Interesting. I saw this topic had grown since I posted awhile back about the sarcastic comment about a bake sale and how it was emblematic of the hypocritical atmosphere at all souls. I'm amazed, or maybe not amazed, to find one of the most compelling - and also troubling - voices in this debate lifted it from here to quote it and put it on the All Souls Facebook page to bolster her argument. This person has tirelessly defended the Minister who was pushed out, and has been unfairly attacked by another parishoner who seems to have finally (and thankfully) gone silent. But it was their toxic online volley - why didn't these people take this offline and talk over their differences in person? Or just ignore each other the way we should with bullies? - that was just as repulsive. And then once this guy seemed to finally stop posting on the page (and he too was like a pit bull and awful to read), her relentless attacks toward other people contributed equally to my disillusionment with all souls - why was this acceptable? What sort of community tolerates this? What kind of community alienates people this much that they fight it out like this? And of course, everyone that got pulled into these arguments in most cases made it worse.

I'm equally repulsed by how the Minister was pushed out as I am by the lack of genuine decency at times in this person's tone toward others - her focus is all consuming to the point that one wonders how she has time for anything else. Whenever people try to gently (or not gently) tell her this online, she pushes back.

She is to be applauded for defending the Rev. who was forced out, but someone needs to counsel her on treating people with respect, and how to persuasively argue a position without alienating potential allies and damaging the cause. There are other women of color in the community who are defending the Rev who was wronged and fearlessly talking about race at All Souls in a way that encourages dialogue. I doubt she will quote this comment on the facebook page, but perhaps she'll sit down and ask herself some hard questions about whether she really is committed to dialogue, and whether her tactics have genuinely helped the Reverend who was so deeply wronged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad she decided not to peruse the remediation plan the UCC put forward so she could stay ordained within the UCC.

She's ordained within the Baptist faith. She doesn't need the UCC and tons of UCC clergy are supporting her since this Audrey Price seems to have a vendetta going against several black clergy in the area.

I don’t think Rev. Susan is ordained in the Baptist Church. And I sincerely wish you would not denigrate other clergy here or on any other forum. It is not only unfair to those clergy, it doesn’t serve Rev. Susan well.

I'm not the one doing the denigrating; the sentiment is being expressed very strongly by many clergy of color within the UCC, as can be seen in this video which contains several local UCC ministers:

https://www.facebook.com/gshagler/videos/10214858946042825/?hc_ref=ARTVcMsspRYnsrKguYSbzEWxuC00sHFaIZk91HAnlT3wVh-cBgT7sYW2er0LlohK-EE

Her actions, and the actions of the UCC tribunal, have been held up as an example of white supremacy by many black clergy within the UCC and UUA. You seem awfully invested in defending someone who held a meeting about Reverend Susan's suspension on <i>the day that her mother died.</i>

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad she decided not to peruse the remediation plan the UCC put forward so she could stay ordained within the UCC.

She's ordained within the Baptist faith. She doesn't need the UCC and tons of UCC clergy are supporting her since this Audrey Price seems to have a vendetta going against several black clergy in the area.

I don’t think Rev. Susan is ordained in the Baptist Church. And I sincerely wish you would not denigrate other clergy here or on any other forum. It is not only unfair to those clergy, it doesn’t serve Rev. Susan well.

Longtime member here. I'm struck by the City Paper article because this isn't the first time All Souls has had a loose cannon on its governing board. Does anyne else remember the Taylar Neuvelle debacle?

Anonymous wrote:Too bad she decided not to peruse the remediation plan the UCC put forward so she could stay ordained within the UCC.

She's ordained within the Baptist faith. She doesn't need the UCC and tons of UCC clergy are supporting her since this Audrey Price seems to have a vendetta going against several black clergy in the area.

Too bad she decided not to peruse the remediation plan the UCC put forward so she could stay ordained within the UCC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She and her supporters are asking for more than what is outlined in her contract as well as wanting to circumvent the arbitration process outlined in her contract.

And the UUA is supporting her on both counts because the church was in breach of contract for not providing performance evaluations (a longstanding issue with Rob). She was underpaid and the church withheld information from her that would have allowed her to notice the issues with her compensation package.

It will be very interesting to see how this comes out in the Post.

When is the Post article expected?

Anonymous wrote:She and her supporters are asking for more than what is outlined in her contract as well as wanting to circumvent the arbitration process outlined in her contract.

And the UUA is supporting her on both counts because the church was in breach of contract for not providing performance evaluations (a longstanding issue with Rob). She was underpaid and the church withheld information from her that would have allowed her to notice the issues with her compensation package.

It will be very interesting to see how this comes out in the Post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By the way, if she was an at will employee all of your points about why she got an increase are moot. And DC is an at-will jurisdiction. Do you know if she had a contract altering the at-will arrangement? The news article says there is now a dispute over severance. She may have had a contract.

Her contract was posted on Facebook

Good. Then she should prevail on her severance claim as it would have been outlined.

She and her supporters are asking for more than what is outlined in her contract as well as wanting to circumvent the arbitration process outlined in her contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By the way, if she was an at will employee all of your points about why she got an increase are moot. And DC is an at-will jurisdiction. Do you know if she had a contract altering the at-will arrangement? The news article says there is now a dispute over severance. She may have had a contract.

Her contract was posted on Facebook

Good. Then she should prevail on her severance claim as it would have been outlined.

Anonymous wrote:

By the way, if she was an at will employee all of your points about why she got an increase are moot. And DC is an at-will jurisdiction. Do you know if she had a contract altering the at-will arrangement? The news article says there is now a dispute over severance. She may have had a contract.

Her contract was posted on Facebook

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Uh huh. For an employee with years-long performance issues? I've never seen that done, because it would undercut the case for disciplinary action, up to and including termination, just as we are seeing play out now.

The issue of being owed backpay has nothing to do with her being a performance problem. You stated that if a person is given a pay adjustment because of their pay is not inline with religious norms, they must be paid backpay. That is not true.

Whether or not she had performance issues or if this was a merit increase versus an equity adjustment has nothing to do with the point raised above. You made an incorrect statement.

By the way, if she was an at will employee all of your points about why she got an increase are moot. And DC is an at-will jurisdiction. Do you know if she had a contract altering the at-will arrangement? The news article says there is now a dispute over severance. She may have had a contract.

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Facebook commenters who've gotten almost every detail dead to Rights? Including former board members who are speaking out about a year's-long pattern of Rob dropping black staff members like an old shoe? Yeah, this reader will keep "relying" on them, especially when the current board so obviously wants to cover up their behavior and culpability in this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

As a woman of color, that is the least problematic thing to say about a Black person. Perhaps this individual meant that Board members of color go along to get along and don't like to ruffle feathers. As Black folk, we are constantly conditioned to make sure that White people are comfortable with us, and don't get offended. Instead of seeing a problem in how this poster expresses themselves, maybe ask why they refer to fellow folks of color or compare them to Ben Carson. He is an intelligient surgeon, that just happens to be in an administration that many of us don't agree with, however, in his field, he is surrounded by people that don't look like him. Food for thought.

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.

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.

Uh huh. For an employee with years-long performance issues? I've never seen that done, because it would undercut the case for disciplinary action, up to and including termination, just as we are seeing play out now.