The Glen Waverley Uniting Church PSALTERLink to MarriottBequest > CongMeetingAgenda20210314
Discussion Concerning the Marriott Bequest
Information about the proposed application of the Marriot Bequest from David Fraser
Representing the committee charged to prepare a proposal for application of the Marriott bequest, David Fraser prepared the following video. (349MB)
(A low resolution version (88MB) of this video is here.) Also a brochure.
A Response to the proposals for the Marriott bequest from Alison Barr
Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the work of the committee, and thank them for their time and considerable effort in this difficult task. Even before I listened to the video, the constraints in the terms of the bequest reminded me of something I was told about making a will - “ Don’t dictate from the grave.”
Now to the proposal of the 4 projects.
- Purchase of a piano for the worship centre. As music is an important aspect in the life of the congregation , and, indeed, for many of us personally, a good instrument is essential. I would support this project.
- Because of the terms of the bequest, the other 3 projects are all focussed on the past, and this is of concern to me. I could support the production of a book on the history of Glen Waverley Uniting Church. This would be a worthwhile contribution not only to GWUC itself, but also to the communities of which GWUC is, and the 3 uniting denominations were part. It also would be the best place to acknowledge the contributions of the Marriott family over many years. However, it should be noted that the process of gathering and collating material, prioritising and writing is enormous and time consuming, even if there is professional input.
For me, the other 2 projects - picture windows and additions to the corner sign - are just not needed, my main reason being that they are too centred on the past. In the February Crosslight, Rev. Cameron McAdam, a candidate for our next Moderator, puts my thinking much better than I can. The UCA is facing “ financial challenge, numerical decline, ageing demographics, shortage of ministry agents and under-utilised property resources “ - and we are part of this.
We want people to join GWUC because in our fellowship and proclamation, and in our caring and service, they find an expression of faith relevant to the world today and into a changing and uncertain future.
Some comments from David Morgan
Unfortunately Irene ignored the good advice about making a will. Her will very specifically says that the bequest "is to be used by the Church for a project or improvement approved by my Trustees as being an acknowledgement of the connection and support of my late husband Fred Marriott and myself with that church." Any project meeting that requirement will inevitably be "centred on the past" and "backward looking". These are not projects that I would choose to spend my money on, nor projects for which I would support the use of congregation funds. But they are useful projects that fit the terms of the bequest and have been approved by the trustees as doing so.
Our only alternative to funding projects "centred on the past" is to return the money to the estate on the grounds that we are unwilling to abide by the terms of the bequest. I feel that that would be disrespectful of Irene and Fred. For that reason I support the proposal.
Some comments from Warren Greenwood concerning location of the picture windows
Warren Greenwood, after the meeting provided the chair, JohnSnare, with the following feedback.
"A suggestion that arose and gained immediate support after the meeting was that the proposed artwork - which is wonderful - could be displayed prominently on the south wall of the foyer, above the history and gift book display, mounted in a beautiful frame structure that is back-lit that would bring light and life to the dark part of the foyer and be a very prominent part of the history of GWUC.
It would sit in our “history corner” as one person said.
It would be the first thing people saw when they entered from the north doors.
When that suggestion arose, the people around the discussion became animated and supportive.
I put it forward as another suggestion and say that had that been in the original proposal, I would have raised no concerns whatsoever this morning and I would have supported all of the proposition.
That same suggestion was shared with a member of the committee, and rejected, long before the committee existed, because it was not prominent enough. And there-in lies the crux of the problem. Those supporting the proposal want it front and centre above all else, while others do not want it overshadowing or dominating our beautiful building.
So I again submit it as part of the thinking options. I would help in any committee if required, but as above, my views are too strong to allow a true free thought process to occur."