This Discussion Post details another chapter in the turmoil at the North American Unitarian Association (NAUA). It includes correspondence in which Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof offers a conditional proposal to rescind his earlier resignation as President of the Board of Trustees. However, the Board of Trustees did not accept the conditions proposed by Rev. Eklof. Following this response, Dr. Eklof resigned his membership from NAUA, the organization he founded.
Comments on the Rev. Eklof Resigns from the NAUA have been closed.
Notice: Have witnessed a new series of Trolls (bots) adding comments to Discussion Posts. We have elevated our security procedures. However, trolling is a full-time industry. We review comments frequently, trash troll comments, and adjust our security accordingly.
Situation Described by Eklof
During my life, I have watched three religious organizations I cared about undergo what I can only describe as hostile takeovers. The Southern Baptist Convention was captured by fundamentalists in the 1980s. The Unitarian Universalist Association was overtaken by illiberal extremists who secured control of its Board and election processes. And now, only a few years after helping to found it, I have witnessed the North American Unitarian Association (NAUA) experience a similar internal disruption—one I still struggle to fully understand.
The events leading to this crisis began the morning after the October 2025 NAUA Board of Trustees meeting, when, as Board President, I received a hostile and inappropriate email from a newly elected trustee. The message was so egregious in tone and intent that by day’s end I informed the Board that I could not continue working with him and that one of us would need to step aside.
The following morning, NAUA co-founder and Trustee Dr. Stephen Polmar wrote to the Board, agreeing that the behavior was unacceptable. He further disclosed that this individual had privately contacted him and asked him to “handle Todd from now on”—a request that in itself is profoundly inappropriate. Rather than resign, the trustee sent additional problematic communications, including a lengthy message sent to the entire Board excluding me, containing false, disparaging claims about my leadership and urging the Board to move NAUA forward without me.
When it became clear that he would neither be asked to step down nor be held to the standards of conduct expected in a liberal religious organization—and that he was unwilling to genuinely repair the harm—I determined that I could not remain part of such a Board. I resigned on October 18, 2025. Dr. Polmar resigned shortly thereafter, citing similar attacks on his character.
On November 5, 2025, during an NAUA event, my resignation and the Association’s evolving leadership situation were discussed. Afterwards, I received numerous requests from confused attendees seeking clarification, explaining that the Board had provided few answers and little evidence. In response to one false claim that I had failed to answer a Board communication, I compiled the actual email chain and shared it with those who asked for clarity.
Then, having heard additional concerns from NAUA members who reported similar troubling encounters with the individual in question, I wrote the entire Board on November 8, 2025:
Eklof’s Letter to the Board of NAUA
Dear NAUA Board of Trustees,
I’m guessing you continue to find yourselves in a difficult and stressful situation. I’m sorry for that. I have included Lincoln Baxter in this communication, although I must communicate in ways about him that he may find offensive. I’m sorry for that, too. But I do not wish to exclude him from board communications, as he has done with me.
By now, perhaps, like me, some or all of you have received communications from NAUA members who have had difficult and disturbing encounters with Mr. Baxter in the past. I won’t say more, only that, perhaps you realize the wagon has been hitched to the wrong horse and it’s not too late to change directions.
For the sake of NAUA’s survival and ending the immediate crisis, I propose two things: (bold added by Fifth Principle Project)
First, Lincoln, please resign from NAUA’s board of Trustees, as well as any others among you who cannot live with this decision.
Second, I will then, rescind my resignation from the Board of Trustees and as Board President, and happily rejoin the rest of you for the remainder of my term as we process what’s transpired, develop a code of conduct, make a joint, honest, and reassuring statement to our membership, and happily move forward by pointing NAUA in the right direction again, adhering to its founding and stated mission and purpose, and enacting our forward looking strategic plan.
Please consider my proposal and let me know of your decisions.
Thanks,
Todd
Board Respond to Eklof’s Letter
Six days later, on November 11, 2024, I received the following response from NAUA’s Interim Board President:
Dear Rev. Todd,
Thank you for your recent email regarding your offer to return to the Board of Trustees contingent on one member’s resignation. All remaining trustees (minus that member) met yesterday to discuss your proposal. We are all happy you are considering re-engaging with NAUA. You are missed as both a friend and founder. We also unanimously resolved that it is not possible to agree to your proposal. We acknowledge that rude words were spoken and view our job as a board is to stop such behavior and help people grow. We are developing a Code of Conduct to guide respectful collaboration going forward
We as a board cannot both live by the NAUA’s values and at the same time dismiss another trustee who is both remorseful and working hard to make amends. We have received numerous expressions of support for him from various people who have worked with him over the years, including [redacted] his previous minister for 14 years. We, the remaining Board members, have learned to work well with him and vice versa.
The circulation of internal email communications after your resignation has greatly harmed trust within the NAUA. We would like to restore mutual trust through mediation; we are happy to engage the help of a mutually acceptable mediator to resolve the remaining issues.
We would be pleased for you to reunite with the organization you founded, so we can together carry out our shared vision for liberal religion and serve the many individuals who feel abandoned by their former congregations and the UUA. Can we put this personal conflict behind us? Let’s move forward together for the good of NAUA, and liberal religion.
Eklof’s Response to Board
I replied the same day, noting the Board has still not acknowledged the inappropriateness of the four emails Mr. Baxter sent within 48 hours of his first meeting—emails that included a private request to “get rid of me” and a message sent to the entire Board excluding me. I also expressed disappointment that the Board was not fully candid with NAUA members during its recent Q&A, and that implying I had failed to respond to the Board was misleading. The emails I have circulated are simply the truth of what occurred, and the Board’s failure to present them itself is, in my view, what has harmed trust.
Given the Board’s decision and its ongoing unwillingness to address the root issue, I concluded that there is no circumstance under which I wish to rejoin, and I therefore resigned my membership in NAUA. (bold added by Fifth Principle Project)
I founded NAUA so that Unitarians and Universalists could support one another through freedom, reason, tolerance, and a shared commitment to human dignity. Together we built bylaws, elected our first official Board, grew a membership base, launched successful programs, and created a multi-year strategic plan. I had hoped to spend my final year as Board President helping to implement that plan and leaving the organization on a solid footing.
I am deeply saddened that this will not come to pass.
Two Important Things
Subscribe to Comments
Subscribe to comments to follow the comments from other readers.
Join the Fifth Principle Project. It’s free. The Fifth Principle Project is an organic grassroots initiative to gather into community Unitarian Universalists who want to reinvigorate the right of conscience and renew the democratic process in the governing of our denomination.
Why don’t you post the Board’s own take rather than just curating Eklof’s version each time?
If there were a written version, we would. We’ve spoken to the new President about things, but at best that would be hearsay. When and if there is some official statement of their views you’ll find it here.
I honestly don’t even think it is needed. Eklof can dig his own grave quite well without needing the board to say any more than he is already sharing without their consent.
Unfortunately, in this case, the narrative is being controlled by Rev. Eklof because he doesn’t seem to be bound by standard ethical and good governance models. I would recommend that the editors of this site acquaint themselves with these models as well. It’s easy enough to look up (or ask Chatgpt) what recommended non-profit governance practices are. (For Washington State, since NAUA is registered in that state.) Here’s what I found quite easily: Washington State’s recommended nonprofit governance practices emphasize professionalism, confidentiality, and acting in the best interest of the organization. As is standard for nonprofit boards in Washington, internal emails… Read more »
I think you have a point. I think the recommendations are good ones. They should have been consulted and followed. They all rest, however, on “the integrity of decision making.” Sadly, that was not the experience between Todd and the UUA, nor between the UUA and several other ministers. The result, then, is, if not to control the narrative, as the UUA damn well sought to do, to get out in front of it. Hence, Todd’s remarks. This is not meant to be a defence of Todd. But given the well-documented history with the UUA, confidentiality can indeed be secrecy,… Read more »
I respectfully disagree. In matters of governance, transparency if of utmost import. As with Congregational Polity, deferring to private conversations, and imposing codes of conduct – is the route to the political correctness & politburo tactics that have infested the UUA. Better shouting matches in public, than closed door proceedings.
Basic Rules of Order – a la Robert’s Rules – a one thing, but beyond that, heated words, shouting matches – BFD.
I stand corrected, and happily so. Thanks Miles. You’re right.
I am a former NAUA board member, but I was not in attendance at most of the board meetings in which these matters were discussed. However, I feel enough “in the know” to paraphrase the activities as follows: · A senior member of the board (S) receives a nasty email from a new member (N). · S replies with an equally nasty email. · S threatens to resign if the Board does not fire N. · N offers an apology, but includes rationale for his original nasty email. · The Board refuses S’s request and asks both parties to enter a reconciliation. · S refuses to reconcile… Read more »
So, Rev Eklof engaged in the kind of behavior he was already known to engage in (refusing reconciliation / mediation, etc)?
That does seem a good summary from what I have read
Lucid and succinct, thanks.
A hostile takeover because of the tone of one email and the board being unwilling to remove someone elected to the board because of it? This update doesn’t make Eklof sound any more reasonable at all.
People really did question the UUA and UUMA in their choices when reconciliation attempts were made, but this is so very telling.
To go back after publishing private emails and say you are willing to come back if the other person resigns still and then being disappointed that the offer was not taken?! How arrogant can you be?
Todd didn’t publish private emails. No one did, as no one has claimed they were to remain private. We published them. Also, your joy at these developments has been noted, as your every post repeats it.
Washington State’s nonprofit governance standards expect boards to keep internal deliberations confidential to protect the organization, its members, and the integrity of its decision-making. This is standard practice for all nonprofit boards.
Since you’ve decided to repeat your mantra rather than engage with my post, let me point out this is not true: “This is standard practice for all nonprofit boards.” Washington State does not require nor expect non-profit boards “to keep internal deliberations confidential to protect the organization, its members, and the integrity of its decision-making,” and only recommends it in very sensitive situations. You’re misrepresenting the contents of The Washington Nonprofit Handbook (2022 edition). It does not say: “Internal emails must never be disclosed” or “All board deliberations must always remain confidential” as an automatic requirement for every nonprofit in… Read more »
Dear Mo-fos,
With all that is going on in the country, authoritarianism, christian nationalism, corrupt government, and general demise of the ideas supporting liberty and democracy, You’re willin to eat on each other, resign at the demands of one outlandish writer, throw it all over for the sake of inconvenience… you sound like a local congretaion who was upset ecause the dishes were not done and the kitchen was left in a mess… isa this really what it is all about? Todd and Lincoln?
Here is my reminder again, As I also said with the previous letter published here: Don’t be a sheep. Don’t let anyone tell you what to conclude about this situation. Most commenters have an axe to grind, which is easy to do. And it’s also easy to hide– since most here are anonymous. If you knew their identities you would know their bias about this.
So read what is published here above for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
Well said.
Yes, each of us will decide how we feel about the conflict between Rev.
Todd and the NAUA Board, which seems to have chosen Lincoln over Todd.
I continue to find it appalling that Lincoln, brand new to the NAUA Board,
asked Stephen to handle Todd. I tried to resign from NAUA, but I was told
that no one knows how to resign from NAUA.
HOW DOES ONE RESIGN FROM NAUA?
No one knows how to resign from a voluntary “faith” organization? This sounds very cultish. What is the deal with the NAUA?
They have a new president. I think we should give them a bit of slack.
I don’t know, something seems fishy about me to this organization. And the fact that its founder seems to be tearing the organization apart doesn’t help.
Unitarianism needs to be defended and that means in word as well as deed. Years in the parish ministry proved to me that the Minister is always in a precarious position. Like the children’s game King on the Hill, someone always wants to bring down the “king” ! Freedom, reason, and tolerance cannot be defended if they are not practiced. Look at the current leadership of UUA. My colleagues in Universalist Convocation are doing our best to keep Universalism alive. The heritage of our two faiths must not perish!
Perhaps the appropriate action by the Board would be to pass a motion of censure, condemning the behavior of Mr. Baxter and establishing that it is inappropriate for a Board Member to refuse to engage with other Board Members or the Board Chair – and to commit to establishing rules of conduct for Board Members that are in keeping with UU Values. To the extent that Mr. Baxter refused to engage with Rev. Eklof – Tod’s position that one of them must resign seems a reasonable position to take. But it would be far more appropriate for the Board, as… Read more »
My what thin skin these board members have. What if we won a board membership at the UUA a few years ago? Do you think if Eklof won a position on the UUA board, he would also have been verbally attacked by other board members. Many perhaps calling for his resignation?
Come on, in this age of caustic social media, leaders are required to show some Stoical strength.
Sometimes a silent response can do wonders. Yes, each of us must at times deal with jerks (notice I did not say who ).
Insist on civility, and move forward.
Well said.
I notice that most voices here are anti-Rev. Eklof. Which is to be expected–even though the vast majority of the many NAUA members I know are pro-Rev. Eklof. Because most pro-Rev. Eklof members don’t need to convince Anyone of anything. We are voting with our feet–walking away–since as people have noted, there is no way to resign from NAUA. It’s very easy to tell SOMEONE ELSE to stay on a Board that’s been taken over by people who violate the 1st of the 7 Principles constantly–and mostly by demeaning and verbally abusing the founder of the whole organization. As if… Read more »
Hi Julie It is sad that you are characterizing us as “pro” or “anti” Todd. Let me give myself as an example. I have been a friend of Todd’s for over two years, I have stayed at his house, had meals with Todd and his wife and had numerous phone calls. I was one his most vocal supporters when I learned about the ‘Gadfly” tragedy. So I am NOT anti-Todd. I have also worked with and consider myself a friend of Lincoln’s. Certainly Todd and all board members have a right to resign if they find any conditions of membership… Read more »
If Todd had not said right away that he woudn’t be on the board if Lincoln Baxter was a member. And Lincoln had still sent out those e-mails then I think It would have been right to terminate Lincoln’s service. Todd was too hasty. Still not sure Lincoln will make a good board member. He seems to lack judgment and self-control.
Lincoln was elected. It would be undemocratic for the board to throw off an elected member against all by laws, especially for a less than professional email. Whether Lincoln will be a good board member is unknown at this point. There are certainly many people on every board who aren’t the best at being board members, but you don’t throw them off a democratically elected position for that reason. As far as the rude emails (on both sides), I agree that it doesn’t show either at their best. On the other hand, one rude email does not make a person… Read more »
Perhaps everyone on the board should write each other letters and of course share it with the whole board about every negative criticism they have ever heard about a person. And then tell each other exactly what they think of each other to clear the air. The main question is really what does each individual board member view as the main role of the NAUA? There needs to be discussions and surveys on this topic soon.
I am pretty sure that only one board member resigned, said he would only returned if another elected board member resigned, and then went and posted everyone’s emails (at least those he said were pertinent) on a variety of social media. I know that I have received emails that I thought were nasty from some of the board members who resigned in this last kerfuffle, and yet I didn’t go complain about it on public posts. That’s my issue with this situation. In my situation, I just assumed that people come from different backgrounds and speak differently. I know that… Read more »
Hard to believe people wold send nasty e-mails on a board. If Todd hadn’t been so quick to resign we would most likely never have heard about what Lincoln really thinks about Todd. It is a case of either both T & L stay on the board and monitor each other or both are off the board for a year. Need thicker skinned, thoughtful people on the board. The e-mails should never have been shared publicly. But the e-mails did make the situation make more sense.
Todd’s behavior here is really bad, and he’s putting it out in public which indicates to me that he doesn’t realize what it looks like. I’m glad the Board didn’t bend to his triangulation and ultimatums. I’m also glad to know what happened. I’m afraid that my trust in the NAUA would be harmed if I didn’t know.