Link to >>CongregationMeetingReports

Glen Waverley Uniting Church

Meeting of the Congregation – Minutes
Monday 1 Jul 2013.

Held in the Worship Centre at 8pm on Monday 1 Jul 2013 with 77 members present. Meeting began with the acting Congregational Chair Warren Bartlett who began with a joint prayer with the congregation.

1. Welcome & Apologies

Opening Worship (an act of reconciliation). WarrenBartlett opened the service with prayer, invited us all to sing Hymn 648, and then lit the Christ candle.

Apologies were received from: KayeMackinnon, KatieHunter, JennyVass, MargaretFraser, KerrynLeister, HelenBoucher, DavidBoucher, MargaretWilliams, EricArmstrong, PamMcDonald, LynMcDonald, SusanStringer, FayeWagon, RayWagon, AlanLemke, MargaretLemke, DorothyLockhart, GrahamLockhart, EvanLaidlaw, BarbaraLaidlaw, MarjorieCollins, AlanCollins, CliffBaker & RewaFeenaghty.

2. Receive Minutes of Previous Meeting

Minutes accepted by consensus.

3. Business Arising from Previous Minutes

None.

4. Reports

Before the reports were started, Warren B carefully explained the role of the three-card system.

4.1. COP Presentation

AndrewWheatland, who has been serving on the COP selection panel, led the presentation. He explained the selection criteria that was applied to each of the applications, and acknowledged that they were all met. The COP selection panel also met with representatives from all projects during this process. He thanked everyone who submitted an application. COP’s task: to allocate $20,000. Requests totaled $53,572. Not an easy task! They had to ensured the amount of money given was practical, and that there was an even distribution between Australia and overseas. He then explained each application briefly, stating the request, the recommendation and an explanation behind the recommendation. These recommendations can specifically be found on the wiki. JohnHurst asked a question about why does the Glencoe foundation not receive any extra funding? Andrew answered that it is a new project, but the others all have links to existing members. YanEmms also asked a question about what to do if we don’t receive $20,000 from the annual fete proceeds. Andrew responded that it would be up to the discretion of the Cop selection panel to divide the projects evenly and accordingly. Lastly JoelLeister asked if there were any relation between a Kenyan orphanage recently mentioned in the media and the two suggested recipients of COP funding. Andrew answered that he had not heard of this in the news story so he cannot comment in it specifically but the two projects that he is recommending funding for are projects that members of the Glen Waverley Uniting Church community are actively involved with and have consequently been evaluated by these members.

Once Andrew had finished, Warren B asked the congregation to vote on all three motions put forward by the COP selection panel. Full consensus was met.

• Motion:
  • That the total proceeds form the 2013 GWUC fete are allocated to COP projects
  • That the proceeds are allocated as per COP panel recommendations (can be

viewed on the wiki)

• If proceeds are less than $20,000 reallocation of funds is at the discretion of the

COP selection panel. JudyLowe on behalf of the congregation thanked the COP selection panel for all their hard work!

4.2. Steering Committee Report

BraceBateman began, explaining he was given the task to chair the steering committee in the February 2013 meeting. He introduced the six-person team (himself, BelindaChung, MarkEaston, MargaretFraser, JohnHurst & BronwynLowe) and apologizes on behalf of MargaretFraser who was very sick and could not make the meeting tonight. BronwynLowe then lead in prayer. The proposal brought by the Steering Committee is at ChurchFutureScProposal.

Brace explained how the steering committee has communicated with the congregation, including listening to newcomers. Each of the past 7 mornings, these have been communicated in the bulletin. The revised structure was created by WarrenGreenwood to show the church community. There have been many conversations with individuals of the congregation, including a forum that was conducted on 19 Jun 2013. From this entire process, Brace stated that the Steering Committee has moved forward in many ways. Brace explained what the steering committee had been doing in their first two meetings (reflecting on the love shown in our church, with no mention of anything else. They were purely focused on GWUC’s vision!)

Following this introduction, Brace read Recommendation 0 of the Steering Committee report, and explained that a change in structure, without a change in culture, will not work. He then read through the next 8 recommendations. After recommendation 3, Brace suggested councilors look forward to a new path.

Recommendation 1 & 2 were expanded by BelindaChung and BronwynLowe. They stated that they (the steering committee) have named the process “building a community of love.” They explained the process undertaken, highlighting the transparency of honesty and god-centered love present in each meeting and in each of the relationships with the other members of the steering committee. Belinda & Bronwyn then spoke about the community of love, and extended an arm towards the entire church, encouraging/reinforcing all to become a community of love.

• Recommendation 1: All church groups, recognizing the importance of intentional worship, are encouraged to set aside time in group meetings to participate in a) deep personal reflection and sharing of concerns (10 minutes); b) interactive and reflective group bible study (10 minutes).

• Recommendation 2: Every member of the congregation be encouraged to belong to a faith sharing and pastoral care group. Particular emphasis should be on developing cross age groups. Such groups would meet at a time to suit them and oversight would be through the Faith Development and Inclusive Mission Groups. Following the summary from Belinda & Bronwyn there were some questions from the congregation regarding the word oversight, as it has the possibility of being perceived as controlling. The Chair suggested that even though the word may not be agreed by all, that we interpret it with the definition of watchful care. A second question by Geoff Willis was raised that there was a discrepancy in the words on the sheet and the screen for Recommendation 1. The screen was correct, and adopted as such.

  • More questions and responses remained for around 20 minutes. Topics were mentioned such as a break down of trust and about our spiritual journey as a congregation. As the discussion was maturing, WarrenBartlett suggested the meeting move on as it was 9:30pm and the first two recommendations (of eight) had not been finished. Brace then addressed the current mood in the congregation, addressing some specific points that were raised in the previous conversation of ~20 minutes. He suggested that we move on reading the recommendations

• Recommendations 3 & 4 were presented by JohnHurst. He spoke about being excited for big, BETTER change for the church, even though he is technically one of the individuals who is being “voted” out of his office! He sees great opportunity in the recommendations. He then explained and re-stated recommendations 3 and 4, as well as adding recommendation 3c.

• Recommendation 3: That the congregation proceed to call for nominations for the 10 elected members to the new church council, and that elections be held in time for the new council to take over responsibility from the existing church council from 1 Sep 2013. Existing Councillors will be asked to voluntarily stand down from the council, unless elected as councillors from 1 Sep 2013. A service of thanksgiving to be held early in Sep 2013 for those councillors voluntarily standing down.
• Recommendation 3b: That congregation recognises that a generational change in church leadership is of great importance for the future vitality of GWUC and that active steps are made towards this goal.
• Recommendation 3c: That the congregation notes that the Council will continue to include up to two co-opted members of the congregation, and encourages the Ministry Team to identify one of their number who shall be the designated Council member from the Ministry Team.
• Recommendation 4: That the congregation acknowledge the devoted service of the many elders called to serve at Glen Waverley since Union, and recognizing the need for a clear spiritual direction for the church, approve the new identity of 10 joint Elders and Councillors from 1 Sep 2013, and encourage all existing Elders to voluntarily stand down as elders (unless elected as new councillors and elders), and transfer their service roles to the new worship and pastoral task groups. A service of thanksgiving to be held early in Sep 2013 for those elders voluntarily standing down.

After John finished and opened up to questions, there was a question from GraemeFrecker stating that if we ask elders to stand down, we are asking the church not to honour the vow given between the congregation and the Elder. John stated that they are not asking for people to discontinue Elder duties, as we all have a ministry to our congregation. Elders are free to choose to retire, or not to stand down. No vows are broken.

• Recommendations 5 and 6 were given by MarkEaston. He spoke about the On The Way Together process that resulted in four missional groups of the church, and that the recommendations will be using these missional groups in a more active form. Instead of having church council make daily decisions, the steering committee is recommending that the people of the missional groups should be making those decisions. Mark explained the process behind Recommendations 5 and 6, specifically about being a missional church and what that means.

• Recommendation 5: That the congregation adopt the new governance structure transferring day-to-day stewardship of church life to the four Mission Groups: Faith Development, Inclusive Community, Community Hub, and Outreach, including the formation of specific task teams within Mission Groups where needed.
• Recommendation 6: That the congregation calls upon all members to join in the activities of at least one Mission Group so that all members shall be seen as servants of the community.

WarrenGreenwood asked about the accountability of the church council. He was concerned by the word “transferring day to day management” and proposed to change it to “day to day stewardship”. This change was met with general consensus through a show of cards. Mark continued with recommendation 7 and 8. He fleshed out the decision-making behind the recommendations and stated that a mission matrix is available on the wiki.

• Recommendation 7: That the congregation affirm the continuing need for the current responsibilities of each of the Property Committee, Finance Committee, and Communications Committee, and asks each of them to review their operations in the light of these new church structures, and any new directives from the new Church Council.
• Recommendation 8: That the congregation requests the Ministry Team to identify amongst themselves their time allocation to each of the four Mission Groups, and to nominate the primary Ministry Team member for each Mission Group, and for the new Church Council.

PeterBaker agreed that the proposed church structure is a vast improvement from the prior management structure. The arrows from the council to the four missional groups are only facing outwards, rather than having two-way arrows signaling inclusiveness.

Action: WarrenGreenwood agreed to amend this.

Once conversation ceased from the floor, the Chair asked that recommendation 0 be voted on through a show of cards

• Recommendation 0: That these recommendations be taken en bloc and voted upon as a single group. The new Church Council is to take responsibility for all subsequent management and implementation of these plans beyond 1 Sep 2013. Two blue cards were shown from the 77. The first asked that we ignore recommendation 0 and vote for 1-8 individually. The second blue card pointed out that basis of union is not mentioned, and elders were not consulted. Ended in saying we are not ready to vote, but we need another week or two to think about the proposal and mull it over. Once the blue cards had expressed their decision, the Chair asked if the meeting had changed their mind, to which the meeting had not. Warren B then asked the individuals if they were prepared to accept the recommendation through agreement, which they were not. As according to Uniting Church Meeting procedure Warren B then asked we do a formal vote. 69 red cards shown, 8 blue cards shown, and the vote were passed through formal majority.

The chair then asked the congregation to show whether they were in favour of voting Recommendations 1-8. 2 blue cards were shown, to which they were not willing to speak. From the lack of comments from the blue cards, the Chair declared that the recommendation was passed through agreement.

A large thank-you was then given to BraceBateman and the rest of the steering committee for their unfailing work and spiritual commitment to the life of our church.

5. Any Other Business

5.1. Next Meeting

WarrenGreenwood stated that he will bring a proposal to the next congregational meeting to change the meeting times so they are as inclusive as possible to members of the church. He asked that this officially be included as a notice of motion. WarrenBartlett also agreed.

5.2. Pastoral Care Update

JanClear gave an update on Pastoral Outreach in the church, and informed of the speaker who was coming to our church from Adelaide.

6. Closure

WarrenBartlett ended with Galatians 6, and group prayer.

Wikified DavidMorgan