In July, 1988, the General Council of Urantia Brotherhood voted to invite the Trustees of Urantia Foundation to attend meetings of the General Council. The Trustees turned down this offer in a November 18,1988 letter to Marilynn Kulieke, Vice President: "After discussion among ourselves and with our advisors we have concluded that attendance at these meetings would not serve either group's deliberative process and would not contribute to the effective inter-organizational communication necessary to a healthy working relationship between Urantia Brotherhood and Urantia Foundation."
In his February 1, 1989 letter surfacing, privately, the concerns and issues which later became public, David Elders offered to meet with the Trustees to discuss these matters personally. Martin Myers' February 2,1989 response included the following:
"The various subjects raised in your letter will be addressed in due course by the Trustees. In the meantime, with respect not only to this, but also with respect to all additional matters you may wish to communicate to the Trustees on behalf of Urantia Brotherhood, it is best that you now do so directly to us as a group in writing."
In his letter of February 5, 1989, David Elders once again requested that a personal channel of communication be established to facilitate communication between the organizations:
"Understandably, but sadly to me, your letter seems to indicate that you and I must now communicate in writing. I am certainly willing to dialogue personally with you, but since you feel it best not to do so, I would only request that the Trustees give consideration to the establishment of other channels of personal communication. I think that it would be unhealthy and unwise for us to have only the written word through which to conduct our organizations' business together. I will gladly accept whatever means of dialogue the Trustees propose."
No response was received. However, Richard Keeler attempted to make personal contact with many of the members of both the Executive Committee and General Council, but this was not until he was appointed a Trustee some months later.
On May 4, 1989, in a letter to David Elders reporting on the outcome of the Trustees' ad hoc committee work to reorganize the Foundation in response to the issues raised in the February 1, 1989 letter, a request was made to meet with both the Executive Committee and General Council to present the plan. As instructed in the letter, David Elders attempted to arrange a suitable time with Gloriann Harris, then still a Trustee. A June meeting was tentatively scheduled, at the time both these groups were scheduled to meet in Chicago; Gloriann subsequently canceled both these meetings. Only Frank Sgaraglino had resigned at the time these meetings would have been held.
During the week of July 10, 1989, David Elders personally called both Foundation attorneys, Quin Frazer (Gardner Carton & Douglas) and Craig Fochler (Pattishall et al) to request a meeting with the Trustees and their attorneys to discuss the outcome of the deliberations of the Executive Committee at its meeting of July17, 1989. Quin Frazer called back two days later and essentially said, "put it in writing--no meeting." We did put it in writing thereafter on July 21, 1989 in a letter to the Trustees and the General Council only; ironically, the Trustees have since communicated that putting these views in writing before dialoguing was inappropriate. This is confirmed in the August 18, 1989 memo from Quin Frazer to the Trustees, and is discussed in the August 9, 1989 memo from David Elders to the General Council.
In an August 30, 1989 letter from David Elders to the Trustees of Urantia Foundation, an invitation was extended for their attendance at the Special Meeting of the General Council scheduled on September 16/17, 1989: "In order to insure that the current Trustees have fair, personal, and direct access to the members of the General Council, we would welcome your presence [the four Trustees and Trustee Emeritus, William Hales at the same portion of the General Council meeting to be attended by the resigned Trustees." This invitation was refused by the Trustees in their letter of September 11, 1989, in this way:
"After considerable reflection, the Trustees have concluded that the answer is no. We are compelled, in view of all that has occurred to date, to consider the entire scenario invasive, intrusive, and inappropriate. The Trustees cannot participate in any manner, and we cannot lend the proceedings any dignity or sanction."
By phone call on October 5, 1989 Martin Myers asked David Elders to allow the Trustees to review, before publication, the report to the members of Urantia Brotherhood, which members were later construed by the Trustees as the "public". Consistent with the decisions of both the Executive Committee and the General Council, we refused both verbally and in writing. We informed the Trustees in this refusal that, counter to their claims that our action would breach the Confirmatory Agreement, our entire membership was licensed to use the marks, not just the elected committees; therefore, it was entirely appropriate and within the terms of the Confirmatory Agreement for us to communicate with our membership (i.e., within the family) without the need for review by the Trustees. Nonetheless, in an October 5, 1989 faxed and mailed memorandum we once again offered to meet and dialogue with the Trustees: "We would, as a matter of course, be willing to dialogue with you on this report or on any issue at any time as an evidence of our good faith and desire to achieve an honorable relationship." Later that same day, Martin faxed a response:
"In light of your refusal to dialogue with us, and in keeping with the spirit of our letter dated October 4, 1989, the Trustees would like to state that if Urantia Brotherhood gives wide distribution (e.g. to the membership of Urantia Brotherhood) to material which criticizes the policies or any Trustee of Urantia Foundation, the Trustees will be compelled to consider the question of whether the Confirmatory Licensing Agreement continues to be appropriate and worthwhile." This agreement was, in fact, canceled on October 30, 1989.
Apparently, the current Trustees of Urantia Foundation considered that communication within our organization somehow constituted a breach of the Confirmatory Licensing Agreement; however, the requested dialogue between the parties might have satisfied the Trustees that the Agreement licenses the use of the marks to Urantia Brotherhood, not just to the elected leadership thereof.
In an October 26, 1989 letter to the Trustees of Urantia Foundation, another invitation was proffered by the Executive Committee:
"As we have indicated many times over the last several months, both verbally and in writing, we are willing to meet with you personally to dialogue on any matter whatsoever. Accordingly, and pursuant to a verbal conversation between Richard Keeler and Gard Jameson, we would like to extend to you a formal invitation to join us (as many Executive Committee members as can stay) for dinner on Saturday, November 18, 1989 when the Executive Committee meets in Chicago. The purpose of this meeting is to facilitate dialogue on the issues which are obviously of concern to each of our organizations. The content and tone of your recent correspondence and the increasing unwillingness of the Trustees to dialogue with us on these matters, suggests that your position may have hardened. For the benefit of the reader community and the revelation itself, we feel it to be a supreme responsibility to make ourselves available for sincere, open, and honest dialogue on these issues before actions are taken which might cause harm to our purposes. In addition to this sincere offer to dialogue, we would like to make a suggestion. In the interests of preventing a further deepening of this relationship crisis, we would like to suggest consideration of the use of a third party conciliating commission, consistent with higher universe pattern...Please let us know if you would like to engage in either and hopefully both of these suggested reconciliation activities."
On November 1, 1989--a day after the Trustees of Urantia Foundation terminated all our agreements--they responded:
"Contrary to the statement in your letter that the Trustees were hardening their position, the Foundation has been willing to dialogue with the Brotherhood--but before, not after the Brotherhood has acted. David, by the Brotherhood's refusing to have a dialogue with us before it acted, the Brotherhood disregarded our right, under the Foundation's agreements with Urantia Brotherhood, to exercise control over use of the marks. In addition, you have chosen to repudiate a thirty-five year tradition of cooperation...We are unable to meet with you on November 18, 1989 but we remain willing to discuss with the Executive Committee matters concerning our two organizations--including, among other things, a smooth transition from its various agreements with the Foundation."
On February 1, 1990, another attempt at dialogue was made by the Executive Committee:
"In response to the urging of several of our member Societies, and in keeping with our desire to achieve the goals and purposes for which we have been constituted, many of which we share in common with Urantia Foundation, we would like to propose a meeting over the weekend of March 9-10, 1990 in Chicago...Despite the events of the last several months, we believe that the larger work in which we are engaged, each in our own way, is paramount and that any dialogue which facilitates this work is highly desirable."
The Trustees refused in a letter on February 14, 1990 to meet on March 9-10, 1990 but responded by agreeing that such a meeting "could be useful in seeking to work out ways for us to cooperate on practical levels..." and suggested a possible agenda of topics for discussion, including the restoration of friendly relations, and participation by members of the Fellowship in projects like library placement, consignment book sales, and study aid development. This letter from the Trustees also re-stated their view that it would be Urantia Brotherhood Association, not independent organizations, which would be licensed to use the Foundation's marks.
On March 19, 1990 the Executive Committee accepted without condition the Foundation's suggested agenda and offered to meet on Sunday, April 29, 1990 in Chicago: "Just let us know what time and where and we will gladly make ourselves available." The April 29, 1990 date passed without a response other than a verbal comment at the New York/Connecticut Society meeting on April 1, that the Trustees would not be able to attend. Their formal response came in a letter dated May 14, 1990. In that letter they stated:
"Because of scheduling conflicts, the date was not suitable for us. At first we focused on the need to identify an alternate time...but before we had resolved those questions satisfactorily, we became intensely concerned by the worsening climate of ongoing communications between the Foundation and Fellowship, and their respective attorneys, regarding a number of issues [including] the Fellowship's continuing failure to settle debts with Urantia Foundation and Andite Corporation, its unremitting assault on the Foundation, and its recent attacks on Urantia Brotherhood Association--as discussed in the attached letter." (The letter referred to was Quin Frazer's response to the Fellowship attorney's letter which requested that the Trustees and their supporters cease the claim that the Fellowship does not exist and is not the successor-interest to Urantia Brotherhood).
In conclusion, the Trustees' letter went on:
"The Trustees are concerned that under existing conditions, a meeting between representatives of Urantia Foundation and Fifth Epochal Fellowship would increase tensions rather than reduce them. We therefore think it appropriate to suspend our preparations for such a meeting, with the intention of reverting to that question whenever the overall climate seems to be favorable."
On April 1, 1990, Urantia Society of Greater New York invited the Trustees, representatives of the Fellowship, and members of Urantia Society of Central Connecticut to discuss the issues between the two organizations. During this program, the issue of reconciliation surfaced once again. Craig Peyton, a member of USGNY, asked the Trustees present (Martin Myers, Richard Keeler, and Neal Waldrop) and the Fellowship representatives (David Elders and Mo Siegel) if they would consent to meeting together to pray for the intervention of a celestial conciliating commission to rectify matters. The Fellowship representatives said yes. Neal Waldrop, speaking for the Trustees, stated in essence that reconciliation can only take place between equals and since the Foundation was intended to be primary and the Brotherhood subservient, it was impossible in this case. He also stated that the Foundation could not submit its decision-making to ANY outside group, even such a celestial body as had been suggested. This session was recorded on both audio and video tape.
In a June 14, 1990 letter to the Trustees in response to their May 14, 1990 letter the Executive Committee wrote: "We are disappointed in your May 14,1990 letter refusing to meet with us on April 29, 1990 as we had requested some time ago to discuss matters of mutual importance to the well-being of the work on behalf of the Fifth Epochal Revelation which we share in common." It was also pointed out in this letter that the Fellowship had just granted the Foundation the two-week extension they requested to settle outstanding debts, and that the Foundation's 'Special Report' and ongoing claims by Trustees and supporters that our organization no longer existed had "...contributed significantly to the current climate about which you now indicate concern." In addition, the letter stated:
"In view of our shared commitment to the well-being of the revelation which gave birth to both of our organizations, we remain open and willing to meet with you face-to-face to discuss those matters of mutual import. For us, personal dialogue is highly desirable since we are becoming concerned about the unseemly nature of the constant resort to attorney-to-attorney communication which has been taking place. This legalistic, secular approach seems increasingly inconsistent with the revelation we profess to represent and wasteful of contributor moneys. We therefore plan to refrain from any further interaction with you on that basis, unless absolutely necessary, and have so notified our attorney. We are convinced that as mature adults and readers committed to the teachings of The Urantia Book we can find it in our hearts to communicate personally as sons and daughters of a common Father. Accordingly, we invite you to put aside your particular organizational concerns and meet with us in friendship to discuss our problems and the opportunities represented by the differing but related purposes of our organizations."
On July 17, 1990, the Trustees responded to our June 14, 1990 letter in which we again requested a meeting without conditions. The majority of this Trustees' letter was devoted to statements accusing the Fellowship of "...[intensifying] this same pattern of 'organization-power behavior'. by the Fellowship's (a) questioning the Foundation's printed claim of insufficient funds for the tenth printing, (b) suggesting that the name for the Foundation's new membership organization--Urantia Brotherhood Association--was divisive and causative of confusion among the readership, and (c) suggesting that readers and donors had not been made accurately aware of the Foundation's current financial position. This letter did not respond substantively to any of the Fellowship's stated concerns, and concluded by once again refusing to meet and address these issues personally, stating:
"The Trustees remain convinced, however, that such a meeting would be counterproductive now, at a time when F.E.F. questions our integrity as regards the handling of funds and when at least one member of the Fellowship's Executive Committee is advocating that the word Urantia and the concentric-circles symbol be adopted as an integral part of the Fellowship's organizational identity and name--despite the contrary preference of most respondents to F.E.F.'s own questionnaire. [The questionnaire specifically related the use of the name/circles to legal action, and was not simply name preference] Further, the Trustees remain disturbed by unanswered questions about the Fellowship's decision-making process, as posed by Dr. Philip A. Rolnick in his letters of January 22 and March 23, 1990. These difficulties are fundamental, because they tend to cast doubt on the organizational stability and reliability of F.E.F. and its ability to live up to any agreements it might reach with Urantia Foundation."
At its July 7, 1990 meeting, the Executive Committee agreed once again to request personal dialogue with the Trustees. This action was approved despite repeated refusals on the part of the current Trustees to meet and dialogue, in the face of the establishment of Urantia Brotherhood Association as a competitive membership organization, and in spite of the mailing-list-wide distribution of the 'Special Report' and ongoing criticism of the Fellowship by Trustees and supporters. This initiative was responsive to recent requests by Urantia Society of Central Connecticut and Couchiching Urantia Society of Ontario that we continue to seek reconciliation, and was self-generated by action of the Executive Committee. USCC proposed as a condition of such a meeting that the Trustees terminate the existence of I.B.A. inasmuch as the establishment of this organization constituted a form of divisive "spiritual war" against the readership. The Ontario Society proposed the use of binding arbitration to settle the issues extant between the organizations. In a July 25, 1990 letter to the Trustees, the Executive Committee wrote:
"At our most recent Executive Committee meeting held on Saturday, July 7, 1990 just after our International Conference in Snowmass, Colorado, we once again agreed to initiate a request for a meeting with you to dialogue openly about the differences between our two organizations. We ask you yet again to lay aside your particular concerns and meet with us in fellowship to seek a resolution to this current estrangement. We believe that the best interests of the Fifth Epochal Revelation would be served by such a meeting based on openness, honesty, and a willingness to accept that an inter-dependent partnership between the two organizations established originally (long before any of us now serving were even readers of The Urantia Book) is of value in achieving our joint purposes. History will show that this is the most recent of many requests we have made in the last two years for dialogue with the Trustees of Urantia Foundation. We believe that we owe it to the readership we serve to offer to meet in good faith and sincerity. Though earlier meetings might well have aided in avoiding the present situation, it is never too late to establish a solid working relationship which will contribute to both the protection and dissemination of The Urantia Book and its teachings to the peoples of our world."
There was no direct contact between the organizations for more than six years until October 26, 1996, when Trustee George DuPont indicated in a conversation with Steve Dreier that the Trustees would like to meet with a few members of the Executive Committee of the Fellowship. Subsequently a meeting was held at 533 Diversey Parkway on January 11, 1997. The meeting was reported by both groups to have been "cordial" and each organization expressed a desire to have further meetings; from the Fellowship viewpoint a preference was stated that the entire Executive Committee be involved.
As of June, 1997, the two groups have been unable to agree upon a date for further talks.
A Service of
The Urantia Book Fellowship