All Souls UU in DC - why did Rev. Susan leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attitude of other congregants online about this situation says a lot. I can't imagine worshipping side by side with these people after seeing their true colors.

The thing is, you can say this about hard-line people on either side. This doesn’t serve the church and the respective ministers very well. Nor does it help serve the people and causes that depend on All Souls.

Now more than ever, we need institutions like All Souls — imperfect, messy, and also transformative and brave. Let’s not tear it down. Let’s work together to make it better.

You really can't say this about hard-line people on either side, since the people on one side have said some pretty racist stuff (one white male compared a light-skinned POC to Elizabeth Warren - who knew there were Trump supporters at that church?) and been super dismissive when Black women have taken the mic at community meetings to talk about racism. A former staff member said in public that it would be racist NOT to fire Black staff if they had performance issues. (What a coincidence that all three staff that Rob Hardies fired, or attempted to, in the past few years for "performance" issues were Black!)

City Paper article is poorly researched - attendance IS down (when the choir gets up from the pews to sing, the church is half empty) and I was told by multiple people involved in the weekly offertory count that the amount of money collected at services was way down. Congregants are withdrawing pledges left and right.

I’m sorry, but as a fellow congregant I disagree with you and I do think there has been harmful behavior on both sides. It is ironic that the voices who dominate the Facebook posts are unwilling to hear from dissenting voices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There absolutely has been ugly behavior on both sides. One of Rev Susan's supporters has been comparing black board members to Ben Carson.

I apparently missed this

https://www.jonettarosebarras.com/single-post/2018/02/11/THE-MOST-SEGREGATED-HOUR

wow

[Anonymous]

This is a good example of behaviors that harm the church and individuals who were elected to serve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a good example of behaviors that harm the church and individuals who were elected to serve it.

it's hard to imagine anything hurting the church more than a years-long pattern of Rob Hardies failing to provide basic performance evaluations for staff

what kind of bootleg organization are they running over there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good example of behaviors that harm the church and individuals who were elected to serve it.

it's hard to imagine anything hurting the church more than a years-long pattern of Rob Hardies failing to provide basic performance evaluations for staff

what kind of bootleg organization are they running over there?

“Bootleg”?

Yes, if such evaluations were the senior minister’s responsibility, he should have done them.

BOT members don’t deserve to be called names, but they’ll persevere. Since Rev. Susan is choosing not to remain in the UCC, maybe she will seek credentialing with another denomination. I wish her well.

ASC will be diminished but will survive, and those who stay will commit to doing the hard work required to build beloved community. That work never ends. So l

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good example of behaviors that harm the church and individuals who were elected to serve it.

it's hard to imagine anything hurting the church more than a years-long pattern of Rob Hardies failing to provide basic performance evaluations for staff

what kind of bootleg organization are they running over there?

“Bootleg”?

Yes, if such evaluations were the senior minister’s responsibility, he should have done them.

BOT members don’t deserve to be called names, but they’ll persevere. Since Rev. Susan is choosing not to remain in the UCC, maybe she will seek credentialing with another denomination. I wish her well.

ASC will be diminished but will survive, and those who stay will commit to doing the hard work required to build beloved community. That work never ends. So l

I used the word bootleg because like the OP I always vaguely wondered where the money at this church was going....I noticed peeling paint in the sanctuary despite a massive recent renovation project. If these documents on Facebook are real it seems like there are salary discrepancies, and a positive 2014 evaluation for the departing minister. But the remaining minister is in the City Paper saying these issues go back to 2013. This is some weirdness.

[Anonymous]

I would not expect the salary for a senior minister with tenure dating to 2001 to be the same as salary for an associate minister who had been at the church about 10 years longer (sorry, dates approximate). Maybe that’s not what you mean though.

Are budgets and salary data not available to members? Do members not vote on budgets?

[Anonymous]

She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues?

According to your own post, she was paid below the UU minimum rate, and the $9000 raise was to correct that. But you are also using the $9000 raise to suggest that she did not have performance issues. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways; make up your mind.

[Anonymous]

Rev Hardies held no other ministerial appointments before he came to All Souls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues?

According to your own post, she was paid below the UU minimum rate, and the $9000 raise was to correct that. But you are also using the $9000 raise to suggest that she did not have performance issues. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways; make up your mind.

Commenters on Facebook have pointed out that the UUA minimum is a nonbinding recommendation. If the raise was to correct an issue she should be getting back pay. If it wasn't, obviously it was a raise based in part on the desire to recognize performance. I'm going under the assumption that since it wasn't retroactive that it was in part a merit increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues?

According to your own post, she was paid below the UU minimum rate, and the $9000 raise was to correct that. But you are also using the $9000 raise to suggest that she did not have performance issues. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways; make up your mind.

Commenters on Facebook have pointed out that the UUA minimum is a nonbinding recommendation. If the raise was to correct an issue she should be getting back pay. If it wasn't, obviously it was a raise based in part on the desire to recognize performance. I'm going under the assumption that since it wasn't retroactive that it was in part a merit increase.

A whole lot of assumptions in there, as well as relying on "Commenters on Facebook." Knock yourself out. For my part, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rev Hardies held no other ministerial appointments before he came to All Souls?

He worked for an NGO in Latin America before going to seminary. All Souls was a very different church when he was hired. He gets a lot of credit forgrowing the congregation but a large number of members joined in order to participate in the vote "calling" Reverend Susan, and the neighborhood demographics changed so significantly that I'm not sure he can take all the credit. Many longtime congregants left during that time because of issues with Rob and I sometimes think the pews just look full because of casual attendees. And choir members. Plenty of people are only there to sing in the choirs.

There's a lot of churn among the younger set who cycle through because of a few progressive social scenes that loosely overlap with the church. It's a very different place than it was.

http://www.all-souls.org/robert-hardies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues?

According to your own post, she was paid below the UU minimum rate, and the $9000 raise was to correct that. But you are also using the $9000 raise to suggest that she did not have performance issues. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways; make up your mind.

Commenters on Facebook have pointed out that the UUA minimum is a nonbinding recommendation. If the raise was to correct an issue she should be getting back pay. If it wasn't, obviously it was a raise based in part on the desire to recognize performance. I'm going under the assumption that since it wasn't retroactive that it was in part a merit increase.

A whole lot of assumptions in there, as well as relying on "Commenters on Facebook." Knock yourself out. For my part, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Whoever heard of a salary adjustment to meet a binding minimum that wasn't retroactive? Either she's owed back pay or it was a merit raise. Seems like you're the one trying to have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues?

According to your own post, she was paid below the UU minimum rate, and the $9000 raise was to correct that. But you are also using the $9000 raise to suggest that she did not have performance issues. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways; make up your mind.

Commenters on Facebook have pointed out that the UUA minimum is a nonbinding recommendation. If the raise was to correct an issue she should be getting back pay. If it wasn't, obviously it was a raise based in part on the desire to recognize performance. I'm going under the assumption that since it wasn't retroactive that it was in part a merit increase.

That’s not how it works. An organization can determine an employee is paid below market and increase their salary to closer to or at the market pay. No backpay would be awarded.