How do congregations such as ours relate to other congregations, in Canada and around the world?

Each congregation is self-governing. It elects a governing board to run the affairs of the congregation between congregational meetings, and it chooses its own minister. The ultimate authority rests with the congregational meeting, as opposed to an outside ecclesiastical authority. This self-governing process is referred to as congregational polity.

While independent, no congregation by itself can provide all the resources it needs to run its programs, such as training ministers, developing curricula for children and adults, publishing educational and promotional materials. For these and other purposes, congregations have banded together in voluntary associations. These associations are governed by boards elected by delegates from the member congregations.

As of July 2002, in Canada the majority of congregational services are provided by the Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC), our national association of approximately forty-five congregations. Only ministry, youth and young adult services are provided by the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), headquartered in Boston. The UUA has roughly 1000 member congregations in the U.S. Globally, national Unitarian and Universalist groups, such as the CUC and the UUA, are members of the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU), created in 1995 for the purpose of mutual support. The ICUU has member groups in 5 continents and 21 countries. To better understand the organizational arrangements in which we find ourselves in Canada today, it is instructive to review their evolution.

While the origins of Unitarianism reach back four hundred years to continental Europe, the first Unitarians in what is now Canada were settlers from the British Isles, the earliest record dating back to 1811, in Newfoundland. Other Unitarian immigrants came from New England. The first Unitarian congregation in Canada which has lasted until today was formed in Montreal in 1842 with the help of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association (BFUA) and the American Unitarian Association (AUA), both coincidentally founded on the same day in 1825. The help came in the form of funds, printed materials, and the first minister, who hailed from Northern Ireland. This type of support continued in attempts to found new congregations, first in eastern Canada and later in the west. Much appreciated and essential as they were, it was recognized quite early that the imported resources did not always fit the culture of our country and created the impression of a “branch plant” religion. Attempts by both Unitarians and Universalists to create a national liberal religious organization began in the early years of the 20^th century. After many failures and an equal number of fresh starts, the final push that would eventually be successful was launched in 1958.

Adding urgency to the effort to create a Canadian organization was the fact that the AUA and the Universalist Church of America (UCA), after decades of sporadic discussions, had begun formal negotiations to merge. Because almost all Canadian congregations were members of the AUA, Canadian Unitarians wanted to ensure that their interests would be taken care of in the overwhelmingly American merged organization. While not wanting to establish an independent Canadian body, they did want one that would serve distinctively national concerns and provide a national voice for Canadian Unitarians. For this purpose, after extensive discussion, the Canadian Unitarian Council was voted into being in May of 1961, at the same time that the formal merger of the AUA and the UCA into the UUA came into effect.

A UUA commission appointed to study a system for delivering services to its member congregations proposed that Canadian congregations be divided among several cross-border districts, in all of which Canadians would find themselves in a minority position. An alternative plan to have the CUC serve as a UUA district office by providing the UUA’s services to most Canadian congregations was adopted by the CUC delegates, but this decision was soon reversed for rather peculiar reasons, so the international district proposal prevailed. Instead of serving partly as a UUA district office, with professional staff and financial resources provided by the UUA, the CUC had to function as a small voluntary association with a budget of less than $1,800 (gradually increased to $8,000 by 1969) per annum provided by a UUA grant. Meanwhile, the bulk of congregational services were provided through six UUA districts. All of this was a serious impediment to building a strong national body in Canada.

Complaints during the sixties about materials sent by the UUA being irrelevant to Canadians turned into a revolt in 1969, when the UUA threatened to cut back the grant to the initial $1,800 in response to its own financial problems. Some Canadians, noting that their churches and fellowships collectively contributed more than $25,000 per annum to the UUA’s Annual Program Fund (APF), wanted the CUC to do a lot more, and—if necessary—go it alone, using some or all of the funds now being sent to the UUA At the 1969 annual meeting of the CUC, a resolution calling for a reconstitution of the CUC as an organisation funded by Canadian societies, with affiliation with the UUA, was rejected by a vote of 29 to 21. A second resolution, directing the CUC board to report to the UUA board both the dissatisfaction and a request for a greater budget allocation to permit the CUC to deliver Canadian-specific services more effectively, passed. A further resolution, a month later, at the 1969 UUA General Assembly (GA), requesting a higher budget allocation for the CUC and the addition of a Canadian trustee, elected by the CUC, to the UUA board, also passed.

Backed by these resolutions, negotiations between the CUC and the UUA culminated, in 1970, in an agreement (“the Accord”) that increased support to Canadian initiatives in social responsibility, publications, and communication. It was also agreed that a Canadian nominated by the CUC would always be on the UUA board, that the CUC would become responsible for all fundraising in Canada, and that of the approximately $30,000 raised annually by Canadian congregations the CUC would keep the first $15,000, with the next $15,000 going to the UUA. Finally, it was agreed that the UUA would withdraw its opposition to CUC membership in the International Association for Religious Freedom (IARF.) which had been a bone of contention.

Partly because of financial difficulties in many Canadian congregations in the early seventies, and partly because there wasn't much incentive for Canadians to raise money over and above the first $15,000 being retained by the CUC, total contributions fell sharply and the UUA didn’t get much. After further negotiations it was agreed in 1972 in Accord #2 that the CUC would keep the first $8,000 raised in Canada and that any amounts above that would be split evenly between the UUA and the CUC. Contributions then returned to their earlier level and the CUC’s income continued to rise.

In 1978, the UUA got the Veatch foundation which had been matching the annual contributions from American congregations to also match the contributions from Canadian congregations. Under Accord #3, the UUA would get the matching contribution, while the CUC kept all the money raised in Canada. With the additional resources, the CUC expanded its activities to include extension -- the formation of new congregations and the strengthening of existing ones.

In 1983, another funding source also matched the annual contributions from Canadian congregations. While this additional money almost entirely benefited the UUA, the arrangement was formally acknowledged in Accord #4.

By then, the aspirations of Canadian congregations had grown. After exploring ideas for developing our religious movement in Canada at the 1982 CUC annual meeting in Montreal, delegates to the Peterborough annual meeting in 1983 voted to authorize the CUC board to hire a professional Executive Director. The following year, Kathleen Hunter (then Corlett) was hired for this position.

In 1986, the Veatch foundation replaced its annual matching of contributions from the congregations with a one time endowment of $20 million to the UUA, calculated to produce a similar income. New negotiations were started, with the UUA claiming that now no money was coming from Canada, and the CUC arguing that part of the $20 million endowment income should be considered as replacing the annual matching of contributions from Canadian congregations. A compromise agreement, Accord #5, was reached in 1987, but was later abandoned, as it could not be implemented.

In 1989, the CUC started a Long Range Planning process by asking all member congregations what they wanted the CUC to do for them. This resulted in a plan which was formally adopted at the 1990 Annual Meeting in Vancouver. In that same year, Kathleen Hunter resigned as Executive Director and Ellen Campbell was hired to fill the position.

After difficult negotiations, a new agreement with the UUA, Accord #6, was reached in 1991. It was based on complicated calculations of the actual cost of services provided by the UUA to Canadians and on the CUC being entitled to sharing in the endowment income based on the proportion of its membership in the continental association. Since the costs exceeded the income, it was agreed that the CUC would pay the difference (approximately $20,000 per annum at the time) to the UUA, but that this amount would be phased in over a period of five years in increments of $4,000, so as to soften the impact on the CUC’s budget.

In 1992, in accordance with the Long Range Plan, a capital fund raising campaign for a newly created CUC endowment fund was begun which over three years raised more than $400,000..

An updated version of the existing agreement with the UUA, Accord #7, was signed in 1994.

Due to changes in the way the UUA established its operating budget, and the decline in value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis its U.S. counterpart, the amount calculated as being owed by the CUC to the UUA, escalated alarmingly. The UUA continued to complain that not enough money was coming from Canada, while the CUC, if it complied with the UUA's demands, would be faced with catastrophic reductions in its budget. Clearly, something had to change.When the UUA insisted on negotiating a different relationship, the CUC board pointed out that it had no mandate to do this and had to consult with its member congregations first. To this end the CUC board appointed a Commission on Delivery of Services. The UUA agreed to suspend negotiations while the Commission did its work. In the meantime, in 1998, both parties agreed to cancel Accord #7.

The Commission’s Stage One report, offering four options for the relationship with the UUA, was discussed at the 1998 Annual Meeting. It was clear that CUC delegates wanted evolution, not revolution, some adjustment of services to meet Canadian needs and to make UUA services affordable. No decision was taken.

In ongoing negotiations, the CUC and the UUA agreed that the principles on which their relationship should be based included: equal relationship; less dependency; equitable/fair; congregation-centred, not governance-centred; permanence/stability; and partnership.

The Stage Two report from the Commission to the 1999 annual meeting called for gradual change towards greater Canadian service delivery and programs, with priority for religious education and growth. Again, no decision was made. Later in the year, the CUC negotiators found that the UUA was not prepared to negotiate any new arrangement without consulting its districts. The CUC negotiators suggested this was the responsibility of the UUA, which then proceeded to do so.

The May 2000 CUC annual meeting in Calgary, by a vote of 79 to 11 (with no abstentions), authorized the CUC board to begin the changes recommended by the Commission, and to negotiate with the UUA to make this happen.

Ellen Campbell retired from the Executive Director’s position and Mary Bennett was hired to replace her.

In September 2000, the negotiating teams met in Regina, Saskatchewan. There, events took a shocking turn. The UUA rejected the CUC’s evolutionary approach. It indicated that although this might work for the CUC, it would not work for the UUA. The UUA could not shift or adjust service delivery gradually, year after year. It proposed, in effect, that the CUC go on its own, except for ministry, youth, and young adult services, which would remain continental and primarily a UUA responsibility.

The CUC board authorized the negotiations to continue. In January 2001, the UUA proposed the transfer of one and a half million dollars (U.S.) (Calculated on the value of a proportional share of the endowment as of December 31, 2000) to fund an independent CUC. The money was to be handed over on July 1, 2002, if the CUC had a service delivery plan ratified by its members and CUC congregations withdrew from the UUA and its districts. Both groups agreed that cross-border informal associations and many continental groups, such as UU-UNO and the Liberal Religious Educators Association would be maintained.

In February 2001, the UUA negotiators refused to reconsider their position on the membership of Canadian congregations in the UUA. Asked what the UUA response would be if Canadian congregations did not ratify the agreement, it stated that if ratification failed, the UUA would NOT negotiate a new CUC-UUA Accord. All APF contributions from Canadian congregations would go directly to the UUA (at a 2001-2002 rate of $44 US (or approx. $66 Can) per member.) All UUA services would be delivered through UUA districts. Canadian congregations fitting UUA membership criteria would continue with the UUA. The UUA would not restrict its relation to Canadian congregations, i.e. all its fund raising appeals would be extended to Canada. The CUC would not be impeded from raising its own moneys. Given this one and only choice, Canadians could be forgiven for thinking that the decision had been made for them.

At the CUC annual meeting in Montreal in 2001, after a presentation, followed by three hours of debate, the 127 delegates voted 105 to 22 to accept the final Accord with the UUA. The CUC would become the primary association and service provider of Canadian Unitarians and Universalists on July 1, 2002. The only exceptions would be ministry, youth, and young adult services, which the UUA would continue to provide.

In the year that followed, a CUC board-appointed Implementation Task Force consulted with all congregations on how to implement the decision. The final proposal was to divide the country into four regions, B.C., Western Canada, Central, and Eastern (including Eastern Ontario), served by two Directors of Regional Services, full-time professionals, one in the west and one in the east. In addition, the CUC would add to its staff a full-time Director of Lifespan Learning. When the plan was brought before the 2002 annual meeting in Kelowna in May of 2002, there was some discussion about the lines of accountability for the first two directors. No one spoke against the plan. The vote was unanimous.

As a last step, the final Accord was endorsed by the delegates to the UUA General Assembly, which was held in Quebec City in June 2002. A celebration, including the members of the two negotiating teams appearing on the stage, was held shortly after the vote. A new era for our religious movement in Canada had begun.

“The CUC: from Colony to Nation”, by Charles Eddis, an address to the UU Historical Society given at the UUA General Assembly in Quebec City in 2002.. It is posted on the CUC web site http://www.cuc.ca

For a more detailed history of our national movement, from its early beginnings to about 1995, see the book, Unitarians in Canada, by Phillip Hewett, 2^nd edition, Canadian Unitarian Council, 1995.

My thanks to Charles Eddis and Phillip Hewett. Any errors in this document are my responsibility.

Herman Boerma

2002-12-05