Urantia BROTHERHOOD

Memorandum

TO: Members of the General Council

DATE: August 9, 1989

FROM: David Elders

SUBJ:  Preparation Materials for September Council Meeting

CC:   Past Brotherhood Presidents

In anticipation of our upcoming meeting in September, this will provide you with written materials and information (including materials used by the Executive Committee to reach its decision of July 17, 1989), which will help you prepare for our deliberations. It is important that you carefully read over all this material, and that you hold these documents in confidence until our peers on the Council decide together how best to proceed.

1. Responses to the July 21, 1989 letter from the Executive Committee to the Trustees. Several items for your consideration:

a. Martin Myers telephoned me at 1:00am on July 24, 1989 (the day he received the letter) expressing his feelings about our action. He said that he wanted us to be friends, that he wanted the organizations to work things out, and that he would call me later in the week to discuss business and next steps. To date, he has not called again. For your information, Martin has not really spoken to me other than out of courtesy for more than six (6) months. The February 1, 1989 letter to the Trustees enclosed and discussed hereunder explains the reason for this lack of communication.

b. In personal conversation with several Councilors since July 21, 1989, the Trustees expressed their concern that we did not ask to meet with them to discuss these issues personally but chose instead to write a letter. There are two bits of information you should know about this. First, in response to the February 1, 1989 letter I sent to the Trustees, they developed a reorganization plan for the Foundation which was subsequently approved by the Trustees. This plan was supposed to be presented to the Executive Committee on the June 24/25, 1989 weekend of our Council meeting. The Trustees cancelled this meeting (the three Trustees resigned shortly thereafter). Second, during the week prior to our July 17, 1989 Executive Committee meeting, because Martin had refused to communicate with me other than in writing, I spoke personally to both Foundation Attorneys‑‑Quin Frazer (Gardner Carton and Douglas) and Craig Fochler (Pattishall McAuliffe and Newbury) and asked them to set up a meeting with the Trustees for July 18 or 19 to discuss the concerns of the Executive Committee. Quin Frazer called me back two days later and said that he was instructed by the Trustees to say that they would NOT meet with us and that we should communicate our concerns in writing. We did.

c. Also via several conversations with the Trustees, it has been suggested that the action of the Executive Committee is no more than a personal vendetta on the part of a few who have "pulled the wool over the others' eyes." This is untrue; the Executive Committee was unanimous both in agreeing to the essentials of our position and then agreed again unanimously with the final letter which was distributed. In fact, virtually every comment made on the letter by every member of the Executive Committee was included in the final draft. It was entirely a consensus process, and I would suggest that anyone hearing otherwise should talk to members of the Executive Committee.

2. April, 1958 Memo from William S. Sadler, Jr. to the Trustees of Urantia Foundation regarding the Functional Relationship of the Foundation and Brotherhood. I believe that you will find this memo of interest as background for our discussion in September, for the following reasons:

a. William Sadler clearly defines the historical process which led to the establishment of Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood as separate and sovereign organizations and dated this decision along with the timing of the drafting of both organizations founding documents to the late 1930's (circa 1939).

b. He uses such words as "sister organizations" and "self‑governing body" to suggest both a partnership relationship between the organizations as well as the chosen governing process for Urantia Brotherhood.

c. Mr. Sadler points out that "...unless the Foundation conducts itself with wisdom it may breed dissension between itself and the Brotherhood. In the opinion of the writer, there is no place in Urantia Foundation for naivety or any exhibition of proprietary feeling toward the Urantia Papers.* He further suggests that "...the problem of avoiding friction with the Brotherhood rests nearly completely on the shoulders of the Trustees of Urantia Foundation."

d. In section III, it is pointed out that "...the Foundation itself could re‑constitute a functional Brotherhood if the original one ever lapsed." A careful reading of the Declaration of Trust would seem to suggest that this is true under the terms of Section 3.4. However, neither the Trust Document nor the Constitution of Urantia Brotherhood gives Urantia Foundation the right in any way to control the existence or performance of Urantia Brotherhood, which was constituted as a separate and sovereign organization. Thus, the right suggested by William Sadler is reflective more of the non‑exclusive nature of any tool the Foundation decides to use to accomplish their tasks rather than a specific right to control the destiny of Urantia Brotherhood.

e. In line with the above, it should be pointed out that there are two contractual agreements between Urantia Brotherhood and Urantia Foundation which, while they have been used as tools of control, were really instituted for reasons of mutual benefit: 'The Confirmatory Agency Agreement," executed June 6, 1975 essentially confirming the prior decision (before 1958) by the Trustees to contract Urantia Brotherhood to act as sales agent for The Urantia Book (note that on page 3 of William Sadler's memorandum he says, 'The Foundation has no organization for propaganda or for the dissemination of the Book. It could sell the Book directly but has very wisely elected to do so through the Brotherhood Corporation.") "The Confirmatory Agreement for Urantia Brotherhood's use of the Registered Marks Urantia and the Concentric Circles Symbol," executed September 3, 1974 confirming the Brotherhood's agreement to the Foundation's claimed prior ownership of these marks even though they were not legally registered until 1971/1972 and despite Urantia Brotherhood's formal organization as Urantia Brotherhood with full use of these marks and symbols since January 2, 1955 (this "Confirmatory Agreement' was replaced by a Licensing Agreement In 1974/5 which has been used ever since by Urantia Foundation to license the use of the marks/symbol).

f. Under “Ideal Role of the Foundation," William Sadler clearly states his opinion that the Foundation should "...be passive ... little appear in the eyes of the public. To the public the Brotherhood is the important organization." He stated his belief that this approach would minimize friction between the organizations. He further states that, "In general, the Foundation should make every effort to create in the Brotherhood a feeling that it is responsible for the effective dissemination of the Urantia Book." While it seems apparent that the Trustees of Urantia Foundation do not believe and have acted in contradiction to this opinion, it is noteworthy that at least in 1958 this was one respected person's viewpoint.

g. Mr. Sadler concludes his paper by suggesting that the Trustees have the power to dominate but should not use it. I see nothing in any of either organization's documents which gives Urantia Foundation the power to dominate our activities or Urantia Brotherhood the power to dominate the Foundation's activities. It might, however, be argued that the real power available to each group is moral power, based upon mutual respect, integrity, honesty, a desire for real cooperation, and consistency with the teachings of The Urantia Book.

3. Correspondence on this subject from February 1, 1989‑February 7, 1989. The four pieces of correspondence Included for your review and discussed below represent the initial contact between myself and the Trustees regarding the ways in which the actions of Urantia Foundation seemed to be generating friction and harming both organizations' reputation and their ability to do their work. I would like to underscore several points for your edification:

a. For the four‑year period up to February 1, 1989, the Executive Committee worked ceaselessly to improve the relationship between the two organizations. This period includes the General Council meeting of 1987 at Bowdoin College just prior to which the Foundation delivered their letters critical of Brotherhood actions and In which they threatened us with the cancellation of our right to use the marks/symbol. The Central Office Operation is a visible example of the Brotherhood's commitment to the development of an honest partnership with Urantia Foundation (which Central Office was/is managed by Gloriann Harris, who was until recently a Trustee).

b. The primary issue which precipitated the February 1 letter was not the telephone call described therein, but was rather my prior stand with Martin that the manipulation going on in Finland was simply not consistent with the principles for which we stand as an organization. Despite Martin's unwillingness to speak to me since then on any matter affecting our organizations, I have understood that the argument has been made that the way things turned out in Finland proves that the steps made there were the right ones. This is no more than a statement that "the end justifies the means" and is the very perversion of principle which is the essential motivation for my February 1 letter.

c. The February letter led, as is clear from the other correspondence, to the establishment of an ad‑hoc committee of three Trustees (Gloriann Harris, Hoite Caston, and Frank Sgaraglino) to consider its implications and respond accordingly. This ad‑hoc committee apparently agreed with the import of the letter and set out to draft a reorganization plan for the functioning of the Trustees. The primary thrust of their plan, as it was explained to me, was to clearly define the role of the President of Urantia Foundation to antidote some of the claims made in the February 1 letter. It is apparent that, despite the potential for change in the Foundation represented by this reorganization plan, the three Trustees who resigned must have lost confidence in the plan's ability to make any difference.

4. Copy From the by-laws of Urantia Foundation (adopted February 11, 1950) of Section 2.4 Removal of Trustees. This paragraph is included in these materials to underscore that it was the clear intent of the originators of Urantia Foundation that each individual Trustee and, by ex­tension, the Foundation itself, be held to a high standard of consistency with the teachings of The Urantia Book in their personal and organizational conduct. Seemingly, the choice of lesser means to achieve even worthwhile ends (on the part of both individual Trustees and the Founda­tion itself) cannot be justified if this choice is inconsistent with the principles of the teachings. Consequently, not only are the Trustees appropriately held to a high standard of behavior in the execution of their Trust, but also, because of the source of this standard, they are required to have a clear comprehension of the teachings of The Urantia Book.

SUMMARY

This package of materials and some of the explanation above will give those of you who are not members of the Executive Committee a partial view of the background which led to the conclu­sions detailed in the letter we sent to the Trustees on July 21, 1989 which you have already re­ceived. While it is not appropriate to share these materials or to discuss this issue openly with non­-Councilors at this time, it is appropriate to converse with your fellows on the Council, especially members of the Executive Committee, In order to prepare yourself fully for our September 16/17 meeting. In our deliberations on this issue, it is exceedingly important from my point of view that we re‑affirm our commitment to the principles and purposes for which Urantia Foundation was formed and re‑state our desire to help contribute to the rebuilding of the Foundation's reputation as the high‑integrity, moral standard‑bearer for this work. At the same time, we need to stress that what is primary in our minds is the development of a higher standard for the doing of our business which is reflective of and consistent with the teachings of The Urantia Book. No matter how our deliberations may be characterized by others, it should be clear that we are not motivated by any manner of personal vendetta, but rather, by a determination to surmount obstacles which prevent us from doing our work with integrity, openness, honor, grace, and friendship.

I would like to make one final point. We all obviously believe that our organizations have value in the work of bringing this revelation to our planet or we wouldn't spend so much time and energy working on their behalf. From my perspective, however, the history of human evolution shows vividly how the gravity of our animal nature can pervert organizational existence from its intended service as a means of greater accomplishment to an end in itself with all the ills of power and con­trol directed toward organizational survival. Even our relatively short organizational history con­tains incidents suggestive of the perversion of truth and principle for the preservation of "special" individuals and groups deemed more important than the truth to be proclaimed. We must, therefore, honestly place before ourselves regularly two questions designed to keep our priorities straight: How important do I believe I am in this work?  How important do I believe our organiza­tions are to the success of the fifth epochal revelation? I do not personally believe that the success of this revelation depends solely on any single individual or even on the existence of our organiza­tions (notwithstanding that Individuals and our organizations do play a role). Furthermore, I cannot believe that In doing this work we would ever be required, as a prerequisite for success. to act in ways which damage the principles of the teachings we have been given. I believe that any attempt to justify individual or organizational actions suggestive of "specialness" and/or which are incon­sistent with the very best we have been taught, Is sophistry.

See you all in September.

Note: Executive Committee members receive only a copy of this memorandum and the William Sadler, Jr. Memorandum.