Fellow UUs, I recently attended the annual meeting for my large congregation and am struggling to reconcile our governance model with the 5th Principle. While I am new to this specific congregation in terms of being involved in the polity side (having smalls, it took me forever to find time and energy to formalize my membership and carve out time to attend meetings), I have extensive experience in political structures and organizing. I observed a process where the board election was essentially a ratification of a pre-determined slate. Candidates were vetted and selected by existing leadership months in advance, leaving the congregation to simply approve the list without floor nominations or competing options.
This structure clearly prioritizes vetting over actual democratic selection. It feels less like the democratic process we covenant to affirm and promote, and more like administrative gatekeeping. I am curious to hear how other congregations handle this tension. Is this "ratification model" standard for large UU churches, or do you maintain mechanisms that allow the congregation to genuinely choose its leadership rather than just approving it?
How are congregations squaring the presence of such rigid and formal gatekeeping processes with the principles/JETPIG?
Is this something I should bring up to our Board President to start a discussion on reflecting on how our processes and procedures either affirm (or don't) our values?
EDIT: Since there seems to be an immediate focus on "usually we're begging people to serve", we did not have this issue - we had more candidates than spots.
I've been a UU for over 16 years (not that should matter, but it apparently does), I've served on a small congregation's board, I've been volunteering in various capacities for that entire time, and working on preparing myself for UU seminary.
I feel like this is a rather straight forward post that's getting misinterpreted as people get hung up on one thing or another, instead of addressing the content of the post. As an individual with autism, I communicate very directly - so I ask that people respond to the words I've written, not to ones I have not.
I served on a nominating committee once. It wasn't about, "which N people should have the honor of serving on the board?" It was about, "can we convince N people to serve on the board?" It's generally considered unpleasant and thankless work, not the sort of thing people step up to do unless a group approaches them with a message of, "yes, it seems that it needs to be you this time."
that is pretty much how I was approached.
at the time, I was one of the youngest adults around, and one of the newer adults around. they were really hot to try to have that new young perspective bullshit on the board. I said yes. I served my two-year term call, and called it a day.
We had more than enough people stand up to be considered, so this doesn't really apply.
That's impressive! I assume you don't mean literally stood up at the congregational meeting, but rather submitted their name to the nominating committee?
Correct. By the time we had gotten to the meeting, the pool had been finalized to the slate, and that was all that was presented to the congregation for a vote.
I think it was a pool of seven whittled down to three.
If it was presented for a vote, even "rubber stamp" style from your perspective, was there a time for discussion under whatever meeting guidelines your congregation uses (Robert's rules or other), and if so did you and/or others speak up? If not, why not?
If there was no invitation for discussion, that might be a good inroads for starting the discussion now for next time. Ask what meeting guidelines are being used. Find out if they are following the proper procedures of those. I honestly can't think of any guidelines that don't necessitate an offer of discussion before calling the question. But if they have found some, ask if the congregation is open to changing to a different style.
It might seem like rubber stamp to you, but that discussion period really is, or should be, an opportunity for other voices to be heard. A few years ago, we had a vote (on procedure, not people), and there was such strong opposition from only a few people (fewer than 5) that came out during the discussion that the vote was tabled. We went back and had more congregational discussion, outside of the called meeting, and it was eventually brought back for another vote.
We claim to use RRO but barely. There really wasn't an opportunity to have a discussion. And what discussion would there be - it's not a problem with the candidates, it's a problem with the process. I and I don't think anyone else wants to throw a wrench in the process of doing business simply because the procedure we used to get there leaves a lot to be desired. It's not the nominees fault, and debating procedure during a vote isn't really going to achieve anything.
Debating procedure during the vote can absolutely achieve things. That's why it's one of the steps.
It could give congregants clarity on how the slate was chosen and how/what the vetting procedure was like, it could table the vote for further discussion or review - this might or might not end with a different slate, but it would absolutely clarify things, or at the very least, it introduces the conversation to the larger congregation, so that it can be done differently in the future or explained at a deeper level to ensure everyone understands why things are done the way they are. If your concern is that not enough people are meaningfully involved in the discussion, that's how you get more discussion and open up the input.
You can make clear your problem isn't with the actual people who are on the slate, but with how the slate was created.
Normally it takes time and effort to find people willing to serve on the board. It's not so much vetting a candidate to put forward for approval versus a competitive campaign and election process, as it is simply convincing enough people to put their name in the hat so that the board can conduct its business.
"Is this something I should bring up to our Board President to start a discussion on reflecting on how our processes and procedures either affirm (or don't) our values?" Yes absolutely discuss this with the current board members and pastor. And put your name into the hat if you would like to serve, or simply begin by showing up to board meetings to get a sense of the topics they discuss or to weigh in on any pressing questions.
I wanted to post a separate response and say thank you for actually addressing the content of the post in a non patronizing way. I very much appreciate it.
I put myself into the running this round and wasn't included on the slate because the board "had other skill needs". We had more nominees than we had spots open so there wasn't an issue of not enough candidates (although that is often the case).
This information completely changes your question and what answers you should get. Along with the info that seven people presented themselves to the nominating committee for a slate of three.
I don't believe, unless the bylaws explicitly call it out, that it is the responsibility of or beneficial for our congregations to force the nominating committee to name more candidates than offices, but where there's genuine interest by multiple people, we shouldn't use bureaucracy to shut people out of participation. If you feel bureaucracy was used to keep you off the board, yes, bring it up to the board and minister
This is all dead on. 4 is really, really good- so important. I've served on my congregations nominating committee for years at this point (not consecutively, but for more than one year at a time, 3 or 4 different times). There have been occasions where someone has indicated an interest in a certain position that vetting makes clear they are not going to be a strong candidate for. We always responded with one of two options, or a combo. Average member wants a spot they are not a strong candidate for? We identify the strengths we see and offer specific roles where we think those strengths could shine. Newish or longer time but lesser involved member who wants an outsized role? (Think: less than 2 years in congregation, and/or has never served on a committee or team, has not taken a leadership role in one of our major projects, has now requested to be nominated for the presidency pipeline) We acknowledge the strengths they could bring to the presidency, and work with them on a structured plan that sets them up for a deeper understanding of the congregation and functionings of the governance that would make them better suited for the role in a few years.
That’s how it works at my church, but we almost never have more interested candidates than open spots.
There is a nominating committee made up of former board trustees that manages the process. They do solicit nominees from the congregation in the months ahead of the congregational meeting at which board trustees are elected (and self-nomination is allowed), but usually the people who end up agreeing to serve on the board are people who were approached directly by the board nominating committee and asked to serve. The upside of the nominating committee being all former board members is, they can answer questions about how the board functions and what type of work the board typically does, and they’re not the current board trustees so there’s a bit of separation there.
I serve on the board and it would never have occurred to me to put myself forward, so I’m actually glad that I was approached in that way.
If you’re regularly getting more nominees than board spots, yeah, it makes sense to ask the current board what they are doing to make sure that all nominees get fair consideration and that the voting members of the congregation get a chance to understand what each of them offer. In the past my church has offered a “candidate packet” with a bio written by each nominee in lieu of having a town hall or debate type event.
I guess i would ask who in "leadership" selected the slate. In our congregation, the slate is put together by the nominating committee. That is their role. Nominating committee is comprised of two last presidents (two year terms) of the board and one lay member in good standing, who serves a 3 year term. NomCom assembles and vets the slate and then presents it to the board. If the board approves, it goes to the congregational meeting for the vote. During the discussion period, before the question is called, there is an invitation for nominations from the floor. This has never once happened in my 20+ years as an adult member of the congregation, but I suppose anything could happen. 😅
I don't view this as rubber stamping in the least. The congregation, as a collective, has chosen different people to represent the will of the congregation in a variety of ways. There is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement through this process. It seems so inefficient to have open voting on every role.
I can't imagine how it would work to go to the meeting without a slate and fill directly from the floor. How on earth/when would vetting happen?
If your concern is more not understanding why yourself or others weren't selected for the slate, I'd recommend having a conversation directly with the leadership or committee responsible for building the slate. Ask what they are looking for specifically for whatever position, and what lay opportunities they see for you to work on honing those skills before the next cycle. If you don't get satisfactory feedback there, go to the minister for guidance.
I have extensive experience in nonprofit organizations and operations.
Having a slate of candidates from the nominating committee is not unique to UU. I shudder to think of how long a congregation meeting would be if the vibe was “We’ll just sit here until we get another two people to run…”
If you’d like a role in selecting candidates, ask to join the nominating committee. If you’d like to run, put your name forward to the committee or run from the floor.
None of this is related to the questions in the post.
Reading your responses, the situation is much more clear.
Wishing you the best.
I can assure you that whatever clarity you think you have achieved, you haven't.
But thanks for participating I guess.
Hey, there is a difference between being blunt and being snarky. You’re being snarky in this comment.
Yes, and please report it to us if it happens again.
Should I report when people make gross assumptions based on reading into comments then?
That's an assumption YOU are making about others, not necessarily the truth. Perhaps you have a communication problem. Or are you just expecting others to simply agree with you that your congregation is corrupt because you disagree with how it conducts its business? Why not just leave it?
Are you also new to Unitarian Universalism? Because it seems like what’s missing from your post is an understanding of how deeply relational our congregation and our faith are. It’s also evident in your use of the two words in your title, which strike me as problematic.
Since covenant is our foundation, our congregations (at their best, and in their integrity) operate from a baseline of trust and teamwork. That means that the nominating committee — normally this is the body that chooses future board members, etc., but you could also substitute ministerial search committee when a new minister needs to be hired or called, etc.— are trusted to draw upon their relationships with and knowledge of congregational members. Who has the particular skills needed for the available leadership opportunities? Who is interested in meeting those needs? The committee does their thoughtful work and boom: That’s how you get a slate at an annual meetings.
As a minister, have I ever seen nominations arise from the floor? Sure. No problem. I’ve even witnessed delightful surprises. But it’s not an undermining of “democracy” for the nominating committee or other leaders to spend weeks having conversations with members, and asking them to serve in various capacities. The slate doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice, as a person voting in the pews. It means that the congregations representatives have done what they’ve been asked to do and you can vote to support it or not.
It honestly sounds like your experience and expectations regarding political structures, whatever that means, need to be realigned with how our polity is manifested in congregations across the board (because I’m pretty sure my comments apply in various sizes of congregations).
Been a UU for going on 16+ years now, and I've served on a much smaller congregation's board. So I am familiar with that relationship.
Friendly advice - saying something is problematic without specifically calling out what words you're speaking of is something one should avoid.
Your entire response is rather patronizing. For a minister, I would actually expect better.
This is pretty much the way our congregation works. I think it’s important that 1) the Nominating Committee announce that they will be looking for candidates to include in the slate in early spring, so people can put their names forward, and 2) nominations from the floor be allowed.
We've debated this is our congregation. Our committee nominates an uncontested slate, but our bylaws allow candidates to be self-nominated outside the vetting process by gathering signatures. Is that true in yours? While I realize this isn't the case in your experience, our congregation (similar to what others have commented) is usually more focused on filling the available slots than having too many interested.
One question -- you mentioned that "we had more candidates than spots" -- but I wonder if those multiple candidates were interested in running against each other in a contested election? In other words, if the nominating committee had decided to nominate "Jane" for the board but then received interest from another member would Jane still be interested, or would she have likely said "I was willing to do this if you needed, but since you don't, I'll drop out."
Our church is the same, and not only that but we are presented the final nominees in all positions and vote on them all at once. Board, finance committee, moderators, nominating committee....you vote yes for all 7 at one or no. Obviously they always get yeses.
My partner is on the board and it drives them up a wall. They have exactly your issue-- it's undemocratic and opaque. Not to mention, then it's up to just the nominating committee (2 people I think) to decide the leadership of our congregation? Especially timely for us as we firmly believe one half of the nominating committee is a notorious "I know your life and workload better than you do" individual and has a tendency of deciding if someone can do a job (usually not) before that person is ever asked.
Anywho, validating the frustration here. I'm not sure there's a realistic better answer, because as others have said, if we all sat around until two+ people ran, it could be a nightmare. Not to mention how tense it could get with campaigns. Ooph. Or popularity contests (not to say it isn't already to some degree a popularity contest, but at least there are people dedicated (theoretically) to looking past that to ability and temperament to serve in a role most of the congregation knows nothing about.)
Our votes are also not anonymous, which frustrates me about this specifically, along with the vote en-masse.
I’m not sure how you define “large church”. My congregation has its own building and about 100 congregants that worship on a regular basis. I can’t remember the official membership numbers.
Our congregation rarely has the luxury of choice for board members, although I think we approached that this year - more that we had too many people offering to be member at large and not enough people offering to be executive.
But I am trying to imagine a time where we did have a large enough group volunteer to be able choose from.
Democracy isn’t just about voting. It can be expressed through consensus building, through conversation and participation. It is the attempt to avoid consolidation of power and invite a diversity of perspectives.
So with that said, I could be comfortable with a process that involves more pre-AGM vetting, provided that are guardrails. That might be things like term limits that are adhered to, clear communication of expectations to prospective members, and a periodic review of policies and procedures that might inadvertently exclude participants. Elections can become hugely divisive particularly if factions emerge - a process that seeks to engage as many different perspectives without introducing relationship-harming conflict seems to be the goal - not just elections for the sake of elections.
I could go on, but I have to get back to work.
I think asking more questions to understand what protections are in place and how vetting works might be a good starting place. You might try talking to your minister first, and explain your concerns.
New to this too, was elected president by default last year. Previous president just wasn’t interested, had to select, vet and beg all the other officers that were “elected” or rather confirmed my selections. This wasn’t by choice it was because no one else stepped up. We are a very small fellowship 30 or so current members. Not many want to serve and a few of those that do don’t have a clue what it takes to pay bills, create programs, do outreach etc. that’s not the frustrating part, the frustrating part is we ran a new comers boot camp and only had 1-2 show up each season, we announced an officers candidate training school and had 0 people sign up. So what else are we supposed to do? Rhetorical, we do the best we can with what we’ve got.
The process you describe here is very similar at my church. The nominating committee chooses a slate of candidates that is equal to the number of open seats on the board, so that the board election is not a contested election. The congregation then ratifies the slate.
There is usually little or no dissent in congregational votes. These votes are expected to be nearly unanimous. And I have experienced a congregational leader get a little upset when there was a dissenting vote: she wanted to know who voted against the leadership's preference, with the implication being that this person (who cast the dissenting vote) was a potential problem.
This type of process might be called a consensus process (or at least a consensus among the church leadership group). And maybe the process is typical of "congregational" churches. But it obviously doesn't encourage healthy discussion and debate, and representation of differing viewpoints. While commitment to "the use of the democratic process within our congregations" was explicitly affirmed in the Seven Principles, I believe that this language was initially dropped from the JETPIG statement which replaced them, then added back in. The current statement (https://www.uua.org/files/2025-09/article\_2\_final.pdf) reads: "We support the use of inclusive democratic processes to make decisions within our congregations, our Association, and society at large."