Link to > CongregationMeetingReports > CongregationalPage

GLEN WAVERLEY UNITING CHURCH

MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CONGREGATION

Held in the Worship Centre at 8:00pm on Tuesday 13th December 2016.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

Apologies: Peter and Denise Baker, Lesley and Eric Armstrong, John and Rona Pooley, Heather Hon, Jacqui and Colin King, Murray & Judy Lowe, Geoff Willis, Malcolm Chamberlain, Margaret Lemke, Robert Fleming, Robin Pope, Nucel Lariba.

2. Prayer and Devotion

Neil Peters opened the meetingwith a reflection and prayer.

3. Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 17th July 2016

The minutes of the July meeting of the congregation are at CongMeetingMinutes20160717.

4. Matters arising from the previous Minutes

• Congregational Outreach Project selection criteria - to be dealt with as a separate agenda item
• Code of Conduct for the Congregation - to be dealt with as a separate agenda item

5. Correspondence

None

6. Reports and Recommendations

6.1. Church Council Report

HelenStewart made a presentation.

• Church Council has based its deliberations on the question: What does God want us to be?
• Building on the vsion developed in past years, the Church Council presented a proposal for staffing in 2017, taking into account the forthcoming retirement of Alison Clarkson and current vacancies.
• A new 0.6 part time position is proposed for a bilingual "Community Planter".
• A new 0.15 part time position is proposed for a pastoral care worker.

• In the light of these changes, the responsibilities of Neil Peters will change with increased priority on pastoral care to members of the congregation including hospital visitation, and decreased priority on cross cultural ministry & mission development.

The presentation, including more details, is at CongMeetingDec2016StaffingProposal.pdf

6.2. Report from the ministry team - focus 2017

NeilPeters made a presentation.

• Change in role as in Helen's report has been developed in consultation with team, who support it.
• Team does focus on the Vision.
• Exciting to have new families joining 9:15 service.

The presentation is at CongMeetingDec2016MinistryTeamReport.pdf

6.3. Finance Report

AshleyIrvine presented the proposed budget for 2017.

• Projecting $50k surplus for 2016
• Reducing offerings 2% in line with trends.
• Rental of our church premises is a significant component of our income, and the amount may well increase.
• Stipends and wages increased in line with positions proposed by Church Council.
• Other figures in line with 2016
• Leads to a deficit of k$16, funding from this year's savings.

Questions

• Is there enough to meet team dreaming?
  • We think so.
• Why are we so far in surplus?
  • Mainly team vacancies.

The chair thanked the Treasurer and thanked those involved in securing rental incomeand associated tasks.

The proposed budget overview is at CongMeetingDec2016TreasurersPresentationReformatted.pdf

Proposal

Taking into acount, the staffing proposals, the focus of the ministry team, and the proposed budget, the congregation was asked to consider the following proposal.

• Church Council propose that the Glen Waverley Uniting Church Congregation endorse the 2017 Budget including the call for a 'Community Planter', 'Pastoral Care Worker' and the amendment to The Minister of the Word's Ministry Priorities.

6.4. Code of Conduct

The following resolution was considered (carried forward from the July meeting of the Congregation). For background see CodeOfConductDiscussionDec2016

• "That the Congregation reject the Church Council’s proposed ''Code of Conduct'' for Members and instead publish an Advice to Members about the Civil Law relating to the Prevention of Abuse."

Discussion

• The proposed Code of Conduct under discussion is that given in Attachment 1 to these minutes.
• The key perspectives are those presented in Attachments 2 and 3 to these minutes.
• The chair suggested that we consider just the first part of Graeme's motion, and Graeme agreed.
• Graeme clarified that the motion referred to this code of conduct, not all such statements.
• Neil spelled out the need for wide based ownership of any adopted statemen.

• It was noted that there is a Synod code of conduct that applies to staff and volunteers working within the Uniting Church which includes those working in our congregation.

• The meeting expressed enthusiasm for the proposed workshops on "what kind of community do we want to be?"

Amended Proposal

• That the Congregation reject the Church Council’s proposed ''Code of Conduct'' for Members, and ask the Church Council to lead a process to develop a new way of describing how we aspire to treat each other.

6.5 Guidelines for propect selection for Congregational Outreach Projects in 2017

A report from the Outreach Mission Group is given in attachment 4.

NeilPeters presented an overview of this report and the deliberations that had gone into its preparation. The presentation is at CongMeetingDec2016OutreachPresentationReformatted.pdf

Key points:

• Number of supported projects went from 6 in 2015 to 12 in 2016.
• Is this too many? Did each of them get enough funds to be useful.
• Can we simplify the process?
• Outreach decided that the number should be left to the COP committee, but that some additions were desirable.

• The additions were largely adopted from Church Council 2010.

6a. Projects should be chosen to reflect a balance between Local Community, State or National Community, and Global Community projects. Balance may be defined over the number of projects, or over the amount of funding of the projects, at the discretion of the committee.
6b. Preference has been given in the past to new projects, but there is now a feeling that we should be looking at building continuing relationships with previously supported projects. (CC minute 03/2010) Therefore, a balance between ongoing projects and new projects or one off projects is desirable.

4.8. The congregation recognizes that the COP Committee works on their behalf and at times may need to make difficult choices. The projects recommended for support are to be those that are most likely to achieve a full and successful outcome from the receipt of COP funds.' 'Some projects may not be funded to ensure successful projects are able to be completed.

Discussion

• Discussion centred on whether there should be a hard limit on the number of projects. Most people were happy to leave the decision to the committee.
• It was observed that most project proposers are aware that there is no guarantee that their project will be accepted, even if it fulfils the technical criteria for project proposals.

Proposal

"That the congregation endorse 6.a and 6.b being added to the COP Criteria and 4.8 becoming part of COP Project recommendations".

6.6 Leisure Time seeking more volunteers

MargaretFraser presented an overview of Leisure Time - see CongMeetingDec2016LeisureTime.pdf

• Leisure Time provides a valuable and valued community service and is well respected by the City Council and the community.
• Leisure Time is into its 39th year.
• Some volunteers need to retire.

• Suggestions to MargaretFraser, CliffBaker, ElwynPederson or the office.

7. Other Business

None.

8. Benediction

The chair closed the meeting with a prayer.

==================================================================================================================

Attachment 1 - the Congregation Code of Conduct

Code of Conduct for Members

Based on UCA VicTas Synod Code of Conduct and Synod Code of Conduct for the Prevention of Abuse

Adopted in CouncilMinutes20140624

Found on CongCodeOfConduct

• I am writing these things to you ... (so) you will know how to live in the family of God. That family is the church.' Timothy 3: 14-15 (NCV) '

1. Policy Statement

• Let us concentrate on the things which make for harmony and the growth of our fellowship together.' Romans 14:19 (Phillips)

The Congregation actively promotes a way of life which embraces and communicates Christian values and ethics including: respect and care for every individual; inclusion; integrity; compassion; and wise stewardship

The Congregation’s Code of Conduct is based on these values and provides guidelines for all members of our congregation on the appropriate way to interact with each other. By adhering to these guidelines we will all contribute to the development of a tolerant caring and sharing environment.

2. Objective

• Each one of you is part of the body of Christ, and you were chosen to live together in peace.' Colossians 3:15 (CEV) '

To achieve in the congregation a culture where relationships are based on cooperation, mutual respect, understanding and trust.

3. Scope

• Most of all, let love guide your life, for then the whole church will stay together in perfect harmony.' Colossians 3:14 (LB)

This policy applies to all members of the Glen Waverley Uniting Church congregation.

4. Application

The practical application of this policy will be demonstrated by all members in both their formal and informal interactions with other members.

4.1. Care and respect

• In Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.' Romans 12:5 (NIV)

We acknowledge that every individual has different gifts and skills and we will therefore:

1. treat others with dignity and respect;

2. behave courteously and without prejudice at all times;

3. respect the right of others;

4. value colleagues, their gifts and contributions; and

5. not say or write anything that other members of our congregation might find offensive.

Within our congregation we aim to set an example for the community at large and this can include setting a standard that is higher than community norms. In particular, it is unacceptable in congregational activities to make comments or behave in a way that may be considered offensive, harassing or bullying with regard to race, culture, or beliefs.

4.2. Communication

• Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you.' Ephesians 4:29 (TEV)

We acknowledge the importance of good communication and will

1. communicate courteously, openly and honestly;

2. listen with understanding;

3. refrain from communicating in an offensive, abusive, intimidating, sarcastic or patronising manner.

4.3. Collaboration and teamwork

• You are joined together with peace through the Spirit, so make every effort to continue together in this way.' Ephesians 4:3 (NCV)

We recognise that we will as members of the Congregation

1. work collaboratively;

2. share knowledge;

3. share responsibility;

4. respect the rights of others;

5. be realistic in our expectations of others; and

6. acknowledge individual and group achievements.

4.4. Stewardship

We acknowledge that we are entrusted with the responsibility of Congregational resources. We will exercise wise and careful stewardship of all Congregational resources with care and responsibility at all times.

4.5. Monitoring and improvement

This Code of Conduct will be reviewed annually in November.

4.6. Related policies and procedures

EmailEtiquetteGuidelines, especially guidelines concerning content.

SocialMediaPolicy, especially guidelines concerning content.

5. References

Equal Opportunity Act 2010

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, 1986 (Cth) b) listen with understanding;

Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 (Cth)

Sex Discrimination Act, 1984(Cth)

Theology and Principles of the Uniting Church as an Employer.

Attachment 2 - Statement from Graeme Frecker in support of his motion

Proposal:

That the Congregation reject the Church Council’s Code of Conduct for Members and instead publish an Advice to Members about the Civil Law relating to the Prevention of Abuse.

Some points to think about:

• This code was published by the Church Council without reference to members of the congregation. The Code declares that it applies to all members of the congregation, though it cannot be imposed. It is the Council’s advice about relationship behaviour.

• The code apparently derives from the current public focus on the prevention of abuse of children and the vulnerable. It is based on the secular civil law used by the Synod for employment contracts. Significantly, the Bible is omitted from the list of secular legal documents supporting the Code of Conduct that are given as References.

• The code is limited in its scope; it falls far short of a comprehensive summary of the behaviour expected of the disciples of Jesus. A complete code would encompass many more aspects of life from the Christian perspective. Read Galatians 5 for example

• The code attempts to marry together ‘prevention of abuse’ (‘badness’) with development of a ‘culture of mutual respect’ (‘goodness’). These aims are opposite sides of a coin and ought be considered separately. Society can use the secular civil law to punish ‘badness’ (e.g. bullying) but society cannot make a law to compel goodness (e.g. compassion). Surely the Holy Spirit prompts us to ‘go the second mile’ of compassion.

• So what purpose does this Code of Conduct serve? Is a code really needed to reinterpret the attitudes seen in the life of Jesus Christ? How would our congregation impose proper behaviour? Who would ‘cast the first stone’ if a disciple is accused of not measuring up? Read John 8:1-11.

• Section 4.1 of the Code says that members should set a standard of behaviour higher than the community norm, whatever that is. People outside the congregation would see this statement as arrogant. Surely disciples aspire to the behaviour seen in the life of Jesus. We do not set life’s standards, Jesus does. Every human is flawed, and disciples are not in a competition to be ‘better than others’. Read Luke 18:9-14.

• The code is to be reviewed in November of each year, which suggests that standards of behaviour may be altered as the Church Council sees fit. Does this mean that acceptable behaviour for disciples is changeable, and does not depend on Jesus’ teaching?

The Code of Conduct is based on secular civil law, has limited scope, and cannot be imposed.

Governments have legislated to prevent abuse, so the Church Council might prepare advice on the relevant legislation for members instead, if really necessary.

Attachment 3 - Code of Conduct discussion information from David Morgan

This and additional related information can be found at http://wiki.gwuc.org.au/gwuc/CodeOfConductDiscussionDec2016

The proposal carried forward from the July meeting is:

That the Congregation reject the Church Council’s Code of Conduct for Members and instead publish an Advice to Members about the Civil Law relating to the Prevention of Abuse. The code is given in Attachment 1 (above).

July discussion

At that meeting, GraemeFrecker as proposer made the following points, and DavidMorgan as Church Councillor on the SafetyTeamGroup, replied with the text in italics.

This is a personal response, as one who saw this Code develop. Let me first say that I respect Graeme's questions. If Graeme thinks that we have got it wrong, we need to take that seriously. I hope that will be clear from what follows.

• This code was published by the Church Council without reference to members of the congregation. The Code declares that it applies to all members of the congregation, though it cannot be imposed. It is the Council’s advice about relationship behaviour.

  • There was considerable consultation, and substantial changes made as a result of that consultation. It was mainly informal, and could have been wider. We will try to do better.

• The code apparently derives from the current public focus on the prevention of abuse of children and the vulnerable. It is based on the secular civil law used by the Synod for employment contracts. Significantly, the Bible is omitted from the list of secular legal documents supporting the Code of Conduct that are given as References.

  • It actually arose historically from the Council wanting to avoid the bad behaviours that led to the resignations of Rosemary & Greg. The new Council sought to inspire itself, and then the congregation, to be better than we had been during that time. Council sought examples from the wider church, and modified the UCA version to be more biblical.

• The code is limited in its scope; it falls far short of a comprehensive summary of the behaviour expected of the disciples of Jesus. A complete code would encompass many more aspects of life from the Christian perspective. Read Galatians 5 for example.

  • Everything is limited. Again, the historical context was the aim to be better than we had been.

• The code attempts to marry together ‘prevention of abuse’ (‘badness’) with development of a ‘culture of mutual respect’ (‘goodness’). These aims are opposite sides of a coin and ought be considered separately. Society can use the secular civil law to punish ‘badness’ (e.g. bullying) but society cannot make a law to compel goodness (e.g. compassion). Surely the Holy Spirit prompts us to ‘go the second mile’ of compassion.

  • Other parts of the Safe church program are about prevention of abuse, and apply mainly to organisational structures and responses, rather that individual behaviours. The Code is all about culture, not about punishment.

• So what purpose does this Code of Conduct serve? Is a code really needed to reinterpret the attitudes seen in the life of Jesus Christ? How would our congregation impose proper behaviour? Who would ‘cast the first stone’ if a disciple is accused of not measuring up? Read John 8:1-11.

  • We all wish that it was not needed. But the accusations of bullying and harassment that Council receive, and the historical context of this congregation, show that it is. Again, we seek to inspire each other to be better, not to set up any system of ecclesiastical courts.

• Section 4.1 of the Code says that members should set a standard of behaviour higher than the community norm, whatever that is. People outside the congregation would see this statement as arrogant. Surely disciples aspire to the behaviour seen in the life of Jesus. We do not set life’s standards, Jesus does. Every human is flawed, and disciples are not in a competition to be ‘better than others’. Read Luke 18:9-14.

  • But we interpret it. Remember that the church and society have in the past condoned slavery, burning of heretics, witch trials, torture, child labour and many other things that we would see as contrary to the teachings of Jesus. And all the issues of the status of women, including exclusion from ministry. I do not see the Code as a basis for competition, but rather as a covenant to inspire each other to more Christ-like behaviour.

• The code is to be reviewed in November of each year, which suggests that standards of behaviour may be altered as the Church Council sees fit. Does this mean that acceptable behaviour for disciples is changeable, and does not depend on Jesus’ teaching?

  • The comments on the last point apply. But more particularly, I see the common theme in Graeme's comments as being the perception that the Code is intended as an instrument of punishment rather than inspiration. That is not how it was developed, it is not Council's intention, and I would suggest the text is very poor for that purpose. Like most codes of conduct, it is long on what we should do and very short on the consequences of not doing it. But if Graeme read it as being about punishment, then it is clearly badly written, and needs to be reviewed and improved. Council is committed to doing that, and including wider consultation in that process. Perhaps it even needs a change of name, a "Behavioural covenant" perhaps. There is certainly new material from Assembly that needs to be considered. So I would like to affirm the code, while acknowledging its imperfections, and encourage all members to become involved in its revision.

The Code of Conduct is based on secular civil law, has limited scope, and cannot be imposed.

Governments have legislated to prevent abuse, so the Church Council might prepare advice on the relevant legislation for members instead, if really necessary.

Proposal:

That this meeting affirm the Congregational Code of Conduct, while acknowledging its imperfections, and encourages all members to engage with the revision process.

Discussions with Synod since the meeting

One of the uncertainties in July was the UCA and legal requirements for Codes of Conduct, and what happens if we do not have one. DavidMorgan has since spoken with Josh Woolett from the Culture of Safety Unit of the Synod of Victoria & Tasmania. There are codes of conduct required for ministers, employees and lay leaders by the Synod and Assembly in response to legislation, mainly dealing with protection of children and vulnerable adults. We are required to comply with them. There is also an Assembly policy on vilification and harassment.

There are no requirements for us to have any document on how we treat each other.

Progress with revision

Council decided to engage an outside facilitator to involve the congregation in revision or replacement of the code. Council and Ministry team members had a series of meetings with staff from Bethel Counselling Centre, aiming to have the first of a series of workshops on November 30. However, the Bethel staff have asked for more planning time, delaying the workshops to the new year.

Attachment 4 - Proposed revised Congregation Outreach Project Selection Criteria

OUTREACH MISSIONAL GROUP REPORT DECEMBER 2016

The Outreach Missional Group received from the Church Council Secretary a proposal from a member of the congregation concerning COP processes. This proposal involved limiting the number of COP projects to 6 with the congregation having the authority to accept more than 6 projects. A few other people had raised the issue of the number of COP projects with the outreach committee in email correspondence and informally.

Outreach Response

The Outreach Group discussed this matter over two meetings supporting the general thrust of the proposal. We recognize that not all projects need to be supported and sometimes numbers might lead to some hard choices having to be made where projects are not funded to ensure adequate funding for successful projects. Outreach strongly opposed the idea of establishing a set number of projects. We feel it is unhelpful for the discernment process of the COP Committee to be so prescriptive. However, we want to empower the COP Committee to not support a project or projects for the best outcome of the overall process.

The convenor of Outreach spoke with the member who offered a proposal and he was comfortable that we had considered his point of view, and with the outcome. There has also been some engagement with the current members of the Cop Committee.

The Outreach Committee will continue to monitor the COP process.

The following criteria, which is shared for your information, help the COP Selection Panel draw up a short list of projects to recommend to the Congregation. (In our consideration we learnt that 6 a and b passed by church council in 2010 had not been added to the COP Criteria documentation)

COP CRITERIA

1. That we donate the funds that we raise as a response to Christ’s commission to His Church. Our aim is to follow the example of Jesus in providing practical assistance to needy people in our world.
2. That we support projects that are within the spirit of the UCA mission.
3. That we ensure that any project is:
   • openly accountable to the public;
   • viable;
   • managed by trustworthy people; and
   • meets appropriate legal requirements.
4. 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 and informed about their work.
5. That each submission should comprise a completed COP Application Form and any supporting information.

6. a. Projects should be chosen to reflect a balance between Local Community, State or National Community, and Global Community projects. Balance may be defined over the number of projects, or over the amount of funding of the projects, at the discretion of the committee.
   b. Preference has been given in the past to new projects, but there is now a feeling that we should be looking at building continuing relationships with previously supported projects. (CC minute 03/2010) Therefore, a balance between ongoing projects and new projects or one off projects is desirable.

4 Project Recommendations (4.8 is the only new point added to the recommendations)

4.1. Community Outreach Group shall recommend the total amount ($X) to be originally allocated across the selected Projects based on recent Fete income. Glen Waverley Uniting Church Congregation Outreach Projects Overall Procedure V2014 COP Overall Procedure V2014 V1.doc Page 2 of 2

4.2. The COP Selection Panel recommendation shall include a statement as to whether ALL or only part of the Fete total income should be allocated to the Projects this year.

4.3. The COP Selection Panel’s recommendations shall include how any excess or shortfall (to the amount in 4.1 above) shall be allocated.

4.4. Following the declaration of the Fete Total income, the Community Outreach Group shall advise the successful Applicants in writing of any change in the allocated funding so that the Applicants can keep the recipients accurately informed.

4.5. Community Outreach Group shall, in conjunction with the successful Applicant, be responsible for preparing the covering letter accompanying the funding cheque including checking of relevant names of the recipient and organisation, and the address.

4.6. Community Outreach Group shall arrange for the presentation of the funding to each recipient, and encourage feedback on the outcome of the funding.

4.7. COP Funds will not be available until after the Fete net income is declared.

4.8. The congregation recognizes that the COP Committee works on their behalf and at times may need to make difficult choices. The projects recommended for support are to be those that are most likely to achieve a full and successful outcome from the receipt of COP funds.' 'Some projects may not be funded to ensure successful projects are able to be completed.

PROPOSAL 'That the congregation endorse 6 a and 6 b being added to the COP Criteria and 4.8 becoming part of COP Project recommendations.