#acl All:read
Link to CommunityOutreach > CongMeetingAgenda20190303 > CongMeetingMinutes20180729

'''REPORT ON REVIEW OF PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF CONGREGATIONAL OUTREACH PROJECTS'''

'''1.    ''''''__Introduction__'''

At the [[CongMeetingMinutes20180729|Meeting of the Congregation on 29 July 2018]], some members of the congregation expressed a desire that the provisions and procedures concerning outreach projects be reviewed. The meeting passed the following resolution:

'''‘This meeting resolves to request that the outreach committee seek submissions from the congregation with a view to reviewing and revising the provisions and procedures for selection of Congregational Outreach Projects and associated allocation of funds.’'''

The Outreach Missional Group asked for written submissions to be forwarded to us via email during the month of September 2018.

We received five written submissions from members of the congregation. As is the case each year, we also received feedback from members of the 2018 COP Selection Committee about the process.

Although we did not receive a large number of submissions, those that we did receive were detailed and thoughtful and reflected a range of ideas about the process including:

 . ·      Suggestions concerning the criteria used by the COP committee to select projects
 . ·      Guidelines for the COP committee
 . ·      Suggestions concerning the breakdown of types of projects and numbers of projects
 . ·      Reporting of projects and acquittal information

There were a number of suggestions made which were common to two or more of the submissions which the Outreach Group has decided to implement.

However, the submissions also represented different points of view concerning the process. For example one submission was concerned that '''''‘the 2018 COP Committee recommendations included a grant to The Cheltenham Cat Protection Society…which does not conform with the requirement of the No 1 criteria in the current list of Assessment  Criteria’,'''''  while another submission argued that this organisation __was__ worthy of selection as it meets criteria 2 and that it can also be seen as helping people by ‘'''''providing cats available to people who are poor, old or lonely at low cost''.’'''  Note – no money was donated to the CCR due to the lower than usual amount raised by the fete.

One submission suggested that '''''‘we do not adequately support projects that local donors ( business and private) are able to be engaged’, '''''while another said '''''‘Í would like to urge the Community Outreach Group to maintain the current balance of Local Community, State or National Community and Global Community projects. I believe it is imperative that the church.. takes responsibility for caring for all people, not just those in our own back yard.’'''''

'''2.    ''''''__Changes to be implemented by the Outreach Missional Group__'''

After careful consideration the Outreach Missional Group has decided to implement the following changes to the process of selecting Congregation Outreach Projects.

'''2.1 Changes to the application form'''

Criterion 4 states ‘That our preference is to support ministries in which we as a Congregation have some personal contact through our members who are engaged in them. In this way we can be kept involved an informed about their work’

In order to ensure Criterion 4 is addressed more explicitly by the applicants the following changes will be made to the application form:

 . ·      Replace Question 13 with - Outline any other sources of funding this organisation receives.
 . ·      Add Question 14 – Outline your involvement and/or the involvement of any other members of GWUC in this organisation.
 ·      Add to the Notes section at the start of the Application - Recipients of grants are required to provide a written report during the following year to be published in ''NewView ''explaining how the funds were used.

In order to avoid difficulties of defining çhurch membership, we propose replacing the phrase ‘Church members’ in the Notes section part ii with the term ‘applicants.’ We believe the opening statement ‘A person, belonging to Glen Waverley Uniting Church (GWUC) shall make this submission’ is appropriate.

'''2.2 '''''' Guidelines for COP Committee  '''

We propose developing a set of written guidelines for the COP committee to assist them in selecting projects and allocating funds. These would include but not be limited to the following guidelines.

 . The COP Committee:
  . ·      should use the assessment criteria as published on the Church Wiki to select projects and allocate funds
  . ·      should not conduct research into the applications - rather they should rely on information provided by applicants in the interview and request additional information if required.
  . ·      contact members of the ministerial team or Outreach Group if they are unsure if an applicant belongs to GWUC
  . ·      excuse themselves from deliberation if they are connected to an application in any way
  . ·      ask applicants to provide a summary for a brochure/ written information to be shown to the Congregation or show applicants a written summary.

 . Interpreting the criteria
  . ·      In applying Criterion 6b, the following definition may be useful: New projects are specific activities which are going to be complete in around 12 months, and are aimed at producing defined outcomes and have reasonably accurate cost estimates.  Ongoing Support – An organisation which has existing programs and which a grant would allow wider application of existing operations. Specific grant amounts are nor required to achieve outcomes. It may have received funds from GWUC in the past.
  . ·      Criterion 6a – Local Community refers to Melbourne

'''2.3 '''''' Number of grants'''

''' '''

One submission suggested there be a maximum of six projects selected. There has been discussion about limiting the number of projects in the past. Having worked closely with COP committees over a period of years, the Outreach Missional Group strongly believes there should be no upper limit on the number of projects approved. The main reason is that this would make the COP committee’s task potentially extremely difficult (even more than it currently is). In 2018 nine projects received funding and in 2017 seven projects received funding.

'''2.4 Changes to the criteria'''

We propose the following minor changes:

 . Criteria 6a – Replace ‘Global Community’ with ‘Overseas Community’ Criteria 6b – The second sentence should read ‘Therefore, a balance between ongoing projects and new is desired.’

'''3.    ''''''__Questions for the Congregation__'''

Criterion 1 stipulates projects should help ‘needy people’, however this year the COP committee referred to Criterion 2 to justify inclusion of an organisation which fosters abandoned kittens (although in the end it received no funds). There was some discussion concerning this at the June Meeting of the Congregation. We have two directly opposing submissions on this issue. It is also possible a future COP committee could receive an application from an environmentally focussed project. The Outreach Missional Group has considered this issue carefully and we believe future COP committees and applicants need clear guidance on whether these types of projects will be supported.

Therefore, we have two questions to pose to the Congregation:

 . '''1.    ''''''Do you support Church Outreach Projects which help animals?''' ''' '''

 . '''2.    ''''''Do you support Church Outreach Projects which are primarily focused on the environment?'''

Outreach Missional Group

AmySparkEichenbaum (Convenor), AlaneeHearnshaw, FairlieMackinnon, AngelShea

February, 2019