from Lucinda D., Tempe G., Maggie H., Walter L., Dee R., and Kim V.

Prelude

(from Walter)

If you were around Follen at the turn of this century, you surely have a recollection of the struggles we went through when the church decided to make some money by leasing space in our steeple to a communications company for installation of cell phone antennas. Even if you weren’t there you have likely heard about “Nextel”—the cell phone company. Since I was a lay leader at the time, I decided to write up my experience for the Follen Stories series. Not surprisingly, Lucinda (Follen’s minister at the time) came up in my story, so I shared it with her. She had a long reply and recommended asking for thoughts from Maggie, Kim, and Tempe, all of whom played important roles. Maggie brought in Dee (now living in NH). Everyone had things to share—thoughts as well as documents—and we learned and recollected a lot in the exchanges. We’ve all helped each other edit our original drafts. We hope this long collection of perspectives is worth reading.

Walter

In May of 1998, Follen entered into a contract with a cell phone company named Nextel to install their antennas in our steeple. Kim  was the moderator and leader of Parish Council at the time. Linda H would become moderator on July 1, and I would become moderator-elect. In Follen’s previous governance structure, the Parish Council essentially combined the duties of our current Program Council and Parish Board. The moderator combined the duties of our current council president and board chair.

Here’s my summary of key events and dates.

Follen started talking to Nextel in spring 1998, and there was soon a draft contract for us to consider. The contract would give us a nice annual fee, so it was a windfall in a time of tight budgets. Prior to signing the contract, there was an after-church meeting. There was widespread support and no opposition on health reasons. In April, the Parish Council agreed to the contract, with one abstention.

Significant member and neighborhood opposition to the antennas emerged only after the town held a public hearing in June on the bylaw to install the antennas. Neighbors (including the Waldorf School) were informed for the first time, and some became concerned. People were particularly afraid of possible effects of cell tower radiation on their children, including neighbors and some Waldorf parents. They cited articles and experts about harm from the cell signals.

Some Follen members said we should back out of the contract because of the possible harm and how concerned people were. The finance committee made it clear that withdrawing would be a disaster, including loss of new revenue, a contractual penalty for backing out, and likely pledge cuts. Feelings on both sides were strong.

A group of neighbors and Waldorf parents sued to stop the installation, which led to a year-long delay. We used the time to hold listening sessions with members, neighbors, and Waldorf parents—largely under Maggie’s and Dee’s leadership. We also had a legal arm, which weighed paths we could take, including discussions with Nextel over whether we could get out of the contract. We faced pickets outside church on Sunday mornings. The controversy was in the newspapers, so we had a PR arm led by Kim.

We also had a science team, which Kim also led. They sponsored an informative presentation in the Sanctuary by member Rose’s son Josh on how to interpret scientific evidence. Kim worked with Nextel to arrange measurements of radiation in the summer of 1998 by an independent expert, Mr. Don Haes. Mr. Haes was on the staff of the MIT Environmental Health and Safety group. The measurements established a baseline of radiation power levels at the church, at Waldorf, and at prominent sites all around Lexington. The consultant was paid for by Nextel. When the cell tower in the steeple was activated in November 1999, another very thorough set of measurements were made by an independent contractor, approved by a technical committee made up of neighbors and Waldorf and Follen representatives. Kim’s records have good details about the process and the value of this study, but the bottom line was that it was hard to detect when the cells went on and off with all the other radiation around.

After the opponents lost their lawsuit, we had to decide whether to proceed. It all came down to a vote of the Parish Council in late summer 1999. Proponents of abrogating the contract and of keeping it each had chances to speak to the council before we voted. Then I called the vote. It was tied when it came to the minister, who always voted last. Lucinda voted to stay with the contract, and that was that.

Unfortunately, several members chose to leave Follen as a result. I like to think that all the process helped keep that number down. And it wasn’t a bad example of working out problems through the church’s democratic structures.

Lucinda

It was clear that there were concerns and questions about the safety of cell phone technology in our steeple. Yet, after long conversations in the Parish Council, the number of parishioners who appeared deeply concerned did not appear, at first glance, to be more than a dozen or so. There were close neighbors who were quite alarmed, and there were a few other members who lived far from the church who had real concerns. From my vantage point, the majority of our members seemed satisfied with the safety of the project.

Why was this? Well, it wasn’t a new idea. By the time Follen was approached, many churches and other organizations across the country had already agreed to place cell phone technology in their high points. Lots of people already owned cell phones, and they wanted reliable coverage. For those using cell phones in their cars, it was common to encounter dead spots in many locations. The addition of more cell phone equipment was needed if users were to get steady coverage.

At Follen, we also knew the additional revenue generated by our rental of the interior steeple space to Nextel would greatly ease the church’s many long-overlooked needs. We had experienced a generation-long financially austere period after our minister in the late 1960s took an active stance against the Vietnam War. While he felt morally justified and his stance was in keeping with much of the liberal religious energy of the times, his strongly felt opinions and actions caused well over half of the congregation to leave the church permanently.

Remaining church members bravely called a new minister (my predecessor), the Reverend Polly Laughland Guild, who began the slow person-by-person work of growing back the church. She was successful and much loved, but the wisdom of the church elders, throughout that generation, was that “If it costs money, we can’t do it.”

Penny-pinching and creative problem-solving (like having capable members build our own church organ from scratch) became the widely agreed-upon solution for nearly every church need for 20 years. So when we were offered what seemed to be an enormous amount of money to place cell phone tower equipment in our steeple for many years, it appeared both scientifically doable and financially helpful for the maintenance of our 19th-century building.

When the Waldorf parents and neighboring Follen members began objecting to our Parish Council’s decision, their fury took most Follenites by surprise. They leafleted every car in the Follen parking lots with fliers accusing us of willfully trying to microwave their children’s brains. They repeatedly lobbied the minister and the church leaders, often angrily. They carried angry signs on Mass. Avenue in front of the church every Sunday morning as our parishioners and their children were arriving for church and Sunday School. A few accusatory letters were written by protesters to local and regional newspapers. Newspaper and television coverage of this conflict began to appear. Many parishioners and I were worried about the intensity of the anger being directed toward our congregation’s decision. There was even a person who climbed up onto our roof one night, vandalizing it by cutting holes in the roofing materials with knives, resulting in leaks.

It is important to remember that the small group of angry Waldorf parents did not speak with the support of the Waldorf parent leadership. That leadership group understood the science of cell tower emissions and they took no official position about the conflict—for or against. Privately, they communicated to us that their leadership neither instigated nor supported the position advocated by this small group of activist Waldorf parents who were then joined by other concerned Lexingtonians. However, because emotions were running high, we called a halt to forward progress. I asked Maggie, co-founder of Public Conversations, to create an all-congregational meeting that would allow people to safely express the entire range of perspectives that were present. I was in contact frequently with Maggie, Walter, and Kim, each time so grateful for their insight and knowledge of how to handle public conflict. My gratitude to Maggie, Walter, and Kim and all the other talented leaders for all that they did remains to this day. We benefited enormously from talented and devoted leadership on all fronts.

And in the end, we got through it. We lost several wonderful members, which remains sorrowful to this day. They are remembered and missed. The decision by church leaders to hire professional cell phone measurement analysts, matched by Waldorf’s own set of analysts, was decisive in winding down the controversy. Both sets of experts measured cell tower emissions repeatedly at Follen and Waldorf, as well as at other sites around Lexington. The results showed that Follen’s emissions were even lower than had first been estimated and that, remarkably, the highest emissions by far in Lexington were measured at the main intersection in Lexington Center.

I do think the controversy was important to the life and ongoing confidence and health of this congregation. There was no question that it was heated, long-lasting, and left some members feeling that they must resign, which we deeply regretted. Despite periods of high tension, some of which felt pretty personal, both our leaders and members were genuinely trying to listen with patience.

We all had things to learn. Two things stood out as most important. First, that we utilize the contemporary processes of conflict management and learn from our leaders. Second, that trying very hard, over and over again, to remain both open-minded and respectful of one another as difficult feelings were expressed has made us stronger and more open with one another even today as an intelligent and diverse congregation. We had a lot to learn, but we really applied ourselves to using clearer democratic processes and keeping in mind the importance of listening with respect to pull people back together who had originally regarded conflict as resulting only in separation. It was a magnificent learning process, and we did it. I remain proud of you all. Thank you.

(Reverend Lucinda S. Duncan was Senior Minister 1993–2011 and is Minister Emerita 2011–present.)

Kim

In early 1998, Nextel approached Follen about a contract to put antennas in our steeple. It was discussed at the February Parish Council meeting. Then there was a straw poll taken at a meeting held after church in the Sanctuary. The meeting was prior to signing the contract. Only one of those present vocalized an objection, and it was based on the issue of becoming beholden to corporate America. There was no objection raised on the issue of health and safety. There was one question asked regarding the safety of anyone being in the bell tower to wind the clock. A straw vote was taken and it passed by an overwhelming margin. In April, the Parish Board went on to approve the signing of the rental contract. The Nextel lease was signed May 14, 1998. It would pay $2,300 per month, totaling $27,600 the first year, with a 4% escalation each year.

We first learned of the Waldorf objections to the cell tower on health and safety grounds when the town sent notices to abutters in June, after Nextel applied for the permit. That was when I first learned of the health and safety issue. We were caught completely by surprise. I was within days of completing my term as moderator. I spent the next 18 months as the designated hitter on the issue. Linda H. followed me as moderator, followed by Walter, and we worked together. Technical analysis was not Linda’s strength, so she left that part to me. Maggie and Dee were key players in handling conflict. We all communicated often to craft next steps, such as the vote to ask Nextel to allow us out of the contract.

Within days of the town’s June 10 announcement to the neighbors, we had a Community Center meeting to hear from the congregation, and there was new opposition. We made a proposal to Waldorf to end the contract if Waldorf helped Follen’s financial situation by renting space at Follen, giving Follen classroom space at Waldorf, and getting help from Waldorf to mend fences with parents. The president of the Waldorf board and I held an informational meeting for Waldorf parents. The Waldorf president was an HP electrical engineer. He tried to explain things on scientific terms. He was opposed by many parents there. It felt like he and I might be tarred and feathered.

On July 10, Josh C. gave the talk on interpreting scientific data. There was good attendance in the Sanctuary. Soon there was another discussion in the Sanctuary about getting out of the lease. Later in the month, Follen asked Nextel to be released from the contract due to opposition from neighbors (including Waldorf parents). In August a group of neighbors and Waldorf parents sued Nextel, the town, and Follen. This suit delayed the installation by more than a year and created time for more extensive conversations in the community.

In September, Maggie led a meeting of Follen members in a circle in the Community Center. Maggie did wonderful work during the controversy. She was fantastic at bringing people together in respectful conversation. She and Lucinda managed that, leaving me to deal with the press and the technical work. Dee interviewed parents to hear of concerns and she also gave me great advice. We heard Waldorf was afraid of losing kids.

There were more Follen forums to discuss Nextel issues into early 1999. A survey of Follen members about the contract showed interest in more information, as well as concerns about safety and conflict with neighbors. We got legal reviews of the contract.

We studied scientific literature and radiation levels in Lexington. The first set of measurements was taken early in the 18-month saga. I am less sure of the details than I am of the second set, but it did provide data from all over town, including in the vicinity of the church. Lucinda’s summary of those findings is accurate.

The latter measurements were paid for by Nextel and were done by a third-party company acceptable to the neighborhood scientific committee, which included Waldorf, Follen, and neighbors. Our rep on the committee was Ed V., who was also on the town communications committee. This latter set of measurements is very well documented in the materials I have shared.

In April 1999, the Parish Council voted to stay with the contract unless good legal and financial alternatives were available. In May, the Annual Meeting confirmed the PC vote. In June, the PC decided that financial concerns could be met if legal concerns could be, too. In July 1999, the Superior Court dismissed the Waldorf/neighbor suit.

In August, Follen leaders met twice with Nextel to get out of contract. Nextel looked again for alternative placements but found none conforming with town bylaws. In September, Parish Council voted a final time to proceed with the contract and informed neighbors and Waldorf. In November, the antennae were activated. We made before and after measurements, which were shared with the community. In December, the Waldorf Board accepted the findings and declared it was time to move on.

Tempe (an Immediate Neighbor)

A couple of years ago, I threw out an overstuffed folder of documents I’d saved during the time of the Nextel controversy. I considered the technical articles to be basically obsolete, given the advances in cell phone technology, and whatever correspondence might have been in there (I didn’t even look, just hefted it) was an unpleasant relic from a difficult time. With Walter’s inquiry to join this set of recollections, I now wish I had it so I wouldn’t have to rely on memory. A search on my computer came up empty (so much for my backup system). I had also discarded a book on the topic by B. Blake Levitt, Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, 1995, that was both informative and persuasive about the importance of moving slowly and gathering more data. It also gave accounts of people who were hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields (EMF)—for them it was real, not hypothetical. They were ailing canaries in a mineshaft.

As the publisher’s blurbs summarized, “with ubiquitous electropollution from cell phones/towers, powerlines, computers, and wireless devices, this eye-opening book is the best resource for parents, community planners, healthcare professionals, and scientists alike. Other authors have dealt with EMF questions, but none with the clarity and evenhandedness of B. Blake Levitt. This book avoids the extremes of over-dramatization and understatement and delivers the important information in a cool and lively manner.”

Concern about EMF was global, and there was information available from a multitude of sources. Henry Lai, a professor at the University of Washington, had found some indications that cell phones themselves could damage DNA. (Did I remember his name? Of course not; I found it through Google.) A 2005 article that described his research, the cell phone industry’s attacks on him, and the large amounts of industry-funded research to discredit his findings brought it all back. Indeed, the questioning has not completely disappeared, and reading linked articles reminded me of the hours I spent diligently studying the science of electromagnetic fields. I think my going into all this detail here is a ghost of the more than two-decades-old need to convince others that opposition was not some kind of a crackpot POV.

Another source of general distrust of the industry was the massive Telecommunications Act of 1996, designed to promote growth and competition in the industry, a small part of which prohibits environmental concerns (or health concerns by purported lack of substantial evidence) as a reason for denial of cell towers. This became relevant with presentation of Article 3: Zoning By-Law, Wireless Communication Setbacks from Institutional Buildings before the March 29, 1999 Lexington Town Meeting. I was among those who spent a lot of time working on a presentation of existing studies, successful opposition to antenna installation by other churches and communities, and an introduction to the electromagnetic fields produced by the earth, our bodies, and cell phone technology, and how they might interact. Town counsel said that the amendment would likely be challenged by the attorney general if on the basis of health reasons onl,y and the town could be sued. Final vote: Yes 64, No 105, Abstain 3. It was not the hoped-for victory, but certainly a good showing.

My recollection is that Kim was very interested in paying down Follen’s mortgage and saw the steeple rental as a way to make progress—certainly a positive goal. The problem as I recall is that the congregation at large did not feel they had been informed about the installation prior to signing the contract, nor did our neighbors at the Waldorf School. Many parents there were especially wary of electromagnetic radiation in general; their homes had no TV, no microwave, no cell phones. After listening and learning, I expressed my own fears for my sons living right next to the church. I felt in the absence of definitive data it was best to err of the side of caution and embrace the precautionary principle. There was also a bit of David and Goliath feeling (but no slingshot). Money and power, whether at Follen or in the context of a growing billion-dollar industry, were set to prevail. As motivated as we were, we did not hold out a lot of hope for success.

This graphic was made by a Waldorf School parent. Luckily I didn’t keep it in that fat folder. It’s small, I think intended to be made into a button. I imagine it was made in larger sizes for public protests.

I made many good connections during this struggle, getting to know some fine people at Waldorf School, a neighbor in particular, a scientist who lived in the Ellen Dana House, and several people at Follen whom I hadn’t previously known. Maggie and Dee were both impressive in their efforts to create opportunities for thoughtful and respectful consideration of the issues. I was and still am grateful for their efforts.

I remember also a certain amount of scorn dumped on me in private conversations. Also skepticism that I had no knowledge of who vandalized the church, and that I didn’t condone it. I recall reading the article in the Boston Globe about the picketing at Follen with complete disbelief at how much of the story was factually incorrect.

At Annual Meeting, Linda awarded me a commendation in the form of a statuette of a giraffe, for “sticking your neck out,” which drew more applause than I expected. I cherish that giraffe as I was then a relatively new member and my nature was—and still is—basically conflict adverse. Speaking out and trying to promote change was a big step for me.

Ultimately, I felt uncomfortable at and disappointed in Follen, and a need for some space. I started going to First Parish Lexington, albeit less frequently. I did like it there, and if Rev. Helen Cohen hadn’t retired, I might be there still. (But I am very glad I’m back at Follen!) I can recall 3 other people who left Follen as a result of this controversy. There were others who were opposed to the antennas but continued on at Follen without a break. I was told that 4 families left the Waldorf School because of the antenna installation.

Maggie

I was fairly new to Follen when this controversy erupted, but our minister, Rev. Lucinda Duncan, knew I was professionally involved in facilitating conversations on divisive topics (with the nonprofit Public Conversations Project, later named Essential Partners). I knew another Follenite, Dee, as someone who was studying conflict resolution and had been involved in environmental issues. So, we worked with Lucinda and lay leaders to design constructive conversations about the issue. My memory is terrible so I rely here on hard copies of 4 documents I kept.

Follen Forum, September 27, 1998

This Follen Forum, open to the whole congregation, was entitled “Maintaining Community in the Face of Difference.” The purpose was not to talk about Nextel. It was offered because we recognized that conflict is an inevitable part of living in community and that no matter how easy or tortuous the road ahead would be on Nextel, it was important to have a shared vision about how we want to deal with difference. I brought in a colleague of mine to facilitate. The design included 2 exercises.

In the first exercise, participants shared responses to 3 questions in small groups. One asked about the intentions they were bringing to the workshop, the second focused on hopes and concerns, and the third asked if they “had feelings of pride or pain related to [their] involvement in this community.” The small groups engaged in structured speaking and listening. Then, in the full group, people shared as they wished. This exercise exemplified some key elements of my work in dialogue: promoting reflection on intention vs. more habitual ways of conversing; sharing not positions but hopes, concerns, and what’s “at the heart of the matter”; and using structured speaking, listening, and questioning (vs. the more common “while you talk, I’ll just think about what I want to say”).

The second exercise was one we used in Public Conversations Project. In pairs, people shared a time in their lives when they were able to connect across a difference and they considered what factors made that possible, e.g., spiritual resources, skills, attitudes, commitments, the context, the setting. Then in the full group we harvested the fruits of those discussions. Some themes that often come up pertain to a shared value or intention to heal a relationship, the stakes involved, and having a context that supports dialogue vs. distraction and choosing vs. reacting. The workshop ended with sharing reflections on what we can attend to as we aimed to have connecting conversations about Nextel or any other controversy.

A Parish Council Meeting, December 6, 1998

Dee and I worked with Lucinda and church leaders to design a Parish Council (PC) meeting. The objectives for the meeting were gleaned from pre-meeting calls we had with Parish Council members. They were to:

1. Identify some possible futures with regard to Nextel.
2. Identify pros and cons related to those futures.
3. Consider what’s next.

The objective was not to make a decision.

Moderator Linda H. shared a handout with some possible futures and asked if others had possible futures to add. Then she asked PC members to identify pros and cons of each, writing on charts posted on the walls. Then she asked people to speak for up to 2 minutes each about what they most feared and what was at the heart of that fear. Then PC members could ask each other questions about what they heard. Then she asked, “If a broader representation from the congregation were in this room, would we hear any other responses?” Finally, the group brainstormed about helpful processes of communication within the congregation and with people outside of Follen, and about next steps. Then they generated a list of 17 things “We need/want to know.”

Church-Wide Meeting, March 21, 1999

Lucinda opened this meeting with a reminder about the church’s spiritual purpose. We handed out 4×6 cards on which people could record ideas, questions, etc. Then a Parish Council member, probably Walter L., summarized the current status of Follen’s relationship with Nextel and identified people in the room best able to take questions on particular aspects of the situation. I believe we were seated in a large circle of maybe 35 people. We asked people to speak for up to 2 minutes about their hopes and concerns, then people were invited to ask a question to better understand what they had heard. At the end, we collected cards on which people had written questions, comments, etc.

Another Parish Council Meeting, April 9, 1999

At this meeting Dee and I were asked to share our reflections, observations, and a set of options for the PC to discuss. We summed up what we assumed the leadership wanted to achieve:

• a decision well informed after examining options as well as consequences of those options (practical financial, relational, values-oriented) and testing of untested assumptions
• a decision that would have the support of an informed congregation with a decision process that was understood
• that if some people didn’t agree, that they felt cared for and listened to

We expressed concern that without this, the discussion of the budget at annual meeting could become an unplanned meeting about Nextel.

We felt that the PC (and Lucinda through her pastoral listening) had done a good job of providing opportunities for Follenites to express concerns and there was energy now for searching for solutions. We thought there was some confusion among Follenites about whether “a decision has been made” and what the decision process was. Some wondered whether the PC had adequately explored short-term financial help from Waldorf and individuals to “remove barriers to Follen’s release from the contract.”

To stimulate discussion about next steps, we then described 3 options.

• Option A: PC decides on a recommendation, reports to the congregation on that recommendation, gives 2 weeks for input, then votes.
• Option B: PC plans 1 information session for Follen and interested others in East Lexington and another 1 just for Follen.
• Option C: A committee is established to plan information sessions and manage communications with Nextel and neighbors. The committee would include people with specific expertise (finance, telecommunications, health) and people who were both a Follenite and neighbor or a Follenite and Waldorf parent.

Walter added an Option D. The bullet points in his were:

• informational meeting
• proposal to annual meeting about establishing a committee
• committee work
• congregational vote

A Reflection

Maya Angelou once said, “People will forget the things you do, and people will forget the things you say. But people will never forget how you made them feel.” While I remember very few details about that controversy 25 years ago, I remember how I felt.

We UUs pride ourselves on inclusion, kindness, compassion, care, etc. As a relative newcomer, learning that our church failed to notify neighbors before signing the contract was kind of embarrassing. Being seen as an “enemy” by “opponents” was unsettling. There was one human face to this issue for me: Tempe, a neighbor and a Follenite. She’s been a close friend for many years but I didn’t know her well then. One image I have of the Follen Forum is of Grady facilitating a brief dyad within the large group with Tempe and Rose C. I was pleased that Tempe had a chance to speak about her concerns in this dialogue setting where people were primed to listen carefully as opposed to a large group with a Q and A segment, which is fairly intimidating, especially if you feel alone in your concerns and perspectives. What a loss it would have been for Follen if Tempe had left (which she did, temporarily).

Here’s the second feeling. As the process unfolded over many months, I felt pride in Follen. The mammoth number of person-hours spent, mostly by overly busy volunteer leaders, demonstrated that while Follen isn’t perfect — and no church is — it is committed to doing what needs to be done to get through the difficulties: education, dialogue, discussion, brainstorming, and decision-making. If I began my relationship with Follen like a starry-eyed romantic expecting perfection, that relationship became more like a good marriage. It went through some rough spots but always with a commitment to doing what needed to be done to work through the inevitable conflicts and hurt feelings and learn from the experience. It’s not perfect, but coming to Follen 27 years ago was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.

Dee

Thank you for this opportunity to recall my experience and help inform your story of Follen Church’s Nextel contract controversy. I had forgotten most details, but Kim and Maggie’s documents from that time, and everyone’s summaries of key events jogged my memory. Most importantly, I remember having great respect and gratitude for the church leaders who guided our congregation through this conflict. I thought the final decisions were well informed, and the process wisely and sensitively managed. Thank you all!

For my part, I remember getting involved right after the June 1998 public hearing that alerted our church to adamant opposition to the cell phone antennae installation. Over the next 10 months, I assisted our church leaders with a variety of activities, especially surveys and interviews, and helping Maggie with dialogue processes. I also did some literature research and gave a very brief presentation at Kim’s July 1998 public meeting in the Sanctuary. I mention this presentation because (if I remember correctly) doing the background research added to my understanding of opponents’ concerns regarding RF radiation exposure from cell towers and cell phone antennae sites.

Many of the objections I heard from contract opponents were based on public health concerns. The precautionary principle argument often came up in these conversations, i.e., not taking action when there is scientific uncertainty about the potential impacts. These opponents didn’t trust the strength of scientific research evaluating the risks of RF field exposure. They also distrusted federal government standards for limiting levels of RF radiation exposure.

I also wondered if federal laws were a potential factor influencing opponents’ distrust in this case. If I understood it correctly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limited municipalities’ ability to deny permits based on “generalized objections” related to environmental and health concerns such as radio frequency radiation exposure.