2023 Moving Apart; Together with Joy
Planning Committee Sponsored

Over four years ago, the Canadian Unitarian Council began a long-range planning process. They realized that unless they consciously chose their future direction, that direction could be chosen by others, or by other events. The CUC Board made the commitment to engage every Canadian congregation in the process to assess what services they wanted and needed, and from whom they wished to receive those services.

The results of that consultative process led to the decision that Canadian congregations wanted to be served by their Canadian association. Because of differences in culture, demographics, and style, frequently materials and programs developed by the UUA by Americans were not suitable for Canada’s different approach and culture. Curricula that focus on US stories, or talked about US national values did not translate well across the border, and the demographic assumptions that are useful in deciding where to start new congregations in the States do not apply to the different Canadian context.

Rev. Tracey Robinson-Harris Rev. Brian Kiely

With this realization, the CUC Board began conversations with the UUA Board about the best way in which to proceed. The negotiations were long and complicated, but both the Rev. Brian Kiely, member of the CUC Board, and the Rev. Tracey Robinson-Harris, Acting Director of the Department of Congregational, District and Extension Services for the UUA, stated that they were marked by fellowship and goodwill. The basic agreement between the CUC and the UUA was negotiated during the 2000-01 year, which provides for the CUC becoming the service delivery arm for most services for Canadian congregations. Some services will still be continentally based, and the primary responsibility of the UUA, but for the most part, the CUC and the UUA will be separate, autonomous associations. While some liken it to a divorce, Kiely said that it is more like the child growing up and going off to college -- it is time for the CUC to try its own wings.

During 2001-02, many of the details of the plan were discussed and settled. The transition team was made up of Mary Bennett, Executive Director of the CUC, John Slattery, former President of the CUC, Kiely, Robinson-Harris, the Rev. Olivia Holmes, Director of International Relations for the UUA, and Gini Courter, UUA Trustee and chair of the Finance Committee.

Robinson-Harris stated that there were more details than any of the participants could imagine. She outlined the basic areas of discussion and agreement:

• How the Annual Program Fund District Grants will be paid to those districts that have been bi-national, so that the economic impact of the loss of the Canadian congregations and their contributions will be phased in, in order to lessen the economic impact;
• Mailings -- what gets mailed to whom, by whom, how often, when, and how these decisions are made;
• Publications -- which publications will be accessed on both sides of the border, and how Skinner House, for example, may aid all participants;
• Information technology -- what data is maintained by which body, and what is shared; how information about ministers will be shared appropriately during the search process, and what gets mailed to ministers on which side of the border;
• Email lists -- how are these managed, who maintains them, and questions of access and support;
• General Assembly -- its programs, participants, and location;
• Continental service delivery in those areas that will still be the primary responsibility of the UUA -- support for ordained ministry and those seeking ordination; young adult and campus ministry; youth office and services provided to youth; with a particular understanding that although change will occur on the district level, these continental services will continue;
• Access to religious education resources -- agreements about materials published by the UUA, and although they are not a UUA program, continued access to Renaissance modules that provide training for religious educators;
• New congregation formation and growth -- shifts to the CUC and its service delivery system, while the UUA will continue to honor the commitments already made to congregations in Canada;
• Process for the CUC to access other services from the UUA that are not currently covered by the agreement, such as on a fee for service basis
• Other funding sources -- that the CUC and UUA will both have unfettered access to grant applications to funding vehicles such as the Veatch grant program of the Shelter Rock congregation.

It was pointed out that on this year’s business agenda, there are several bylaw changes that will be considered that would remove any legal impediments to the fulfillment of the agreement between the CUC and the UUA and its implementation.

Kiely outlined how the CUC will be organizing its service delivery. Rather than having districts, Canada will be divided into four service delivery areas, divided geographically as British Columbia, the prairie provinces, central Ontario, and the east (from eastern Ontario through the Maritime provinces). Two regional directors will be hired, each serving approximately half time in each of two regions. There will also be a full time director of lifespan learning. These changes will result in Canadian congregations receiving about 1/3 more time of service delivery personnel.

Kiely also said that when this plan was presented to the delegates of the Annual General Meeting of the CUC in Kelowna, BC, in May, the decision to proceed with the plan was accepted unanimously, although some delegates chose not to vote. In fact, no delegate rose to speak against the plan. Many who spoke said that although they were initially opposed to the idea of separating from the UUA, they now believed it might work and were cautiously optimistic. During questions from the workshop participants, it was pointed out that the UUA has no provision to remove congregations from membership other than through their failure to file their reports over a period of time. Therefore, every Canadian congregation will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to continue their membership in the UUA. However, regardless of their membership choice, service delivery to congregations located in Canada will be by the CUC. Canadian congregations will receive a letter from the UUA, at the behest of the CUC, inviting them to make this difficult decision.

Both Robinson-Harris and Kiely acknowledged that while there is excitement about the new plans, there is also sorrow at the impending loss of good connections and easier interactions between congregations on both sides of the border. Many cross-border districts are already planning how to maintain these close connections, and are expecting to participate jointly in projects that benefit both Canadians and Americans. Although there was at times frustrations felt by both the CUC and the UUA about their previous relationships, the process of negotiation and implementation of the plan have left both bodies feeling positive about each other, and intent upon maintaining good, healthy relationships. As the new relationship goes forward, there may still be some details to be worked out, but both sides know that the friendship and trust of the past two years will continue in the future.

Reporter Lisa Presley, Editor Jone Johnson Lewis, Web Designer Julie Albanese

General Assembly 2002 · Program Grid 2002 · General Assembly Home