{"id":13384,"date":"2026-05-28T16:10:08","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T20:10:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.danielharper.org\/yauu\/?p=13384"},"modified":"2026-05-28T16:13:33","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T20:13:33","slug":"another-one-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.danielharper.org\/yauu\/2026\/05\/another-one-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Another one"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Cecelia Kingman, representing the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), has sent another email notice to congregational leaders:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“I am writing to inform you that the Ministerial Fellowship Committee voted recently to remove the Rev. Cory Lovell from fellowship with the Unitarian Universalist Association for violating the following Ethical Standards from the UUMA Code of Conduct:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“‘#5 I will not engage in racist or oppressive actions or speech. I will demonstrate respect, compassion, and equitable treatment to everyone both within and outside of my ministerial context, including clergy colleagues, staff, those I serve and anyone who may disagree with <\/em>me.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“#8 specifically the part which reads: ‘I will refrain from relating to colleagues, staff, and members of the congregation or constituents of the setting in which I serve in a manner that creates an intimidating, hostile or oppressive environment. I will not engage in bullying behavior or emotional abuse, further defined in the Addendum of these Guidelines.’<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“#9 specifically the part which reads: ‘I will not take advantage of those I serve, or damage the integrity of any congregation, agency, or enterprise in which I serve.’<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This fellowship review occurred after an extensive investigation by an independent investigator….”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know nothing about this situation. I did find that UU World<\/em> magazine carried a notice of Cory Lovell’s ordination in their Spring\/Summer 2024 issue; he was ordained by the Marin, Calif., congregation, and appears to have been working there since then. And as usual, I post this here because the UUA page listing people removed from fellowship is no longer publicly accessible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again, reading one of these notices has gotten me thinking about the MFC process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Once again I’d be curious to know who the “independent investigator” was. I don’t need to know the person’s name (I assume it was one person), but I would like to know what training or qualifications that person has, and how they are chosen. The “Rules and Policies of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee”<\/a> refer to a “Consultant on Ethics and Safety,” and presumably this is who carried out the independent investigation mentioned in this email; but again, how are they selected, and on the basis of what qualifications. (For reference, at the end of this post, I’ll paste in the complaint process as described in the MFC “Rules.”)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, I was interested to see that the MFC removed Lovell from fellowship based on the guidelines of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association (UUMA). From a organizational point of view, the UUMA is a separate and independent 501(c)3 nonprofit organization from the UUA. And yet, according to the “Rules and Policies of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee”:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

” 17. B. Determinations of unbecoming conduct, incompetence, ethical misconduct and\/or other specified cause shall be governed by the rules of Fellowship and the Code of Conduct of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association (UUMA) in force at the time of the acts under review.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And further, the Appendix to MFC Policies (adopted January 2023), under “Thresholds for Misconduct and Incompetence > Ministerial Misconduct” it states that ministerial misconduct will be defined by a:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u2026[d]emonstrated pattern of behavior which is prohibited or discouraged by the UUMA Code of Ethics\u2026.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the UUMA Code of Conduct becomes a binding document for the MFC and the UUA. This is interesting, because this means that the ministers’ professional organization (which is entirely separate from the UUA) gets to determine which infractions can cause ministers to be disciplined by the UUA. The current UUMA Code of Conduct seems to be pretty good (not perfect, but pretty good), so at present having the UUA rely on the UUMA’s code of conduct seems OK to me. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that if the UUMA were to revise their Code of Conduct in unfortunate ways, the UUA always has the option of instructing the MFC to come up with a different code of conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, I have to say I’m glad I don’t have to serve on the MFC. I actually got asked to serve a couple of decades ago \u2014 I’m fellowshipped as a minister of religious education (MRE), and they needed an MRE \u2014 but I refused because I knew I have neither the patience nor the stomach for the difficult work they do. Not that that absolved me of all responsibility for their work. The UUA is a democratically-run organization, so it’s up to all of us to pay attention to what the MFC is doing, and to do our best to understand and monitor their processes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

As promised above, here’s the text of the complaint policy from MFC “Rules”:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“17. Procedures for Complaints Against Ministers…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“E. Complaint Investigations<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The type of investigation required by a complaint will depend upon the alleged circumstances and the type of additional information required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“If interviews are required as part of an investigation of the complainants or the minister being complained against, both parties have a right to an individual interview. The following are guidelines which are to be used by the Consultant in conducting its investigation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n