Minutes Board of Trustees
First Unitarian Society, Madison, Wi
February 18, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Lower Meeting House
Present:
Officers:Jim Jaeger, President
Alan Knox, Vice President
Jim Christensen, Treasurer
Susan Koenig, Secretary
Council Trustees:
Steve Holtzman, Buildings and Grounds
Laurie Joiner, Connections
Kurt Kobelt, Personnel
Chris Glueck, Finance
Tom Detmer, Religious Education
Mary Lou Munts, Social Justice
Jon Aaronson, Worship
Ministers:
Michael Schuler, Parish Minister
Scott Prinster, Assistant Minister
Staff:
Dan Broner, Music Director
Wendy Cooper, Social Justice Co-ordinator
Observers:
Jackie Groves, Assistant to the Treasurer
Kimberlee Tomczak, MUU-YACM
Donna Hartshorn, Friends of the Meeting House
CALL TO ORDER
After an opening and chalice lighting, Jim Jaeger called the meeting to order
at 7:06 p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS
MOTION by Jim Christensen Mary Lou Munts to approve the following Consent
Items:
- Approval of minutes from January 21, 2004
CARRIED
FINANCIAL REPORTS
Current Financials and “Dashboard” EXHIBITS 1, 2, 3
Jim Christensen summarized the “dashboard” report, noting that
virtually all categories on this scorecard are on target for meeting annual
expectations with the main exception of net operating which is at $98,000
and last year was $100,397. Jim also mentioned that the scorecard now shows
gross numbers as well as change for adult members and religious education
registration.
In response to a question, Jim outlined the significance of the gap between
the mean and median pledge figures. The mean pledge is higher this year than
last, as is the median pledge. However, the gap between he two is widening,
signifying that we’re getting more of our pledge income from fewer people.
One of our goals is to increase the number of people who give closer to the
mean rather than to get the bulk of pledge revenue from a small number of
members. Chris Glueck noted that this is the kind of thing that takes several
years to effect; we’re just getting started.
Finally, Jim mentioned that he and Jackie Groves are working with Bert Bitter
to revise the balance sheet; they expect to have recommendations regarding
this at the March meeting.
Annual Campaign Update
Chris Glueck reported that 41 pledge cards have been returned for a total
pledge amount of $126,000. For these pledges, which are from the Board, the
Pledge Committee, and some of the people who attended the tea at Blackhawk,
the average increase is 9.2% over last year. Chris repeated his encouragement
that those who do not yet pay their pledges using Electronic funds transfer
start doing so as this helps to even out cash flow.
Resource Planning (Budget) Update EXHIBIT 4
Noting that his intent was to give a feel for where we Religious Education
in the big picture, Jim Christensen outlined the major new expenses expected
for next year’s budget with estimated amounts as listed in exhibit 4.
To the listed information he added the notes that the CMwD fair share figure
reflects its new figure of $19/member; the wage and benefit increases reflect
information as it’s being developed by compensation committee. As we
are looking at more potential new expenses than expected new revenues, we’ll
need to do some decision making. The Budget Committee also plans to look carefully
at all non-pledge revenue sources to see how they might be increased. By the
March board meeting, budget submissions from all councils and committees will
have been received and a thorough review of revenues will have been done.
Compensation Committee Update
Jim Jaeger reported that the Compensation Committee has been pursuing two
goals: 1) determining what kinds of compensation ranges we should be looking
at for the positions at FUS and 2) developing a process for determining where
employees should be placed in those ranges. The committee has been looking
at UUA guidelines, information from the six or seven largest Unitarian Universalist
churches in the country, and information on position descriptions and compensation
from other churches and non-profits. The committee is looking at putting together
a basic salary matrix, though it does not anticipate developing a rigid step
system. Rather, it hopes to develop matrices that give guidance to supervisors
as they determine specific compensation levels. In the long-term, the proposed
process is likely to be to have a personnel committee to work with board to
develop a compensation “pot” for the year. The board would not
look at specific salary increases for individuals; that will be a process
between staff and supervisors or the committee on ministry. The committee
expects to provide more detail on proposed salary matrices and processes at
the March board meeting. The committee has not yet addressed the composition
and role of an ongoing personnel committee, but also expects to address this
and come to the board with a proposed structure for such a committee.
In response to Jim Christensen’s question about whether the matrices
be intended to capture performance, Jim Jaeger noted that the Compensation
Committee’s next meeting will be devoted to discussion of the kinds
of criteria that will be used to move on matrix, so that everyone is working
with a fairly uniform set of standards. The intent is to find a middle ground
between arbitrary decision making and a lockstep system.
ACTION ITEMS
Recommendations regarding Scott Prinster’s Position EXHIBIT 5Alan Knox outlined the revised staffing proposal from the task force examining the structure of Scott’s position, noting FUS’s commitment to campus/young adult ministry and the staffing task force’s conclusion that the position can’t continue as is (a 50/50 split between campus/young adult and parish ministry). Alan also noted that Scott Prinster has encouraged us to separate the two aspects of the position.
Three scenarios were presented in the proposal, each projecting costs and implications for two fiscal years, 2004-05 and 2005-06: a no-change scenario; one in which a lay staff person for campus/young adult programs is hired at 50% time with the intention that the appointment level position would be increased; and one, recommended by the task force, in which a lay staff person would be hired at 75% time with the intention that the appointment level would be increased.
Discussion focused on our goals for campus/young adult ministry and how the proposal would contribute to them; whether, or to what extent, the recommended change would decrease workload for Scott’s position; the expected outcomes of the proposed change and the likelihood that it will in fact accomplish them; the advisability of committing ourselves to a two-year plan; and how this proposal fits in the context of our other needs and the overall staffing picture. (Detailed discussion notes are attached.)
MOTION by Alan Knox / Susan Koenig to adopt the proposal recommended by the
committee (scenario III) as a recommendation to the Budget Committee, with
the understanding that funds for a grant writer are included but that the
continuation of the appointment or any increase in its level after 2004-05
will be subject to review.
CARRIED
Recommendation regarding use of Annex EXHIBIT 6
This discussion was postponed to March so that Bert Bitter might be included in it.Resolution on the Rights of GLBT Persons EXHIBIT 7
Mary Lou Munts introduced the resolution (exhibit 7), noting that the Social
Justice Council is not asking for ratification of the statement tonight. Rather,
she would like the board to consider whether it is agreeable to starting on
a course in which a congregational forum on the issue would be held, the statement
(possibly) revised in light of that forum and submitted to the board for approval
to take to the May parish meeting. Mary Lou identified an underlying question
as when we as a congregation should take a position on something, as opposed
to just the Social Justice Council taking a position. She asserted that, as
we are a welcoming congregation, the issue of the rights of GLBT persons seems
like something for which taking a congregational stand is appropriate.
Mary Lou also noted that the statement has been considered twice at Social
Justice Council meetings. She feels that a congregational forum would be a
good chance for general discussion and to deal with any serious problems or
objections before the statement might go to parish meeting.
Discussion:
Steve Holtzman suggested that the statement assert two points more strongly:
1) No special rights are being requested; 2) legislation pending in Wisconsin
as well as nationally would, if adopted, be the first amendments that would
limit or take away rather than guarantee rights. The Wisconsin amendment would
make us the most restrictive state in the country. He went on to note that
FUS should take this seriously as something about which we should have a strong
voice in the community. A very small minority is setting an agenda; it’s
important that we join our voices to speak against it.
Alan Knox suggested that while the statement should include as much context
as its authors think is necessary, but the actual resolution should be kept
to one or two sentences for the purposes of board and parish ratification.
Michael Schuler added that, given the timeliness of the pending legislation,
noting this context might make the issue more real for people.
In response to a question from Jon Aaronson, Michael also noted that there
are other churches in Madison that can stand with us.
Noting that there appeared to be a board consensus, Jim Jaeger directed the Social Justice Council to go forward with the congregational forum and the submission of the statement to board following it.
MAJOR DISCUSSION TOPIC: WORSHIP
Michael Schuler, along with Scott Prinster and Dan Broner, outlined several
issues and challenges that face the ministers regarding worship, as well as
some of the options by which these might be addressed. The issues Michael
mentioned were:
- Re-locating the Saturday service. The service is about six years old and,
although it was begun without the expectation that it would be sustainable,
it has had a tremendous response on the part of a small core of people. At
this point, Saturday attendance is becoming more than can be accommodated
in the Gathering Room, so we need to consider moving the service up to the
Auditorium. Michael anticipates that this may cause concern among members
who value the special character of this service.
- Inter-generational worship. The desire has been expressed, particularly
on the FUS listserv, for more family friendly worship and that we move to
having children at service every week, despite the space issue.
- Adding a fourth service. The staff has had preliminary discussions of adding a Sunday evening service with an implicit goal of better serving FUS young adults (those whose needs are not addressed by MUU-YACM). Tentative plans are to pilot this next year on a once-a-month basis with the possibility of its expansion. The service would perhaps take an alternative format: non-sermon-centered, more participatory, and with music appropriate to this style. The staff is excited about the possibility of doing this service while recognizing that it would require significant discussions about how the responsibility would be split up as well as significant promotion in the community to make it work.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Alan Knox asked that the board reserve the morning of Saturday, May 22 for
an orientation meeting for newly elected congregational leaders.
The second Stewardship Summit is this Saturday, February 21, 9:00 - 11:00 am.
Jim Jaeger noted that we’d like to have a big FUS contingent at the CMwD meeting in Chicago in April.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Minutes by Susan Koenig, First Unitarian Society Board Secretary
EXHIBITS
1. First Unitarian Society 2003-2004 Financial Performance (February)2. January Balance Sheet
3. Financial Statement July 1, 2003 through January 31, 2003
4. FUS 2004-2005 Budget: Major Resource Needs
5. Proposed FUS Staffing for Campus Ministry and FUS Young Adults (2/16/04)
6. Eskrich Letter, 2/5/04 (Proposal for Increased Use of Annex)
7. Statement of Conscience Drafted by the Social Justice Council of FUS, February 2004 (on responsibility to defend rights of GLBT persons)
OTHER HANDOUTS
1. Facilities Development Task Force Update (2/16/04)
2. Henry E-mail re: National Historic Landmark status (2/10/04)
Discussion Notes - Staffing Proposal
Chris Glueck: Proposing a grant writer for $3500 to get
a grant of $5000?
Alan Knox: The grant writer would be to get support over
the long term. We don’t have an estimate of the kind of income we’d
expect to achieve from this work.
Jackie Groves: Is scenario two better than today?
Mary Lou Munts: We’re not working on a two year budget,
not committing now to increase the percentage. Would be much more willing
to go with scenario II than III.
Scott Prinster: The increase that MUU-YACM would see in staff
coverage is something less than the number of hours that might show here as
Scott is looking to reduce his workload with this proposal. Scott is committed
to having a response about his decision about remaining at FUS to the exec
committee by March 9, so the board will know that by March board meeting.
Laurie Joiner: This proposal seems to be trying to do a number
of things: reduce number of hours Scott is spending, insure that MUU-YACM
gets the kind of support it needs, and address the underlying issue of increasing
the stability of the number of hours all the ministers spend. Have we looked
at overall ministerial workload? At how the proposal will affect overall workload?
Scott Prinster: The three ministers have discussed how this
might affect their workload. Wouldn’t affect Kelly very much; would
be some things that Michael could shift, particularly staff supervision.
Alan Knox: This shift is one of the big benefits of this
proposal.
Laurie Joiner: Continues to be concerned: hearing that we’re
going to increase amount of staff as well as amount of work expected and shift
responsibilities within the ministerial load. Have we looked carefully enough
at the ministerial load? How is it all going to balance out?
Chris Glueck: You’re talking not just about what ministers
do, but about what a PA might do.
Laurie Joiner: We make a decision expecting certain outcomes;
worried that there hasn’t been enough analysis. There’s been a
lot of analysis of the campus/young adult piece, but not of anything else.
For instance, we hear that Scott will take over supervision but have no sense
of why/how that makes sense.
Michael Schuler: Doesn’t think this will have any impact
at all on ministerial workload. Doesn’t see this really affecting Scott’s
workload. It will be more of a restructuring and might achieve more of a restructuring/focusing
in the ministry and thus be psychologically beneficial.
Jackie Groves: Is it not then more likely that we would accomplish
the shift in responsibility, but not that there would be any increase in programming?
Laurie Joiner: What are our expectations?
Michael Schuler: One of his expectations is that we will
stabilize the ministry. If it doesn’t work for Scott, maybe it will
work for his successor. We’re not really addressing ministerial responsibility,
other than workload. There are models for this: in Portland, for instance,
the associate minister supervises almost all of the staff.
Scott Prinster: The task force discussed the fact that this
wouldn’t be the solution to all of our problems and looked at the question
of whether there might not be another solution that would better address the
problems.
Jackie Groves: Is the PA at 100% really a less skilled alternative
for a minister for this program?
Jim Jaeger: The $15,000 in each scenario for 20% of Scott’s
position are dollars we spend no matter what, assuming Scott stays.
Chris Glueck: What is the cohort of youth that are ministered
to?
Scott Prinster: MUU-YACM is about 2/3 undergrads, ½
of remainder are grad students, other half are adults in work force. Also
have a contingent of non-campus young adults.
Chris Glueck: Wonders about revenue generation potential
of these groups.
Scott Prinster: MUU-YACM is not exclusively FUS members –
they are essentially non-pledging. Have been talking about what kind of financial
obligation we might expect.
Kim Tomczak: Young adults who pledge to a congregation tend
to pledge the highest percentage of income of any group.
Susan Koenig: Have conceived of MUU-YACM as an outreach effort.
Mary Lou Munts: Would favor voting this motion down and going with scenario
II. We’re going with a new job that hasn’t been tested. Doesn’t
sound like good business to hire someone telling them that they’re going
to go up in percentage in a budget year we really aren’t able to commit
to now.
Alan Knox: We’ve heard about increasing our programming
effort for young adults at FUS; some attention needs to be given to that.
A larger percentage time would be more likely to do this.
Laurie Joiner: Didn’t we just say that there wouldn’t
be growth in the first year?
Michael Schuler: We do plan to introduce a monthly evening
service that is likely to appeal to young adults. Haven’t decided how
the responsibility for that will be assigned. Assumes it will fall into Scott’s
portfolio as a part of his parish job.
Jackie Groves: Is it possible to not commit ourselves to
the second year, but simply to vote on the proposal for the first year.
Michael Schuler: Does that imply that the fall back position
would be scenario II? Does it become binding on us to fund it, even if we
have to fund it in a deficit mode? If we say we’re not going to fund
it, we know that Scott won’t stay.
Scott Prinster: If we don’t do anything, his choice
is clear. But something other than what is in this proposal could be done.
Michael Schuler: If vote for scenario III, but budget demands
a decrease, are we committed at least to scenario II?
Mary Lou Munts: The mistake is that we don’t need to
discuss 2005-06 at all. Make a decision for one year, but leave what happens
next open-ended.
Laurie Joiner: Has a lot of strong feelings of wanting to
support campus ministry. But bothered that we’re considering this proposal
outside of looking at the rest of the budget for the year and considering
how it measures up against other needs.
Mary Lou Munts: Is she correct that this wouldn’t be
binding, that we’d just be making a recommendation for the budget?
Jim Christensen: We’d have to look at this along with
everything else, wouldn’t we?
Laurie Joiner: What is the decision that we’re making?
Jackie Groves: If Scott accepts a call, he immediately goes
to the salary at the top of the chart, then the difference between giving
him support and making his life miserable is $1000.
Chris Glueck: Sounds like what we really want is a full-time
young adult minister; are we doing this as a stop- gap? In that case shouldn’t
we make Scott full-time young adult minister?
Scott Prinster: That might be the case if we weren’t
the congregation we are -- with no room for another minister. Can’t
really ease in a minister (part-time first) as there is a very small pool
of part-time ministers.
Chris Glueck: So we’re breaking new ground here?
Michael Schuler: Yes. Also keep in mind that although the
cost change of $1000 is true, the total cost of Scott’s position is
more than this and increases if he moves to a called position).
Alan Knox: Some sort of decision either this month or next
month seems desirable.
Discussion Notes - Worship
Michael introduced the issues:
A couple issues/challenges that face congregation ministers about worship.
We have a primarily Sunday congregation; we do a better job than most congregations
of drawing people into our space for occasions other than worship. We have
a great array of programs, and people are hungry for a way to get acquainted
in a way that they can’t on Sundays. Nonetheless for the most part people
think of this as a place to which they devote an hour or so a week and pledges
reflect that. Work very hard to get people here for other reasons. To the
extent that we can do good worship and church school, we will thrive as a
congregation, to the extent we don’t we will fail.
Our growth is testament to the fact that we do consistently good worship and
religious education. Responses to surveys asking about this have indicated
that our members feel that we do well with worship, 85% rate it as 5 or 6
on a 6-point scale of usefulness. Did have some desire for more accessible
music, sought to address that in hiring Dan.
From a professional standpoint, what we’re trying to do has met with
widespread approval. Dissatisfaction tends to be with the inconvenience through
which we put people – crowding, parking, the way people are handled
as they come in and leave services.
Recent issues:
1. Saturday service – about 6 years old. Began it without the expectation that it would be sustainable. Had a tremendous response on the part of a small core of people. Now we need to consider moving out of the lower meeting house in the next year because of crowding. In Appleton, for instance, attendance at Saturday service equals their 11:00 service. By locating our service in lower meeting house, we have committed ourselves to a relatively small Saturday “congregation.”2. Issue of inter-generational worship has resurfaced. On listserv, desire has been expressed for more family friendly worship and that we move to having children at service every week, despite the space issue. There is a very vocal minority that would like to see this.
Chris Glueck: Is there a maximum number of people allowed in the auditorium?
Steve Holtzman: Has noticed the casual gathering of people in the loggia during the service. Like Blackhawk church which has started video café with a broadcast for more casual gatherings of people. Also sometimes see people with children in loggia. We could re-broadcast or simulcast in west living room.
Michael Schuler: If we are able to use Prest building, this frees up west living room on most Sundays. Could have video access in West Living room. Wouldn’t be opposed to this as a temporary measure, though it would require us to find additional office space.
3. Issue of adding a fourth service with all its implications of staff time, building use, expense for music. Preliminary discussions are that would like to pilot this next year on a once-a-month basis with the possibility of its expansion. Dan has had thoughts about how it might work musically. Scott has talked about doing something non-sermon-centered, more participatory. Excited about the possibility of doing it; would require significant promotion in the community to make it work. Would also require significant discussions about how the responsibility would be split up to make it work.
Scott Prinster: Soulful Sundown model that is used by some
of our congregations that have large young adult constituencies. More contemporary,
significant component of live music, more participatory. Service would need
to be of very high quality; hopes that whatever homily was included might
not be manuscripted. Would be childcare but no RE. Would emphasize a more
family friendly environment; something that MUU-YACM can’t offer. Thinking
about how to reach out to families with young children.
Jackie Groves: Might this draw from the Saturday group? Would
the Saturday group be open to this format – so do a regular larger service
on Saturday afternoon.
Scott Prinster: This would not be a repeat of the other services.
Michael Schuler: If it were to be a differentiated service
- if did it on Saturday, would have to do it every week from the get go. Would
also have to be at a different time on Saturday.
Jackie Groves: Might be worth exploring with a focus group
from the Saturday group. Thinks music would be a draw for those people. Sometimes
people like what they know, but would be responsive to something new.
Dan Broner: Thinking about something that would meet the
needs of the young adults, would not necessarily be inter-generational. Service
would require alternative music that would reflect the alternative worship
style. There are a limited number of musicians in Madison that we know of
that would be able to do this, so impact would be budgetary in terms of providing
music. If new format of all music Sunday works – one service with orchestra
– would have the funds to cover music for the new service. Impact on
Dan would be mostly administrative. Saturday music is limited by space.
Scott Prinster: Wouldn’t advertise a new service as
a “young adult “ service. Has heard from a number of older adults
who would find the proposed format attractive.
Jim Christensen: Knows Saturday service is growing and that
we’re talking about moving it upstairs. This would cost us some money
from lost wedding revenue.
Michael Schuler: Wouldn’t be a large amount. Basically
talking about September - October – maybe 6 or 7 weddings. We schedule
weddings a year or so out, so might need to wait ‘til after October
to start new service this year.
Scott Prinster: Would we be likely to use larger ensembles
if Saturday service moves upstairs?
Dan Broner: Using auditorium doesn’t necessitate using
a large number of musicians – it’s still a pretty intimate space.
Right now music program is well funded. Can be strategic in how funds are
used.
Mary Lou Munts: From listening session, got a feel for Saturday
service. Never seen such a high level of satisfaction in her life. Was struck
by the way the kids sit up the aisle. The Saturday people will want to transplant
everything about the service – the potluck, etc. Everything that the
space has forced us to do are things that the Saturday people truly love.
We have a social structure in the Saturday service that is unique in our church.
People feel that their children are much more tied in to the church. Part
of the attitude of the kids about the church is how much they participate
with their parents. If they start right from the beginning attending service,
they think of the church as their home.
Michael Schuler: The things that make it work well are the
things that make a small congregation work well. Now, though, because of limited
space, hard to socialize well, so people tend to stick in cliques and newer
people are finding the community somewhat impermeable. The Saturday service
is made up of people who feel like they’ve got a small church in a big
church and that’s what they like. May get a strident reaction to the
suggestion they move.
Mary Lou Munts: Need to have focus groups and move them along.
Wendy Cooper: Has heard a number of people say that they
would like to move to the auditorium -- people she thought would resist this.
