Thread: church meeting blues Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023328
Posted by Lucydog (# 15116) on :
 
I'm a churchwarden and, as a result, have to go to various meetings run by representatives from the Diocese. They're usually lovely people, but why do they waste so much time making us go into focus groups or interact in other ways? If they're coming to talk to us about something, why don't they just get on with it instead of faffing around? We're all intelligent, busy people who would probably rather be doing something else than being patronised. Is this unique to the CofE, or just our Diocese? A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think a lot of the problem with organised christianity is work creation.

There is a large parachurch organisation in my city staffed mostly by Americans whose income consists of giving from churches and individuals back home. A continual pressure for them is being busy enough to have something to put in the prayer letters they send back to their supporters.

When you step back and look at their busyness from the outside, though, it's amazing how little direct missional impact they actually have compared to how many of them there are. Their days are consumed with meetings that sound a lot like what you describe (in fact one thing that keeps them busy is training in how to write the aforementioned prayer letters...).

In addition, they find it very difficult to understand why people with other demands on their time (such as the students they work with) aren't "more committed".

I'm not sure what the solution to this is (apart from dismantling organised christianity altogether) [Two face] but I sympathise.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
It's because when you work for any para-church organisation they send you on seminars, usually run by ex-teachers, about learning styles.

70% of people can only learn by doing something. Apparently. And so you feel forced to think of something to DO which invariably lengthens the meetings and makes people feel like children. Curse the "training consultants".

I think it's a bunch of crap personally. People want to come to the meeting, hear the info, ask questions if they need to and go home.

If it's any comfort, the same "trainers" have been everywhere. When I worked for a local council we couldn't even have a short session about recycling and turning off your computer without some sort of game imagining we had landed on the moon with only a bottle of water or other such drivel.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Having had more than my fair share of conventional meetings - with Chair, Secretary, agenda, minutes, written and unwritten conventions about "appropriate behaviour", I have always had some sympathy for the local E Anglian vicar who gave voice to this wonderful and outrageous prayer at a Norwich Youth for Christ prayer meeting.

"Dear Lord, I pray that you will turn up at the forthcoming Youth for Christ AGM, since you never seem to turn up at ours, or PCCs meetings either, come to think of it".

Mirth broke out big time.

Afterwards, I had quite a serious chat with him. He reckoned he'd been more than a little naughty and more than a little indiscreet, but said it was just frustration with the way these meetings so easily became politicised, taken over by folks who knew how to "play the game". Basically, he had become concerned that those who attended the meetings (including him sometimes) tended to lose the plot; the real purpose of the meetings was to foster Christian work and witness locally.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with trying out various means of escaping from conventions which may be becoming a "dead hand" on the real purpose of such meetings. I guess such variations are a matter for the Chair in the first place. I have a sneaky feeling the vicar I knew is not the only one to have ever had such thoughts.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I largely agree with the posts above.

However, I would also like to hear the views of those who value 'participation' when it comes to sharing information and such like, and who dislike the one person talks and everyone else mainly listens model.

It's always a hot topic on sermon threads how frustrating it is to have to sit through an address during worship with no opportunity to participate in some interactive way. It would be useful to hear if this frustration is also felt with seminars, teaching/training days etc where member participation is not encouraged. And if so what are the plus points of the above kinds of examples in small group, seminar work etc?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I largely agree with the posts above.

However, I would also like to hear the views of those who value 'participation' when it comes to sharing information and such like, and who dislike the one person talks and everyone else mainly listens model.

Yes Anselmina you are quite right. Very eirenic of you! Perhaps I was a bit strong in my opinions.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
I'm a churchwarden and, as a result, have to go to various meetings run by representatives from the Diocese. They're usually lovely people, but why do they waste so much time making us go into focus groups or interact in other ways? If they're coming to talk to us about something, why don't they just get on with it instead of faffing around? We're all intelligent, busy people who would probably rather be doing something else than being patronised. Is this unique to the CofE, or just our Diocese? A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Whilst I have every sympathy with your perspective, the question that springs to mind is: 'What have you done about it?'.

1) Have you written to the person organising the session to express your discontent, and asking them to explain the precise purpose of the 'messing around'?

2) The next level is to propose to the chair of the meeting: 'Next business'. It is, ultimately a formal session; express your discontent publicly and ask for others to support you.

3) Finally take along a book / laptop / report and blatantly refuse to play the game and say publicly 'When we get to the information I'm here to receive, could someone please nudge me. Till then I've got better things to do.'

Nothing changes unless people kick up a fuss. The church has the idiotic belief that we being loving means being non-confrontational, with the result that otherwise assertive people let training people walk all over them. They then come and rant about it at places like this, without helping the people causing the problem to realise that there IS a problem. (that applies to you as well Eutychus!)

Of course your bishop may not bother to reply to your letter - but then it become appropriate to tell him that you can't be bothered to continue your standing order to the church [Devil]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I have no problem with doing group exercise things when they have a point and for appropriate items.

What bugs me about most of the church meetings I've ever been involved in (as a member, as a co-optee onto a committee, and as a deacon) is that all of the time/energy would be arse about face.

So you get an agenda item where it's utterly, blindingly obvious what the answer is, but despite that all 15 people present have to be given an opportunity to say their piece. So you go around the table with everyone taking an age to find a new way to say "What they said" but sounding like they're contributing in their own right. I used to pray that I'd be second or third in line, so I could just say "Well, it's pretty obvious, is there anyone who doesn't agree with what X just said?" and short-circuit the whole thing.

Then there are the other items. The really serious ones, where there are definitely things to discuss, where group work would be helpful, where actually listening to the opposing view, debating, and seeking consensus would be the right thing to do. Those are the items where the Chair tends to either push it through in 30 seconds flat with no opportunity for discussion, or says "Ah, well, this is a biggie, maybe we should just defer it after that exhausting debate we've just had on whether or not we want coffee, and if so what brand we should buy".

And then there's the elephant in the room outliers.

All of the above being one reason why I'm currently studiously avoiding all forms of service/volunteering that involve group meetings [Two face]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Like Snags, I’ve no problem with doing group exercises when they have a point and are appropriate to the topic in hand. The issues touched on here aren’t unique to churches.

Many agenda items are pointless and input from the whole church may not be needed. Does the purchase of new curtains really to be discussed by the deacons and then the deacons recommendations taken to the main meeting so they can discuss it again and vote on it? Or should someone just go and buy curtains that match the existing colour scheme that aren’t overly expensive.

The other problem is that many meetings are badly chaired so you end up getting bogged down in discussions about trivial stuff like what brand of coffee to buy or the meeting’s resident windbag is allowed to drone on for most of the evening about this week’s pet topic. This leaves you with five minutes to discuss the more difficult and challenging things that no one really wants to, but need a proper and considered discussion in order to decide how best to deal with them.

Eutychus touches on something slightly different IMO. Where the organisation becomes less about what you’re meant to be doing – So for the one in his City it would be missionary work, outreach, supporting a particular group pastorally etc - and more about justifying your existence through attending meetings and doing things that are unrelated to the core activity. [OTH, a survey at my workplace suggests that we’re no different and that people the world over complain that they could be doing proper work if it wasn’t for all this unrelated guff that they’re told they’ve got to do!]

Tubbs

[ 25. July 2012, 11:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I haven't been to too many church meetings involving pseudo-psychological exercises...although our pastor did bring out the "talking stick" at one point to counteract one particular windbag who dominated our committee meeting.

Like others here, my main irritant in meetings are people who veer off the agenda, and leaders who can't reel them in.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
We have similar annoying practices at work where we are required to attend 'bonding' sessions. Most of us hate these sessions and many of us will find excuses to be absent eg death of elderly aunt etc. All these nasty practices seem to be developed by pseudo psychology types most of whom wouldn't have a clue as to what we all do at work. However, it is more than our jobs are worth to complain to the powers that be. Are there any risks in complaining at church events?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The other problem is that many meetings are badly chaired so you end up getting bogged down in discussions about trivial stuff like what brand of coffee to buy or the meeting’s resident windbag is allowed to drone on for most of the evening about this week’s pet topic. This leaves you with five minutes to discuss the more difficult and challenging things that no one really wants to, but need a proper and considered discussion in order to decide how best to deal with them.
You are, of course, assuming that this isn't precisely the intention of the person chairing the meeting:; to give them the maximum chance of getting the answer they want by reducing the chance for real discussion. We had a major project manipulated through our church on this basis; the opportunity to challenge the whole basis for going for a particular choice was carefully kept from the church council IMHO. The result has been impressive, but I'm still in awe of the Pastor's manipulation of the process leading to the decision.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Ender's Shadow is 100% right.

quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
...t why do they waste so much time making us go into focus groups or interact in other ways?
Its a form of social control, a way of manipulating the resutls of a meeting so their pre-programmed conclusion can be claimed to be the will of the whole meeting.


If they just told you outright what they wanted you to do or what their opinion was then you might disagree with them. So they take the "frog-boiling" approach, slowly nudging you towards agreeing with them while prompting you to use their carefully crafted language to describe the apparent problems and solutions, often exterting control by extending informal approval and disapproval. A good maniupulator does that qute naturally and often they genuinely don't know they are doing it and they really think everyone agrees with them because no-one has clearly expressed any disagreement. Opposition has become unsayable.


Little groups also supress the exrepssion of dissenting views by forcing them through an incresed number of filters. If each person has to get their opinion through the group, then have someone else "feed back" for them instead of talking with their own voice - and that quite possibly hours later - then have some "moderator" write it up on a flipchart carefuly changing the language to what is socially approved, any real disagreement can be very successfully buried.

Genuinely open participation would involve allowing everyone to speak to the whole meeting rather than their little group or to whoever is sitting next to them. That risks the wrong answer, so it isn't allowed.

Also if there are more than about eight ot ten people present then the only way to have a genuinely equitable discussion on any controversial topic (and why bother to talk about things that aren't controversial?) is to have some formal rules of procedure. These have gone out of fashion in the last twenty or thirty years as they are supposed to be intimidating, but in fact they make a meeting harder to control, not easier. Now everything is about consensus and focus and sharing and learning together and and all the rest of the management-clone-bollocks it is far easier for a manipulative elite to control their minions - and not even admit to themsleves that they are doing it.

(Trust me, I'm in the Labour Party - all those policy forums and so on that came in after Blair were explicitly designed to silence anyone not willing to lick the right-wing's arse - the old-fashoined ways of doing things with formal agendas and committees and rules of debate and passing potions up from branches to GC to Conference had actually allowed the Left to speak - even if what we said was then ignored - but when Noo Labour came in they cut out the middle man and went straight to ignoring us without even listening to us first)

[ 25. July 2012, 14:43: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Whereas we had the same technique used to sideline a fundamentally important discussion for over 7 years, whilst appearing to give it air time :/
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
The Death Knell for me are the words, "Now we'll break up into small groups, and get to know each other better, by playing some fun games, and take turns around your table by telling the best thing that happened to you this week, and then, the worst thing. Then we'll hold hands and pray for each person's worst thing."

Or words to that effect. Makes me want to just die. Quickly.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
The Death Knell for me are the words, "Now we'll break up into small groups, and get to know each other better, by playing some fun games, and take turns around your table by telling the best thing that happened to you this week, and then, the worst thing. Then we'll hold hands and pray for each person's worst thing."

Or words to that effect. Makes me want to just die. Quickly.
I know some preachers who do that in sermons. [Projectile]

We hates it! We hates it for ever!
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
Ken, that's why I left the Labour Party. Are you still in there?
As for church, I'm a Catholic - sort of - and we don't have meetings. Not sure if that's good or bad...
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
The Death Knell for me are the words, "Now we'll break up into small groups, and get to know each other better, by playing some fun games, and take turns around your table by telling the best thing that happened to you this week, and then, the worst thing. Then we'll hold hands and pray for each person's worst thing."

The only time this particular bishop has pulled rank in a meeting was when someone tried doing that at a Standing Committee meeting. We were seriously behind schedule, and I was not in a mood for the touchy-feely stuff, so I muttered "No we bloody won't!" Then outloud "As we are running well behind schedule I think it would be a more productive use of time to move on to the next element in your presentation." A huge sign of relief went around the room, and we got finished on time - i.e. 5pm.

I tend to fear anarchy more than tyranny, so I tend to keep Church meetings on a pretty short chain. They are essentially ventilation exercises, because the policy is pretty much on-going and depends a lot on the outlook of the particular bishop. Otherwise you discuss the same things over and over and over, which if it is something unpopular may be the tactic that is being employed by its advocates to wear the rest of us out.

Another pet-peeve is being made to wear a name tag... I have been the bishop for three years, they ought to know who I am by now!

PD

[ 25. July 2012, 15:09: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Lucydog (# 15116) on :
 
thanks everyone, and, yes, I will express how I feel about it. In fact, people's answers clarified how I felt about what was wrong i.e. there is no value in focus groups and other exercises, they are just designed to push you in the way the organisers want you to go, while making you feel like your discussion might be important (which it isn't)
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Our Diocese has gone big time for the Diocesan advisors, who travel about from parish to parish making suggestions and then disappear off to the next place. At the same time, the Diocese is complaining that it is short of money. I personally would like to see the floating advisors being utilised in the parishes, working at ground level where they are needed, as we have so few parish priests, each given an increasing number of churches.

I was pleased to see, though, that we have been given the chance to comment on how Diocesan resources should be allocated (by questionnaire), and was able to bring up this point. It will be interesting to see if there is any feedback.

It is difficult to understand, if you are the sort of person who is used to talks, sermons and lectures, how some people need a more interactive approach. I ducked out of the Lent Course this year because it was very craft based (making paper chains, etc.). But some people who went thought it was wonderful [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I was pleased to see, though, that we have been given the chance to comment on how Diocesan resources should be allocated (by questionnaire), and was able to bring up this point. It will be interesting to see if there is any feedback.
[Killing me] You seriously expect the wrong answers to be publicised? The only way to correct this is for Diocescan synod to take control of the budget and delete the funds for such advisors. But they will be diverted by more pressing issues, like climate change, women's ministry, the provision of toilets in churches etc etc.

Me cynical? [Help]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Genuinely open participation would involve allowing everyone to speak to the whole meeting rather than their little group or to whoever is sitting next to them. That risks the wrong answer, so it isn't allowed.
Absolutely agree. I've once seen a vicar ask the PCC whether he could get rid of the pews in favour of chairs. They said no. He accepted it. He clearly really wants chairs, and I hear that he brings it up again every so often, and gets told no again.

I wonder if he could have manipulated the meeting had he done a bit of focus group discussion, brainstormed and snow-balled the pros and cons, and got what he wanted. He's a clever man, and probably could have done that if he wanted. He tried to persuade them of his view in an open way, failed, and accepted the verdict. Which I have great respect for.

I think those kind of snow-balling and focus group activities are useful in adult education. In which they are clearly designed to bring out the points a teacher wants to get to. Hence they are not appropriate for engaging with peers who have important views.
 
Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :
 
Okay, I realise this is a seriously minority opinion, but I wish there were more interaction and more genuine reflection and discussion at meetings. Anything that doesn’t need that kind of discussion should be done by email.

Most of the meetings I used to go to at church were like Snags’ second example. An innocuously-worded agenda item would turn out to be a major decision, possibly involving the church in vast expenditure. A long document would be circulated at the meeting when we had no time to digest it. Then everyone would sit around in a circle not wanting to speak for fear of looking stupid or troublesome. Thus we would get “consensus” – although sometimes it would later transpire that people hadn’t been 100% sure what they had just agreed to.

One of the best meetings was when we split up into groups, outside the view of the Rector, and did an exercise based on the Mystery Worshipper! It was the first time we all felt safe to admit that the church wasn’t perfect and that we did want to make changes. I think we’d all previously thought it was just us.

(I should add that in the learning styles thing, I’m somebody who learns best by reading – hence my great irritation at having to listen to something I could have read in advance. And I really don’t get what the appeal is of sticking bits of coloured paper together!)

[ 25. July 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: Wannabe Heretic ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
thanks everyone, and, yes, I will express how I feel about it. In fact, people's answers clarified how I felt about what was wrong i.e. there is no value in focus groups and other exercises, they are just designed to push you in the way the organisers want you to go, while making you feel like your discussion might be important (which it isn't)
There is no value in abusing any group discussion by manipulating its agenda, guidelines or processes in order to achieve a pre-determined end.

Heck, the original point of such processes was to provide variations of opinions and arguments based on the diverse experience and understanding of the group members. Behind that was the ancient understanding that in resolving matters requiring a lot of thought, two (or more) heads are better than one.

When any such process is used cynically to endorse the opinions of a powerful individual (or group) the process has been corrupted. It is naive to believe that the traditional committee processes aren't often corrupted in precisely that way, so that the meetings become a kind of ritual dance. I've been to plenty of those, come away feeling "what a waste of the ability in the room".

So I think it is wrong in principle to attack novel processes simply because they are novel. What is essential is the recognition that all processes, novel or traditional, are subject to abuse by the powerful, and seek to guard against that. Speak up against the stitch-up.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Okay, I realise this is a seriously minority opinion, but I wish there were more interaction and more genuine reflection and discussion at meetings.... An innocuously-worded agenda item would turn out to be a major decision, possibly involving the church in vast expenditure. A long document would be circulated at the meeting when we had no time to digest it.
I think there are lots of different compatible attributes to describe meetings that can be distinguished.

For instance, one can have an interactive, open floor discussion without doing the focus group stuff. One can circulate documents and agendas in detail in advance whether or not one does an interactive bit.

I like having things written down too, and find it frustrating that meetings are called as a substitute for people answering emails and commenting on documents in detail.

My problem is with the focus group activity stuff without an opportunity for the group to establish consensus with an unfettered discussion. But there probably is a place for breaking into small groups before coming back together again if it is difficult to get any discussion going. However I think it is important that the group as a whole is allowed an unguided unfacilitated response after that.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Like Snags, I’ve no problem with doing group exercises when they have a point and are appropriate to the topic in hand. The issues touched on here aren’t unique to churches.
Exactly. Which means being clear about the committee and it's purpose.

Some committees are truly ministry teams where the goal is both team building as well as planning upcoming events. Group exercises or devotional activities might be appropriate in that context.

Some committee are meant to be simply oversight-- they aren't the actual ministry team, they are a "rubber stamp" giving accountability so you don't have a rogue group running off half-cocked (too many of these sorts of committees and you get nothing done). These groups are best kept to efficiency-- make sure the group seeking approval gets to have their say, make your decision, and be done w/ it.

There's a difference, too, between the types of activities you might engage in when you're brainstorming (trying to think outside the box, generate creativity) and when you are doing the minutia of planning/ trouble shooting or evaluating a completed program.

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

Many agenda items are pointless and input from the whole church may not be needed. Does the purchase of new curtains really to be discussed by the deacons and then the deacons recommendations taken to the main meeting so they can discuss it again and vote on it? Or should someone just go and buy curtains that match the existing colour scheme that aren’t overly expensive.

The other problem is that many meetings are badly chaired so you end up getting bogged down in discussions about trivial stuff like what brand of coffee to buy or the meeting’s resident windbag is allowed to drone on for most of the evening about this week’s pet topic. This leaves you with five minutes to discuss the more difficult and challenging things that no one really wants to, but need a proper and considered discussion in order to decide how best to deal with them.
A consent agenda is a good workaround here. One week in advance the agenda is emailed, including all motions to be brought forward and supporting arguments/ documentation from the individual/ group making the motion. No additional agenda items are accepted after that date except in an emergency.

On the day of the mtg, after the preliminaries of approving minutes, etc. the chair asks if there are any items that need to be pulled from the "consent agenda"-- i.e. anything that needs clarification or discussion. After those items are pulled a motion is made to approve the consent agenda. Anything left on the consent agenda-- not pulled-- is approved then w/o comment or discussion. The chair then proceeds to discuss the items pulled-- asking the person who pulled it what their question or opposition is, to be answered by the person bringing forth the motion.

For truly controversial issues with a lot of heat, it can be useful to make an itemized list of pros and cons, and continually remind people not to repeat arguments already made. You have the list upfront (either handed out ahead of time or on powerpoint or white board)-- speak only if you have something to add on the pro or con that hasn't already been mentioned.

Proceed to vote.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Okay, I realise this is a seriously minority opinion, but I wish there were more interaction and more genuine reflection and discussion at meetings.
I don't think people here are objecting to genuine reflection and discussion, but to the "bonding exercises" and the "let's get to know each other games."

I just now came home from a morning meeting followed by helping paint scenery for VBS, both productive gatherings with NO bonding exercises or "get to know you" games; contrasting these with what some here are saying, I *think* what's going on is some churches have picked up the idea that we need to build connections, and meetings of any kind are seen as primarily for the purpose of building connections rather than primarily for getting some specific project planned or done and letting the process of working together automatically build connections.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I *think* what's going on is some churches have picked up the idea that we need to build connections, and meetings of any kind are seen as primarily for the purpose of building connections rather than primarily for getting some specific project planned or done and letting the process of working together automatically build connections.
I think that's right - at least in part, when considering the motivations of organisers. The desire for church to become more relational (rather than primarily task-structured) is I think a good one.

But IME, working together does not automatically build connections. Often it becomes a crucible for highlighting differences of personality and outlook. Working together is just as likely to create emnity as harmony. In this respect, the voluntary team associations in local churches don't differ all that much from the more enforced teams found in the average workplace. Church and workplace politics thrive in the fertile soil produced by "rubbing edges".

There's a natural tendency to relate to those folks who we relate to more easily, to form factions almost without realising it. It takes some generosity of heart and mind to recognise that diversities of outlook and personality can be a source of riches. The "rubbing edges" often tell us as much about ourselves as the folks who are irritating us.

[ 26. July 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

There is no value in abusing any group discussion by manipulating its agenda, guidelines or processes in order to achieve a pre-determined end.

Heck, the original point of such processes was to provide variations of opinions and arguments based on the diverse experience and understanding of the group members. Behind that was the ancient understanding that in resolving matters requiring a lot of thought, two (or more) heads are better than one.

When any such process is used cynically to endorse the opinions of a powerful individual (or group) the process has been corrupted. It is naive to believe that the traditional committee processes aren't often corrupted in precisely that way, so that the meetings become a kind of ritual dance. I've been to plenty of those, come away feeling "what a waste of the ability in the room".

So I think it is wrong in principle to attack novel processes simply because they are novel. What is essential is the recognition that all processes, novel or traditional, are subject to abuse by the powerful, and seek to guard against that. Speak up against the stitch-up.
I completely agree with this. The problem is that those who abuse the processes do see a value in it if they get the outcome they want.

In PCC meetings I’ve unfortunately encountered the attitude that leadership means the vicar makes the decisions. The way this is achieved is by not following the regulations, so no proper agendas or documents in advance of the meeting, no minutes of previous meeting in advance, vicar decides the agenda and also the draft minutes. I was once refused permission to put an item on an agenda because the vicar didn't agree with the proposal but believed the rest of the PCC probably would agree. He felt that if this were allowed to happen then it would mean the PCC had failed to accept his leadership and he would be obliged to resign. The proposal was a) that we get documents in advance of the meeting so that we can think about proposals beforehand and b) that agreed minutes are made available to the congregation.

A PCC has legal responsiblities and can be held accountable for its decisions so it is very important that statutory processes are followed. Its not a general discussion group or sounding board for the vicar's ideas. I’ve heard of one PCC where every meeting begins with each person in turn having to say what God has done for them that month.

Sometimes even where established processes are followed, if the outcome isn't what those in power want then the decision is ignored or sabotaged in some way. For example, a meeting involving clergy and laity which had to decide between three proposals. Option A proposed a major change involving formal proceses, option B proposed a less drastic change and with informal processes which could be a way of working towards option A. Option C was to do nothing and leave things as they were. Clergy voted for option A, the laity for option B. It was agreed that some kind of working party be formed to move things forward. However, this never happened and option C was the result. From that time on the main supporters of option A referred to the decision as the laity's failure to agree to option A. If it had been the other way round and clergy had voted for option B then I am sure this would have been followed through.

As for speaking up against the stitch-up, the way things are in the CofE if you're a curate, NSM, OLM, Reader or anyone with a licensed ministry you risk having that ministry effectively ended.
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Yes, for adults! If you can't articulate what your church symbolises to you, understand that it's different from what it symbolises to the person sitting in the next pew, and imagine how different it is from what it symbolises to the people who walk past it every day but never think of coming to contribute then you shouldn't be putting yourself forward to be a churchwarden. If your church has healed all the sick people in the parish, fed the hungry and set all the captives free, then I'm speaking out of turn. But certainly my church is very far for those things, or even from being a viable community, let alone a beacon for the local community to look to. If we're not being effective in our mission then we need to reflect on what is holding us back.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've once seen a vicar ask the PCC whether he could get rid of the pews in favour of chairs. They said no. He accepted it. He clearly really wants chairs, and I hear that he brings it up again every so often, and gets told no again.
He's right! He needs to find a way to manipulate the meeting. They'll all be much happier when they get out of the Victorian age and join the rest of the world sitting in comfortable seats. You can call it democracy if you like, but mob rule often produces the wrong decision.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Yes, for adults!

Surely, "for some adults" - and that's where the problem lies.
For (seeing that I have the drawing ability of a very visually-challenged 3-year old) this kind of thing doesn't help me at all; I work more through debate and discussion. But my wife finds the visual stuff really helpful. (For what it's worth, I'm not saying that this is in any way a gender issue: I'm merely speaking of my wife and myself).

[ 26. July 2012, 22:58: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

As for speaking up against the stitch-up, the way things are in the CofE if you're a curate, NSM, OLM, Reader or anyone with a licensed ministry you risk having that ministry effectively ended.
I'm sorry to hear that. If more generally true, then something is wrong.

Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others? I recognise the general issue of tenure in the C of E but I wouldn't have thought that stopped a Rural Dean or Archdeacon (or even the Bish if necessary) from jumping up and down on the head of a vicar who was clearly abusing due (and authorised) PCC process. That looks like a line-cross worth their time to do something about.

I'm more used to the church meeting scenario in congregationalist settings. There is scope for those to be abused as well, but it's hard to silence a nonco congo member with the bit between his or her teeth!

[Mind you, whistleblowers have a hard time just about everywhere these days. "And the people all said sit down, sit down you're rocking the boat" seems to be some kind of baleful theme.]

[ 26. July 2012, 10:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our Diocese has gone big time for the Diocesan advisors, who travel about from parish to parish making suggestions and then disappear off to the next place. At the same time, the Diocese is complaining that it is short of money. I personally would like to see the floating advisors being utilised in the parishes, working at ground level where they are needed, as we have so few parish priests, each given an increasing number of churches.
My experience is that the sort of churches where such people would make a real difference are the sort of churches that wouldn't have them!
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
Most training courses these days involve breaking into small groups so that you can share your ignorance with one another, with a plenary session afterwards to share the ignorance more widely.

If all the participants are truly ignorant of the subject matter and are there to be trained, then this is pointless. It would be better for the trainer to train them. However, if the participants bring different types of expertise to the meeting, it can be helpful, as they will jointly know much more than one trainer.

With regard to meetings, here are some things that work:
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others?
Can happen in congregationalist-type Nonconformist churches, too. Trust me.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Yes, for adults! If you can't articulate what your church symbolises to you, understand that it's different from what it symbolises to the person sitting in the next pew, and imagine how different it is from what it symbolises to the people who walk past it every day but never think of coming to contribute then you shouldn't be putting yourself forward to be a churchwarden.
Adults can have that discussion without being asked to draw pictures with a felt pen. Then they can be treated like adults and debate the idea, and whether it is right or not, and whether they should in fact be churchwardens despite not agreeing with it.

Setting it up like a school lesson with a drawing activity introduces the idea that the teacher has the answers and is teaching the children. That's fine if the meeting is educational, but not if it is about discussion and shared decision making.


quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
He's right! He needs to find a way to manipulate the meeting... You can call it democracy if you like, but mob rule often produces the wrong decision.
The thing is that as tempting as they are in the short term if you are in control, non-democratic methods often seem to pan out worse in the end.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Two things.

1/ Most church meetings are “make-work” because we don’t know how to do mission and evangelism so we go to meetings. (Most “social action” in parishes falls into the same category). The only answer I have found that has any chance of working is converting the meeting into a time of corporate prayer and bible study. Funnily when we turn again to God He turns up.

2/ It helps to define agenda items into “Church Business” or “The Business of the Church.” Most meetings I go to 90% of the agenda is Church Business. Now don’t get me wrong someone has to decide when we pay the bills, who get the toilet paper and what colour we paint the toilets, but these matters should never trump “The Business of the Church.” So an attempt to dramatically curtail “Church Business” and have an hour or so of “The Business of the Church.” First few times we tried this it was like the tumble weed moment. But in the end we started to get somewhere and when we are really stuck we have a time of corporate prayer and bible study. Funnily when we turn again to God He turns up.


Atb Pyx_e
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Most training courses these days involve breaking into small groups so that you can share your ignorance with one another, with a plenary session afterwards to share the ignorance more widely.
When I was doing my Reader training, we had one lecturer who would often break us up into small groups to discuss things for about 10 minutes before re-convening. He later admitted that the primary reason for doing this was so that he could nip outside for a smoke!
 
Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :
 
[Overused] Pyx_e! Most meetings seem to be ‘topped and tailed’ with thirty seconds of prayer, and then (in the church I was in anyway) virtually no reference to God or the gospel in between. I think the people chairing are (rightly) concerned to keep the meeting short, but it unfortunately seems easier to do that by cutting out a) debate and b) God rather than working out a more efficient process like Dal Segno suggests.

Hairy Biker / Mdijon: Isn’t there a way the priest could put forward his case persuasively without manipulating people? Simply saying ‘do you want chairs?’ (if that’s what he did) is bound to get a rejection. That’s not a decision, it’s just a reaction. But manipulating people would just lead to resentment and problems down the line. Especially because debates about chairs and pews are never just about chairs and pews. Sometimes people think they can ‘make the space more flexible’ as if that were an end in itself, without thinking through all the corollaries – does anybody actually want to use this space? Are we happy about what they might want to do in it? What about the additional pressure on volunteers to open up and lock up?

One good technique I’ve come across for major decisions like that is called De Bono’s Thinking Hats. It’s a way of making sure you look at a suggestion from all angles – pros and cons, practicalities, emotional reactions, aspects that are uncertain or need more looking into, alternatives. Otherwise what happens is that the first person comes up with all the reasons it won’t work; the second person reacts emotionally; the third person says that the second person’s reaction isn’t valid; the fourth person suggests something entirely different... and you never actually get a chance to assess any of the arguments because the discussion is going in so many different directions.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
And who takes the minutes of these discussions?

[ 26. July 2012, 12:03: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
But manipulating people would just lead to resentment and problems down the line.
Exactly.

Actually he did put the case reasonably persuasively and outlined all the things that could be done with chairs rather than pews. But however persuasive one is, there remains the possibility that people won't agree with you. And if they don't then I think the right thing to do is accept it.

Pews vs chairs is really quite an arguable thing and not an obvious moral judgement. There should be room for reasonable people to disagree, and therefore take the view that the right way is to establish the consensus vote and go with that.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
....I was once refused permission to put an item on an agenda because the vicar didn't agree with the proposal but believed the rest of the PCC probably would agree. He felt that if this were allowed to happen then it would mean the PCC had failed to accept his leadership and he would be obliged to resign. The proposal was a) that we get documents in advance of the meeting so that we can think about proposals beforehand and b) that agreed minutes are made available to the congregation....
If that really is a true summary of what happened and the issues, and he was that touchy about interpreting everything as a challenge to his leadership, he was unsuitable to be a leader. Perhaps you should have called his bluff.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Yes, for adults! If you can't articulate what your church symbolises to you, understand that it's different from what it symbolises to the person sitting in the next pew, and imagine how different it is from what it symbolises to the people who walk past it every day but never think of coming to contribute then you shouldn't be putting yourself forward to be a churchwarden.
The problem is that some people, including me, are disastrously bad at drawing. I do better making shapes with plasticene, and I also am good at expressing myself with words. If I have to draw, I want a pencil with an eraser.

If I were asked at the beginning of a meeting to draw with a felt marker, it would temporarily damage my self-confidence to the point that I would contribute less to the meeting than I otherwise would have.

Moo
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

... If that really is a true summary of what happened and the issues, and he was that touchy about interpreting everything as a challenge to his leadership, he was unsuitable to be a leader. Perhaps you should have called his bluff.
He had very many years' experience of being an inccumbent and was well-regarded in the diocese. 'Calling his bluff' would have ended my ministry, that was made very clear.

Before I became a Reader, and in another diocese, I attended a lay training event which was led by a suffragen bishop from another diocese. At that event a Reader of very long experience spoke about the difficulty she would have in following the bishop's suggestions. She explained that if she did or said anything at all which her incumbent did not agree with he would simply take her off the service rota and her minsitry would be ended. The bishop expressed his outrage at her situation and urged her, and indeed all of us, to stand up for ourselves. But, as she remarked at the end, after the bishop had left, he was from another diocese and unable to help her so nothing would change.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Moo

What about adults who are the other way around, who can draw and such but can't express themselves well in words, don't most meetings play on their insecurities in just the same way?


That is what I suspect at the core of this, we all have preferences for things being done in certain ways whether due to skill, natural abilities or experience (what is known is nearly always preferable to the unknown). When something comes outside our preferences we feel uncomfortable. We rarely stop to consider how someone with different preferences might feel if things are organised the way we like.

Many years ago my father was making just such complaints and wondering why things could not be done in formal manner, until I pointed out that while he knew how to behave in a formal public meeting (due to experience as it is how much of the URC is run), my brother-in-law in a skilled technical job didn't because he never had to deal with them. So what was comfortable for Dad was very uncomfortable for my brother-in-law.

Jengie
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
If an adult wanted to contribute by volunteering a drawing of something that is very different from all being sat down and given a piece of paper and a felt tip.

It is the equivalent of asking everyone to give a 1 minute talk about their view of the church.

It isn't the drawing vs verbal or the formal vs informal dichotomy for me, it is the compulsion to communicate in a particular way regarding a particular issue that bothers me.

Adults should be allowed to choose how they will contribute and a meeting of adults where those adults are to be responsible for a decision ought to allow the form of discussion to be shaped by those present.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others?
Can happen in congregationalist-type Nonconformist churches, too. Trust me.
Sure. In Baptist congos, when it comes to control however, the boot is very often on the other foot. As Billy Graham joked; "Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Resist the deacons and they will fly at you".
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But IME, working together does not automatically build connections. Often it becomes a crucible for highlighting differences of personality and outlook. Working together is just as likely to create emnity as harmony.
IME team building exercises can build enmity too.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In Baptist congos, when it comes to control however, the boot is very often on the other foot. As Billy Graham joked; "Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Resist the deacons and they will fly at you".
Absolutely true, Barnabas.

But it's far harder to deal with the "informal leaders" - those who are unelected and yet whose words have much more clout than the "official" ones. All churches and societies have them.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
..Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others? I recognise the general issue of tenure in the C of E but I wouldn't have thought that stopped a Rural Dean or Archdeacon (or even the Bish if necessary) from jumping up and down on the head of a vicar who was clearly abusing due (and authorised) PCC process. ...
Thing is Barnabas, the CofE works hierarchically so where incumbents behave like jerks, and get away with it, chances are the Rural Deans, Archdeadons (or even Bishops) behave like bigger jerks.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Most training courses these days involve breaking into small groups so that you can share your ignorance with one another, with a plenary session afterwards to share the ignorance more widely.

If all the participants are truly ignorant of the subject matter and are there to be trained, then this is pointless. It would be better for the trainer to train them. However, if the participants bring different types of expertise to the meeting, it can be helpful, as they will jointly know much more than one trainer.
To some degree this reflects a cultural value, and not a particularly good one. I teach university, and find the students' assumption is always that there input and perspectives are as valuable as anyone else's-- including experts in the field. Any instructor who doesn't devote large quantities of class time to this kind of group discussion is considered a poor teacher. Students expect reflection papers, not research papers. I was even called in to adjudicate a student complaint against a colleague who had the audacity to challenge some of her statements in a paper because it was "unfair" to counter her perspective. I would say he was doing his job.

When I was teaching in Africa, otoh, I really did feel my students had as much to bring to the table as I did. Unlike my particular US classroom, most of my students in Africa were older adults who had been active in ministry for 10 or more years, under difficult circumstances. I was also keenly aware that I didn't know the culture and couldn't speak knowledgably about how to apply the material in their particular setting. So I tried breaking them into groups for the kind of discussion described above. They would have none of it. They had sacrificed greatly to come to this class, and they wanted to get their money's worth. They could talk to each other any time.

Interesting shift in perspective, and a beautiful modeling of humility.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

[*]Have starred items. These are things that are on the agenda but which are approved with no discussion. Ensure that there is an item early on to "approve all starred items" during which people can unstar things. Ensure that the chair skips the starred items rather than saying "Item 8 is starred..." followed by a five minute monologue on item 8.
[/list]
This is the "consent agenda" paradigm I've discussed earlier-- except in the consent agenda paradigm everything is initially "starred".



[*]If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
[/list] [/QUOTE]

I'm assuming you don't mean discuss privately? That would be disastrous. But with contentious items it can indeed be a good idea to present them to the group as a whole first as an "information item"-- a heads up that at the next meeting we're going to be discussing this. You can allow some questions but no time-sucking debate. Just questions for the group making the motion to make note of and be prepared to answer at the next meeting. That can become the outline then for the kind of document I described earlier that outlines the known pros and cons for an issue in advance so they don't need to be restated. Then you can being the meeting where the decision will actually be made with those as a "given"-- no need to restate-- so that discussion involves bringing up only new pros/cons not previously mentioned. That helps cut down on the bandwagon effect, where a lot of people speaking up to say nothing more than "I agree with the last speaker" builds a false sense of consensus that steamrolls over any alternative pov. If you agree then that will be reflected in your vote.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
justlooking; none taken.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I am notorious for the way I chair meetings. I adhere strictly to a timed agenda, insist on one major item for detailed discussion and finish on time even bf business is still pending. I ask those who agree on basic issues to signify BEFORE discussion - if there is agreement, then there is no need to discuss and we move to next business. I would like every chairperson to be like me and i often avoid meetings which i consider to be 'badly chaired' and where I am inwardly urging the chair to move on, like willing traffic lights to go green.

However, I know some who regard the chairing of meetings as a form of pastoral care or therapy - it is important for everyone to have a say, even if it is only to repeat what the last speaker said. They tend to leave time AFTER a vote and a decision for anyone who disagrees to be able to reopen the discussion.

Some are going to like one approach; some another.

I note that the person who took over chairing a group after my fixed term of office ended has the knack of being a mixture of both types. I really enjoy her meetings.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But IME, working together does not automatically build connections. Often it becomes a crucible for highlighting differences of personality and outlook. Working together is just as likely to create emnity as harmony.
IME team building exercises can build enmity too.
Also true. I could tell you some stories. Competition and co-operation make uneasy bedfellows.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
For some`reason I am frequently asked to join various committees and attend seemingly endless meetings. When I retire, the thing I look foward to most of all is my intention never, ever, to attend any meeting whatesoever ever again.

It's absurd asking me anyway, as I have a 12 minute concentration span and just sit there looking at Facebook or other apps on my phone until the meeting is over.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Please stick to that. When I retired I took on even more meetings to fill the gap. Wish i hadn't and still trying to get out of them.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If an adult wanted to contribute by volunteering a drawing of something that is very different from all being sat down and given a piece of paper and a felt tip.
This reminds me of KenWritez' interpretive dance.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
A legendary post.

I have a terrible premonition that somewhere a meeting facilitator is planning an exercise involving interpretive dance to kick off a meeting I will attend.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Can my wife come? She'd love that - it would really speak her language!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Only if she will cover for me while I head for the door.

In theory*, if someone wished to communicate in a meeting in interpretive dance I'd accept that. My problem is when it is enforced as some form of exercise on the meeting. This is what creates the circus-master/performing animals dynamic that I object to.

(I note that those running these sorts of meetings don't actually get their felt tip pens out or join in the activity bits).

* This is in theory. In practice I'd still cringe, but recognise that was my problem.

[ 27. July 2012, 08:51: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
And who takes the minutes of these discussions?
Minutes should record decisions taken. They should not be a record of the discussion that led to the decision.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
While they don't usually give stenographic accounts, I think they should give a bit of detail regarding the discussion that took place to justify the decision, caveats raised, reassurances given etc.
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

  • If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
I'm assuming you don't mean discuss privately? That would be disastrous. But with contentious items it can indeed be a good idea to present them to the group as a whole first as an "information item" -- a heads up that at the next meeting we're going to be discussing this.
I'm assuming that you do what works for your committee. I have seen this done in several ways:
-DS

[1] This once had the effect causing a member of the committee to send a short but offensive e-mail to the whole committee saying how offensive he found the proposal. Had he done that in the meeting, it would have derailed the whole discussion. As he had done it a couple of days in advance, he'd had time to get over his offense and we had a good, open discussion.

[2] This may be considered immoral. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Minutes should record decisions taken. They should not be a record of the discussion that led to the decision.
Apologies, I wasn't seriously suggesting that minutes were always necessary.

I was trying (and failing apparently) to draw attention to the fact that these distinctions are not always obvious or agreed by everyone. Equally it is not always possible to discuss things in advance. It might be ideal, but this thing called life gets in the way.

People are people. What is contentious to some will not be to others, and you can't always see it coming. There are ways of running meetings that help but there is no formal approach that is fool proof. (I choose my words carefully.)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

  • If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
I'm assuming you don't mean discuss privately? That would be disastrous. But with contentious items it can indeed be a good idea to present them to the group as a whole first as an "information item" -- a heads up that at the next meeting we're going to be discussing this.
I'm assuming that you do what works for your committee. I have seen this done in several ways:
-DS

[1] This once had the effect causing a member of the committee to send a short but offensive e-mail to the whole committee saying how offensive he found the proposal. Had he done that in the meeting, it would have derailed the whole discussion. As he had done it a couple of days in advance, he'd had time to get over his offense and we had a good, open discussion.

[2] This may be considered immoral. [Biased]
Not immoral, obviously, but unwise I think in any context to encourage private conversations outside of the formal meeting. It sets a bad precedent, looks manipulative, and undermines the very purpose of the committee itself. Opponents to the motion will rightly feel railroaded and disenfranchised. The goal of a committee system is to ensure a fair hearing to all sides, believing that wisdom arises from many counselors. The private premeetings completely undermine that. Some prediscussion is, of course, inevitable, but it should not be encouraged, particularly by the moderator or secretary (clerk, in my system). You might win the battle (get this motion though) but you will surely lose the war (create division).

Sending out an email in advance, otoh, is I think a good practice-- similar to the idea of presenting the proposal first for information. It gives time for people to think through something and gather there thoughts/ concerns/ questions in a reasonable way. Again, you might provide a channel for them to forward questions to the person/group bringing the motion so they can come prepared to address them-- but that should be done in an open and transparent way, w/o getting into a private debate but simply "here are things I'll want to discuss".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it depends on the members and meeting.

Where one knows that certain members have particular expected and proper concerns, I think it makes sense to talk to them first in detail about proposals that are especially relevant to them. And then to gauge what changes to the proposal would be required to win their support.

This may be more efficient in requiring less discussion regarding individually-specific concerns in the meeting, and not wasting everyone's time with a proposal that won't fly because a key person isn't happy with it.

In a situation where the meeting is meant to have some quasi-electoral or quasi-judicial function then it may be more dubious to have private discussions before hand.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"Minutes are written to protect people". A Sir Humphreyism which should never be overlooked.

Particularly if you remember that "people" may be taken to mean "some people, rather than others".
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it depends on the members and meeting.

Where one knows that certain members have particular expected and proper concerns, I think it makes sense to talk to them first in detail about proposals that are especially relevant to them. And then to gauge what changes to the proposal would be required to win their support.

This may be more efficient in requiring less discussion regarding individually-specific concerns in the meeting, and not wasting everyone's time with a proposal that won't fly because a key person isn't happy with it.

In a situation where the meeting is meant to have some quasi-electoral or quasi-judicial function then it may be more dubious to have private discussions before hand.
Obviously I disagree. There is just too much history-- and temptation-- for such private meetings, no matter how innocent the initial intentions-- to become a means of political maneuvering to shut out a minority pov.

I'm Reformed enough to believe there are good, theological reasons for committees-- they're not just an inconvenient fact of life. All those good theological reasons are perverted by the backroom deal-making outside the light of day. Transparency and authenticity is essential, the backroom politicing subverts that.

Again, it will happen inevitably. The best of us will find ourselves engaged in discussing things "out of view" that really ought to be kept to the official meeting. But it's definitely (IMHO) not something to be encouraged.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Let me add that it seems some of the motivation for private pre-discussion is to keep the meeting short and/or avoid awkward confrontation.

While I am a big fan of the efficient meeting (see my suggestions re: consent agenda), I don't think those goals are worth the cost of an open and transparent process. As we saw in the examples presented, the awkward emotional outbursts or inappropriate attacks will happen-- it is far better for them to happen in the light of day then behind closed doors, where they may cause enmity that lasts for years, long after the initial dispute has faded into obscurity.

Efficiency and reasonable civil debate are good tools, but not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to discern the will of God for this matter. We have to keep that foremost. The committee system is based on a particular set of beliefs about how we arrive at that-- how we engage in communal discernment. Again, pre-meeting private discussions subvert that.

If you don't believe in communal discernment, then don't have a committee system. Without that as a primary motivation, they are a bureaucratic waste of time.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I was once given this advice by someone who had a pathological dislike of meetings:

(1) Remember that voluntary meetings (like a PCC perhaps?) are often therapy sessions for either must-speaks, or people like bank managers who have spent their lives on committees and therefore miss it in retirement. For them it has a greater importance than may actually be the case.

(2) Never allow AOB (Any Other Business) unless it is submitted in writing the week before. This prevents unpleasant surprises and protracted meetings when people just want to get home.

(3) Don't offfer refreshments BEFORE the meeting, but AFTERWARDS. This means people might hurry up to get to the wine.

(4) Hold the meeting at a slightly difficult time (just before supper), again so to avoid lengthy proceedings.

This was all said to me by the incumbent of three country parishes. He would hold his meetings in the rectory usually at 6.00pm and a friend would bang the gong at 7.00pm. He could then smile and stand and say 'you will have to excuse me. We have dinner in the rectory at 7.'
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
Is this unique to the CofE, or just our Diocese?
No, it's just peculiar to the *facilitators* of any such meetings who have an agenda to push, as ken says. At work, we have had *LEAN* meetings up to the back teeth. One of their tricks is to take a *temperature* reading at the start to see how enthusiastic people are initially and again at the end, hoping that the *temperature* will have risen as a result of having *awareness raised* of the inestimable benefits of the latest piece of popular bullshit offered up by some management consultancy appointed by a government crony. I like to start at zero and end at Absolute Zero.

To quote Barnabus out of context *There is no value*.

It's what Buzzword Bingo was invented for.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you don't believe in communal discernment, then don't have a committee system. Without that as a primary motivation, they are a bureaucratic waste of time.
This might be too black and white.

For instance, imagine that the organ is wearing out and needs replacing. If I was on a PCC I would be surprised to find the organist placing a proposal on the table that he or she had not discussed already with the choir director. If 15mins are taken up with them having a chat about the merits of different options that others can't really contribute to then that doesn't seem helpful.

On the other hand, I see that if a few members have done a private deal on the basis of you support this and I'll support that undermines the process.

But I think one should be able to use judgement, otherwise the process can become very unwieldy.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you don't believe in communal discernment, then don't have a committee system. Without that as a primary motivation, they are a bureaucratic waste of time.
This might be too black and white.

For instance, imagine that the organ is wearing out and needs replacing. If I was on a PCC I would be surprised to find the organist placing a proposal on the table that he or she had not discussed already with the choir director. If 15mins are taken up with them having a chat about the merits of different options that others can't really contribute to then that doesn't seem helpful.

On the other hand, I see that if a few members have done a private deal on the basis of you support this and I'll support that undermines the process.

But I think one should be able to use judgement, otherwise the process can become very unwieldy.
Sure, the examples you give illustrate that difference well. Yes, if there's people that need to be consulted ahead of time for their professional expertise, that's useful-- and can be done in an upfront & transparent manner so no one is left feeling like there was a runaround. It's the backroom deals I'm wanting to avoid. And the distinction can be messy-- what starts out as the sort of sensible consultation you're describing in the first instance can quickly turn into the sort of political strongarming that can poison the process. As you say, good judgment is essential. Having as a principle no backroom deals, no kibbutzing outside of the meeting is helpful to keep that in check, but having the flexibility to openly call for the sort of prior consultation you're talking about is helpful too-- again, as long as it's transparent.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
..... He would hold his meetings in the rectory usually at 6.00pm ...
But they weren't his meetings. If they involved the church's business they were the church's meetings. Some church meetings for the CofE are a statutory requirement and need to be held at a reasonable time and conducted in a reasonable way if the process is to be valid.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Minutes are written to protect people". A Sir Humphreyism which should never be overlooked.
Especially those which are written before the meeting takes place.

I've frequently been asked if I want to amend minutes of meetings that I have chaired. Sometimes the inference of the question put to me is not, "Is that an accurate record of what happened?" but "what do we want to say happened?"
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I used to write draft minutes before a departmental meeting because our agenda had to include material passed down from heads of departments' meetings. I made a response as to how these issues would affect my department.

If I left this to the meeting itself it would take up too much time which should go to our own issues rather than someone else's.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
..... He would hold his meetings in the rectory usually at 6.00pm ...
But they weren't his meetings. If they involved the church's business they were the church's meetings. Some church meetings for the CofE are a statutory requirement and need to be held at a reasonable time and conducted in a reasonable way if the process is to be valid.
I mean the PCC meetings. I think he just wanted them to be over as quickly as possible to avoid mutual boredom.
 
Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :
 
Re open v one-on-one discussions, I think there’s a need to be sensitive to the culture of the church and the personalities who make it up. It seems to me that mdijon is not suggesting is talking to one’s own ‘supporters’ to stich it up, but on the contrary talking to those who are going to be negative anyway. Particularly if someone is (or feels themselves to be) personally involved in a certain aspect of church life, and is likely to react emotionally, you can show that you are aware of and respect their situation by doing them the courtesy of mentioning it privately.

For some people, a circular email to everyone on the committee is straightforward and transparent. It’s certainly my preference. But for others, perhaps particularly those of an older generation, it is impersonal. If something affecting them turns up on the agenda without warning, it may be a nasty shock and they may even feel that ‘going public’ with the suggestion is a way of steamrollering them (and they may be right). And, because you didn’t tell them one-on-one, it isn’t going to be you who hears all their objections before the meeting but all their friends and allies.

On the other hand, there are times when such people are treated with special deference and they shouldn’t be. It's a difficult judgement.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Re open v one-on-one discussions, I think there’s a need to be sensitive to the culture of the church and the personalities who make it up. It seems to me that mdijon is not suggesting is talking to one’s own ‘supporters’ to stich it up, but on the contrary talking to those who are going to be negative anyway. Particularly if someone is (or feels themselves to be) personally involved in a certain aspect of church life, and is likely to react emotionally, you can show that you are aware of and respect their situation by doing them the courtesy of mentioning it privately.
Actually, that was precisely the sort of thing I was envisioning-- which can be perceived as trying to influence the vote in advance, to persuade others to join your side through backroom bargaining, etc. What it does it set up a situation where a proposal that would once have seemed "debatable" comes in looking like there's a consensus, so anyone who might otherwise have raised questions (those you didn't "get to" in advance) are disempowered and feel pressured to go along w/ the consensus.

I realize there's much more benign possibilities as you and mdjohn suggest, but in my experience, it goes badly more often than well. Again, the goal is not to avoid "emotional reactions", the goal is to allow full and transparent (and prayerful) debate to get to a good decision.


quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:

For some people, a circular email to everyone on the committee is straightforward and transparent. It’s certainly my preference. But for others, perhaps particularly those of an older generation, it is impersonal. If something affecting them turns up on the agenda without warning, it may be a nasty shock and they may even feel that ‘going public’ with the suggestion is a way of steamrollering them (and they may be right). And, because you didn’t tell them one-on-one, it isn’t going to be you who hears all their objections before the meeting but all their friends and allies.
This is why I think the procedure needs to be a "rule"-- something that's known up front so there's no misinterpretation. If everyone knows there's no backroom bargaining premeeting, they won't be offended when they're not consulted (or if they are, it's a not a good sign). In the instances mentioned before where a premeeting consultation simply for information purposes seems prudent, then a circular email letting everyone know about the consultation helps avoid the appearance of backroom deal-making.

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
On the other hand, there are times when such people are treated with special deference and they shouldn’t be. It's a difficult judgement.
If a subgroup of people feels they need special consultations outside of and in advance of the official meeting, that is very much a sign that something bad is going on. Again, advance notification of the entire committee on potentially contentious matters is prudent. Singling out special powerhouse people for special treatment only feeds an unhealthy imbalance of power.

There may be some cross-pond differences here, as Americans are said to favor directness more than some other cultures. But I've been working in and researching conflicted churches for the last 35 years and have gained a sort of grim expertise. This sort of backroom deal-making and power alliances separate from the official decision making group is pretty much always a key factor in the health of a congregation (hence my passion here). The small possibility of occasionally saving a bit of time or emotion is just not worth the far greater long-term risk of nurturing a very unhealthy abuse of power and undermining the very purpose of the committee system.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
..... He would hold his meetings in the rectory usually at 6.00pm ...
But they weren't his meetings. If they involved the church's business they were the church's meetings. Some church meetings for the CofE are a statutory requirement and need to be held at a reasonable time and conducted in a reasonable way if the process is to be valid.
I mean the PCC meetings. I think he just wanted them to be over as quickly as possible to avoid mutual boredom.
The PCC meetings are among those which are a statutory requirement and the members of the PCC are equally responsible for the decisions made. Much of the business may well come under the category of 'boring' but it is still essential. A major responsibility is in ensuring that the church's money and other assets are properly recorded along with all decisions about how any assets are used.

If a PCC meets at an inconvenient time or allows the incumbent to cut meetings short it is not taking responsibility and could be seen as prejudicing the church's business and undermining the right to effective representation. I became an ex-officio member of a PCC which held its meetings in the middle of the afternoon on the grounds that most of the elected members were pensioners. Since I was working full-time I wouldn't have been able to attend meetings so I asked that they meet when I could attend and the incumbent settled on 6.00pm. This was still a barrier to some working members of the congregation and one who was elected to the PCC could rarely make it to the meetings.

The incumbent's role is to chair the meetings effectively. I'm not sure if the incumbent has a legal obligation to chair the meetings since all PCCs have a lay chair too. These days in some areas parish reorganisation occupies much of a PCC's time and other members of a congregation may also want to contribute their views and be kept informed. The details may be boring but the decisions are important and affect everyone.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Of course there are going to be backroom meetings and private discussions on contentious issues. Whatever the rules say. There always are, always have been, and always will be.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I mean the PCC meetings. I think he just wanted them to be over as quickly as possible to avoid mutual boredom.
quote:

They told me in my training all the things I ought to do:
How to read the lessons clearly, and to give the hymns out too.
They said that every sermon the listeners should enthral,
With three clear points of doctrine and no long words at all.
I must never fall asleep if the PCC should be a bore,
And if I did, be very, very careful not to snore.
But seriously, if a parish regularly held PCC meetings at 6pm on weekdays there would sooner or later be complaints to archdeacons and bishops about the way they were excluding most people in full time employment from participation. 7pm at the earliest, and 8pm is better!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
A legendary post.

I have a terrible premonition that somewhere a meeting facilitator is planning an exercise involving interpretive dance to kick off a meeting I will attend.
It's been done. We, all 900 of us, had to attened 'workshops' with a bunch of otherwise unemployed performing arts graduates-cum-therapists. At the start we had to act out what we thought these to be then they showed us the benefit of their wisdom and did Q & A 'in role'. Not so bad in itself, but afterwards, nothing was done.

And that's the problem with meetings. Little is done at the meeting but worse still, as a consequence of inadequate minutes and action lists, nothing is done afterwards. Excvcept for setting the date and time for the next meeting.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course there are going to be backroom meetings and private discussions on contentious issues. Whatever the rules say. There always are, always have been, and always will be.
Ah, you mean the 'pub revisionists' after the meeting's finished [Big Grin] ?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course there are going to be backroom meetings and private discussions on contentious issues. Whatever the rules say. There always are, always have been, and always will be.
Ah, you mean the 'pub revisionists' after the meeting's finished [Big Grin] ?
I think ken means those who get together beforehand and go through the agenda working out a 'party line', ie who speaks and which way to vote. It saves any amount of buggering about at the meeting and afterwards, believe me.

[ 28. July 2012, 17:32: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :
 
Cliffdweller – I think you misunderstand me. I’m not talking about saving time or avoiding emotion – absolutely the opposite. I think an enormous amount of harm is caused in churches (and any organisation) by informal power structures and I think proper processes are an essential part of the solution.

But I think harm can also be caused by leaders hiding behind processes rather than engaging with people. That only pushes dissent underground in exactly the way you’re saying. I’ve been at one meeting where the organisation I worked at was considering a restructure. I could see one woman studying the organisation chart, gradually realising that her team wasn’t on there, and dissolving into tears. That was open, all right – open humiliation.

I’m a very bureaucratic type of person myself, and very confident speaking my mind, and completely useless at ‘church politics’ [Projectile] . I’d love to be in a church where everybody who was affected by a decision knew about and attended the meetings, and where they all felt enough confidence and trust to voice their honest opinions. I’d like to hope that over time a church could move in that direction. But as a church we also have to defend the vulnerable – part of which is about having procedures and part of which is about recognising that procedures can intimidate and exclude, too.

I can understand why you want to forbid people from discussing things outside the meeting, because you want an open debate within the meeting. Unfortunately I think the opposite could happen. I would be very suspicious of a leader who only wanted debate where he could see it and control it! Those who are elected representatives need to be able to consult with those they represent. And sometimes several people are all sitting there not saying anything because they each think they’re in a minority of one – so you get a false consensus.

I think a better process would be to say that all agendas are published to the whole church, and that those who would be directly affected by a proposal should also be notified individually and should have the opportunity either to attend the meeting or to submit their opinions in another way.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course there are going to be backroom meetings and private discussions on contentious issues. Whatever the rules say. There always are, always have been, and always will be.
Yes, I've said that-- twice. But it is something we should strive to avoid. Having a rule in place that reflects our value of transparency helps overcome the natural tendency to be politicking outside the meeting.

[ 28. July 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Cliffdweller – I think you misunderstand me. I’m not talking about saving time or avoiding emotion – absolutely the opposite. I think an enormous amount of harm is caused in churches (and any organisation) by informal power structures and I think proper processes are an essential part of the solution.

But I think harm can also be caused by leaders hiding behind processes rather than engaging with people. That only pushes dissent underground in exactly the way you’re saying. I’ve been at one meeting where the organisation I worked at was considering a restructure. I could see one woman studying the organisation chart, gradually realising that her team wasn’t on there, and dissolving into tears. That was open, all right – open humiliation.
I absolutely agree with what you said about hiding behind processes rather than engaging people. The suggestions I'm making (based on too many years of experience) are intended to discourage that, although as we all know, subversive people will find a way around things.

I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about specifically though-- and how requiring debate to be open and transparent would lead to shoving debate underground. I can see how some people might be shy about speaking up in the general meeting, but in my experience that's more likely to happen if someone has worked behind the scenes to build a false consensus rather than in an open meeting itself.

Similarly, I'm having trouble understanding what happened in your meeting-- why the woman wasn't part of that discussion and the reorganization if, as I'm assuming your ex. is meant to show, it was an open and transparent process. It sounds rather like it was what I'm arguing against-- a decision that was made behind closed doors and presented to her as a very much unwanted fait accomplis.

I'm not really disagreeing with as just asking for clarity cuz I'm not really getting what you're describing. It may be because we're talking about two (possibly very different) committee systems-- Reformed & Anglican.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:

I think a better process would be to say that all agendas are published to the whole church, and that those who would be directly affected by a proposal should also be notified individually and should have the opportunity either to attend the meeting or to submit their opinions in another way.
I do think having a published agenda and open meetings whenever possible (personnel issues are the usual exception) is a good policy, and not at all antithetical to the process I'm talking about. Again, I think contacting people ahead of time leads to precisely the false consensus you're worried about. But one of the differences between our two theologies may be how you understand the role of those committee members. In the Reformed tradition, an elder is not a "representative" who's job is to represent a particular group. An elder is someone charged to prayerfully discern the will of Christ for this congregation, and then lead the flock in it. If you understand the committee members to be representatives though I can see why you'd want them to poll their constituents. But that would undermine the discussion part of the meeting-- the part where you're discussing the pros and cons of the proposal-- all of which the constituents polled would not have been privvy to. Better to invite them to the meeting if they're interested IMHO.

[ 28. July 2012, 19:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
What clifdweller said.

My congregation recently changed its governance model. We went from a Session/Stewards model, which is great for small churches or churches that have very stable circumstances, but terrible for churches that are larger, want to change or introduce new things. The old model doesn't conform to current ideas about organizational behaviour. It's a bottom-up model, not a top-down model. It disempowers managers and doers.

So we changed to a Church Council, or as I call it a Mission-shaped Session. We have twelve council members who our team leaders. The teams are whoever volunteers from the congregation.

Certain teams like Finance are very formal and have monthly minutes, business meetings and procedures. Of course, it's money. Other teams like Pastoral Care just submit visiting reports, its a very informal, warm & caring activity.

The best thing is that under the Manual, Elders in the old Session model have a responsibility to have districts and do pastoral visiting. Most sessions don't do this anymore. Pastoral visiting is an emotional skill that I just don't have. But visitation is a Reformed distinctive and can be a great strength. So we created a Pastoral Care Team (don't ask the Finance Chair to go visiting!) and are very happy with the result.

Organization should serve the mission.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
The problem with that approach, cliffdweller, is that it doesn't allow those who are not necessarily expert in the area under discussion to do enough research to be able to take an informed position. A consequence of this is that they are at a disadvantage when compared with those who are leading the meeting, whence follows all the evils outlined in ken's peerless and all too accurate post above.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid

The old model doesn't conform to current ideas about organizational behaviour. It's a bottom-up model, not a top-down model. It disempowers managers and doers.

If there is anything that spells death to a missional outlook, in my view, it is the managerial, top down approach that you seem to find so attractive. People don't need to be managed, they need to be released to do the things to which God is calling them.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The problem with that approach, cliffdweller, is that it doesn't allow those who are not necessarily expert in the area under discussion to do enough research to be able to take an informed position. A consequence of this is that they are at a disadvantage when compared with those who are leading the meeting, whence follows all the evils outlined in ken's peerless and all too accurate post above.
Not true. They can do all the research they want, and bring in all the experts they want. What is to be avoided is the backroom deal making-- trying to build a consensus before the meeting is ever held.

If you present the item first as a non-voting info. item (as suggested above) that's a good time to identify what further information/ input is needed before the final decision is made at the next meeting (or later, if necessary). The committee itself can decide how they want to obtain that. They might form a task force. They might contact experts and ask for a written or verbal consultation. They might (as a group) decide to invite particular members of the congregation with a vested interest that they want to hear from directly. They might hold an open all-church forum to allow free discussion. The point is to avoid private off-the-record conversations and deal-making, but to encourage all the information gathering possible, but to do so in an open and transparent fashion.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid

The old model doesn't conform to current ideas about organizational behaviour. It's a bottom-up model, not a top-down model. It disempowers managers and doers.

If there is anything that spells death to a missional outlook, in my view, it is the managerial, top down approach that you seem to find so attractive. People don't need to be managed, they need to be released to do the things to which God is calling them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The old model was encumbered with statutory Manual rules out who can do what, there had to be umpteen committees and if something crossed boundaries there had to be a million consultations. It was death by meeting. That's not missional.

When I say top-down, I mean that plenary authority rests with the council to set a vision, find people to carry out that mission and then the council sits backs and sees that it is carried out. If there is a new and pressing matter, it can be assigned by the council to one committee, or a new committee created. When that job is done, the committee can be disbanded. Our old model didn't allow that.

The Session and Stewards had joint plenary authority and sat together as the Official Board for a few specific things. The theory is that Session deals with spiritual matters and the Stewards deal with temporal matters. Except try anything new spiritually that doesn't require money or space booking or try some construction project that doesn't require fundraising and sacrifice in other things.

The old model was death by meeting and we hated it. The new model has far less meetings, far more doing and we like it a lot more.
 
Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :
 
Cliffdweller – I think we may have the opposite of false consensus here, false disagreement! [Smile] We’re both in favour of an open and transparent debate. We’re both against anyone (whether the leader or others) trying to build factions. We’re both in favour of having a formal process for decision-making rather than decisions which are (in practice even if not in theory) taken by informal power groups.

What I was suggesting was precisely NOT trying to ‘build consensus’ but trying to make sure that those who may disagree or challenge a suggestion are kept ‘in the loop’ and also that leaders take pastoral responsibility for minimising the human fallout of controversial decisions. Whereas it seemed to me that you were saying only committee members should know anything about a discussion, even if the person most affected wasn’t on the committee. Apologies if that isn’t what you meant.

I think what I’m trying to say is that processes don’t in themselves substitute for humility and integrity in the leadership. You can’t legislate for open and honest debate – a committee meeting with an overbearing chair or alternatively one who is weak and lets other individuals dominate may produce a false consensus without anybody having to ‘build’ it backstage.

I do wish sometimes that the C of E had more of an elder model, with more sense of it being a call and a task of prayerful discernment. Some churches do view their PCC that way but I don’t think that’s general. The PCC is elected, although in practice there are not always enough people willing to do it for an actual election to be needed, and in law they are charitable trustees. Committees vary, but usually consist of some PCC members and then others who are ‘co-opted’ as willing volunteers. My experience is that those committees can be very effective, but part of their role is precisely to come up with proposals which will need minimal debate at PCC. So you can have the same effect as your ‘backstage consensus building’ through official and theoretically transparent channels.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Cliffdweller – I think we may have the opposite of false consensus here, false disagreement! [Smile] We’re both in favour of an open and transparent debate. We’re both against anyone (whether the leader or others) trying to build factions. We’re both in favour of having a formal process for decision-making rather than decisions which are (in practice even if not in theory) taken by informal power groups.

What I was suggesting was precisely NOT trying to ‘build consensus’ but trying to make sure that those who may disagree or challenge a suggestion are kept ‘in the loop’ and also that leaders take pastoral responsibility for minimising the human fallout of controversial decisions. Whereas it seemed to me that you were saying only committee members should know anything about a discussion, even if the person most affected wasn’t on the committee. Apologies if that isn’t what you meant.
Yes to the first, which is no to the 2nd (huh?). iow, yes, you're right-- false disagreement is what we have! I very much did not mean to shut non-committee members out of the discussion (except in cases like personnel matters where confidentiality is needed). Just, as you said, that the process for doing that be open and transparent w/o a lot of backroom deal-making (which can be done by non-committee members just as easily-- sometimes more-- than the ones with supposed institutional power).

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:

I think what I’m trying to say is that processes don’t in themselves substitute for humility and integrity in the leadership. You can’t legislate for open and honest debate – a committee meeting with an overbearing chair or alternatively one who is weak and lets other individuals dominate may produce a false consensus without anybody having to ‘build’ it backstage.
Sadly, very true. An argument for choosing leadership carefully, and for looking for those qualities (humility & Integrity) first & foremost over other things that more often win the day.


quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:

I do wish sometimes that the C of E had more of an elder model, with more sense of it being a call and a task of prayerful discernment.... So you can have the same effect as your ‘backstage consensus building’ through official and theoretically transparent channels.
that can happen in Presbyterian churches, too, of course. As you say, there's no way you can legislate integrity and humility. But at least with an official policy for communal discernment and a theological rationale behind it, you have something to appeal to when you have to slap down someone's power grab.

[ 28. July 2012, 21:41: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
A legendary post.

I have a terrible premonition that somewhere a meeting facilitator is planning an exercise involving interpretive dance to kick off a meeting I will attend.
It's been done. We, all 900 of us, had to attened 'workshops' with a bunch of otherwise unemployed performing arts graduates-cum-therapists. At the start we had to act out what we thought these to be then they showed us the benefit of their wisdom and did Q & A 'in role'. Not so bad in itself, but afterwards, nothing was done.

And that's the problem with meetings. Little is done at the meeting but worse still, as a consequence of inadequate minutes and action lists, nothing is done afterwards. Excvcept for setting the date and time for the next meeting.
B-Ark to warp factor 9, mr sulu
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0