Town Hall Meeting Reviewed

Town Hall Meeting Reviewed
Held after services on Earth Day, April 22, 2007

Although an 'official' transcript of what was discussed at the Town Hall Meeting is forthcoming, I thought I'd share some thoughts here.

Advance Notice of the Town Hall Meeting's Purpose?

Several people at the meeting said that there was no advance notice of the meeting's content purpose. The reality is that newsletter articles were posted on April 7 and on April 21. Additionally, there was almost a full page article in the March 10 newsletter about the Asset Management Task Force (AMTF).

Fairly regularly, individuals will complain that they haven't been informed about something when the information was printed in their newsletter, in their order of service, on the web site, and occasionally announced from the pulpit. To some degree, communication is a two way street. It won't do us much good to put it in the newsletter if people won't read it.

The AMTF looked at our 1998 Bergfried policy, and how restricted funds are designated. You can read more about their recommendations in the newsletter and on the web site. Basically, it says the 1998 Bergfried policy statement is pretty good, but it doesn't reflect actual practice. So the principles will be the same, but the language will be updated. Also, that there should be a board representative to the Bergfried Committee, that incoming board members should visit the Bergfried property, among other things.

Transparency & Accountability in Financial Matters.

Some folks said they wanted Chapel financial information in an easier to understand format than the monthly balance sheets we currently post on the Trustee section of the bulletin board in between the sanctuary and the fellowship hall. One man noted he's reduced his financial pledge to zero because of his frustration.

I noted that I too was frustrated with our system and that the board and I had engaged a consulting firm (KEB) to document our administrative procedures, and that we had some administrative process issues involved.

Meanwhile, I am asking the congregation's treasurer and our business administrator to get together and see if they can come up with something more in keeping with what will be useful to people.

Building and Capital Advisory Committee.

Board president Mary Quinn noted that a task force was being organized to look at our building usage and repair. She also noted that although we have over $100,000 in the Preservation Fund to patch up the sanctuary, it is likely we will need another capital campaign (the last one ended several years ago) to replenish the funds.

Opportunity for Input.

A long time member was concerned that the attendance did not seem to be high at the town hall meeting, and that there should be more frequent meetings and that younger people should attend.

My sense is that we could schedule more town hall meetings, but I don't know about the attendance. I agree more regular congregational input can be a good thing. Perhaps we could do electronic surveys, or somehow give folks more opportunities to be consulted in ways they would actually take advantage of.

Something to remember is that often times, people won't attend a congregational or town hall meeting when they think things are going well– why bother? They may be more likely to attend when they have a beef or are unhappy about something. When that's the case, it can skew the tenor of a meeting.

Congregational Delegates and Voting.

Eliot Chapel gets more delegate slots for General Assembly (UUA) and District Assembly (DA - for Central Midwest District) than we usually have people willing to attend.

The story is that before Bonnie and I got here, no one acted as a delegate from Eliot Unitarian Chapel to either GA or DA. Occasionally, there is something important to vote on. There is usually a Social Action Initiative or bylaw change or election at the GA or DA.

Who gets to be a delegate? Since there was no process or call for a process before Bonnie and I got here, and since there have always been more delegate slots than actual delegates, the de facto process that evolved was that if someone wanted to be a delegate, they contacted me, and as along as they were a member of Eliot in good standing, they became a delegate.

One criticism of DA & GA delegates is that they tend to vote their individual whim, rather than the considered deliberation of the congregation or the congregation's leadership. This leads to the charge that decisions made at GA (in particular) do not accurately reflect a congregational wishes, and that in fact, congregations are largely in the dark regarding what happens at GA, and therefore GA resolutions and business have little connection to congregational life.

The people who run GA recognize that, which is one reason why they have encouraged congregational presidents to attend GA as delegates by refunding their registration fees.

In the last couple of years, I have asked people to be a delegate for the purpose of an absentee ballot, so we could begin to participate more in the wider denomination. I have laid out what the matter is to be decided, and what my opinion was, then asked them to make their own choice. After tallying up all the choices, the majority opinion was voted on by all absentee ballots. This ensured a democratic decision was reached, and that the congregation spoke "with one voice" rather than the many individual voices of whoever happened to self-select as a delegate.

This approach was challenged at the Town Hall Meeting in the sense that one person in particular thought that those delegates who attended a DA or GA meeting ought to be able to vote their (the delegate's) opinion and not the board or congregation's opinion because the delegate might learn something at the meeting that the congregation could not have known about in advance.

This makes a certain amount of sense to me, and I will discuss it with the particular individual and with our congregation's board of trustees. Ultimately, we'll do a survey via order of service or newsletter or internet survey, to get the congregational opinion.

Want to give input?

Meanwhile, if you have input on the delegate process, transparency in financial matters, or anything else, feel free to contact me at daniel at eliotchapel dot org or (314) 821-0911.

Thanks!