU growth and my established track record of independence from the administration. My other UU colleague on the panel, Rev. Stephan Papa, can hardly have been seen as “close to President Sinkford” at the time of his appointment to the panel. (Papa was later appointed, well after his Pathways review service, to the UUA development staff but that is coincidental.) All three members of the Pathways review commission acted in the best interests of liberal religion and need not have their motives questioned.
Larry Ladd

By: juuggernaut

juuggernaut — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:19:18 +0000

I'm glad you qualified your remark about Rev. David with "most visible faces". The planning for Pathways began in 2000, three years before Rev. David was even hired. The key decisions had already been made. The report is eager to point out that the impetus for Pathways came from several places. The money, however, came from "entrepreneurial UU donors in the First Unitarian Church of Dallas (Rev. Hallman's) who were willing to underwrite most of the projected $1. million budget" as Rev. Hallman and President Sinkford write in their co-signed "Pathways transitions" letter and FAQ dated Oct. 21 2005. You only raise that kind of money if the donors not only trust you but if they trust that you will have influence over the process. It may be an overstatement, as I worded it in a previous revision that "it was Laurel Hallman's project", given how many people were involved but she was a member of the steering committee and members of her congregation participated in several roles. Sure, the report offers useful lessons and perspectives, but its style and approach does not resemble something an emotionally uninvolved external reviewer would have produced. At the very least we would have seen a direct juxtaposition of goals and results, of advice available at the time of planning, and advice taken, etc. I would also think that a professional review would contain a section that did ask specifically whose decisions were responsible (if perhaps classified). The existing review stresses that this was deliberately not done for a number of good reasons, which they list. The one reason not listed is of course that it would harm the career prospects of its main player who at the time (Summer of 2006) had already decided to run for president of the UUA. Of course, a church is not a business, and much of the work of its enterprising ministers and lay leaders is unpaid and in addition to a long list of their core obligations. Nobody wants to stifle such enthusiasm. But when it comes to really big projects paid for with other people's money, like leading the UUA which is paid for by all of us, better standards than being guided by an optimistic vision are required.

By: Vilanova

Vilanova — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:00:48 +0000

It is certainly strange that one of the visible faces of the Pathways fiasco is now giving lessons about how growth should be implemented and attacking those who, like Morales, have a very clear and impressive record of leading a successful and growing congregation one visitor at a time.

By: juuggernaut

juuggernaut — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:55:41 +0000

It may well be semantics. Pick “confronting realities”. The trouble with realities is: they’re real. Ignore them at you peril. A leader has a different obligation than an individual who may choose to take a huge gamble or for whom a wait and see attitude may be justified for other reasons.

I find those realities shocking because they promise harshly negative outcomes for UU as a whole that clearly indicate that strategic, well thought out action is required.

More importantly, Peter Morales sees these impending changes as opportunities that will allow us to live up to our ideals. Crises can be empowering, with the right kind of leadership.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:57:47 +0000

I’ll leave comments on the rest of the post for a time when I can respond more thoughtfully, but I really don’t want a UUA president who is going to shock congregations into anything, including facing realities. There are other ways to handle things. Perhaps just a wording flub, but I sure hope Peter Morales isn’t a “I’ll shock congregations into anything” kind of president.