Diff for "SupportingOutsideEvents"

Draft policy on GWUC support for outside events

It is proposed to identify three categories of church events, in order to better classify the risks associated with these events. An "event" is taken to mean either an activity entirely organized by the church and conducted upon church property, or an event external to the church, but for which there is some form of recognition that that event contributes to the life and mission of the church .

• Category A: Church Sponsored Events where there is some form of underwriting or sponsoring of the event, that is, council specifically agrees to a financial obligation.

  Category B: Church Endorsed Events where there is no financial commitment on the part of the church, but the outreach is undertaken with the formal approval of the church (via council).

  Category C: Church Celebrated Events where the church has neither a financial commitment nor a formal endorsement, but is otherwise celebrated in the life of the church.

Rationale

1. GWUC wishes to support members pursuing activities related to their faith both inside outside of GWUC. Some recent examples of the latter would include contributing to the Synod Mission and Service fund, publicising the Christmas Bowl Appeal, door-knocking for Red Cross, building houses with Habitat for Humanity, running work and exposure trips to Kenya, standing for Municipal Council, taking a placement with Médecins Sans Frontières, and accepting employment in a remote aboriginal community.
2. Aspects of this support may include inclusion in public prayer, sharing of passions with the congregation in GWUC publications or services, offering the congregation opportunity to contribute their labour and their money, through to using church outreach funds and the time and talents of GWUC ministerial and other staff.
3. The amount of control that GWUC does and can exert over these will vary widely, depending on both the nature of the activity and the nature of the support.
4. Formal acknowledgement of an event as a Church Event invokes UCA insurance. This provides cover for the participants, but imposes responsibility on GWUC, through the Church Council, to manage any risks, which we may not be in a position to do.
5. This leads to a need to identify events that are Church Events, with insurance cover, and Council responsibility for management of risks and/or finance. What factors should be used for this identification? Some possibilities would include:
   1. Involvement of ministerial or other staff in a leadership role. Clearly a Church Event.
   2. Involvement of ministerial or other staff in a minor support role, for example some assistance from the church office staff. Not enough to make it a Church Event.
   3. Use of GWUC general funds. Clearly Council is responsible for the funds, and hence the event needs to be a Church Event.

   4. Use of GWUC fete proceeds, ie Congregational Outreach Projects. Clearly Council has responsibility for the fete, but little or no control over how the funds are spent, other than to undertake "due diligence" on the causes funded. Current guidelines for this are here. The Fete is a church event; the spending is not. GWUC / Church Council / Outreach Project committee are responsible for a reasonable check on the causes, but not for all their actions.

   5. Soliciting of financial contributions from the Congregation. Similar to the fete process, Council is responsible for a general check on the causes and who runs them, but cannot control nor be responsible for their actions.
   6. Encouraging participation by members of the congregation in outside events, from NCYC to Habitat for Humanity to Asylum Seeker support, where GWUC has little or no control, and no desire to take it. Again, advertising of such events requires Council to provide a general check on the cause.
   7. Prayer and publicity support for individual actions. The individuals take responsibility for their own actions, but GWUC can provide a blessing and a medium for reporting to the congregation without taking any responsibility.

Definitions and Examples

So the three categories become:

== Previous correspondence (not for general release) ==

In the case of A, we have recently agreed that the defining characteristic should be a "business plan" of the activity, that is, some form (a template is being compiled) in which the projected financial income and expenditure is laid out, and upon which the council can make a decision. Closely associated with this is the need for a financial report on completion of the event, showing actual incomes and expenditures. This would clearly be an "official event" for the purposes of insurance, and cannot take place without prior council approval.

For B, no such business plan would be needed, but neither is any financial commitment being undertaken. The financing of the event would be the private liability of the individuals. The difference between this and category c) would be that the event would be accorded some form of recognition as an "official event" (perhaps not with that title), such as a blessing, prayer, formal minute and/or other public cognisance. What is not clear to me is whether this could carry any indirect financial burden, such as insurance. I would invite clarification of this.

For C, there is no business plan and no recognition of the event other than noting than some members of the congregation may be involved. In particular, this category does not exclude fund raising in the life and community of the church (as for the other categories), but it does require that such fund raising carries no formal endorsement other than simple approval that it takes place.

The Kenyan Fund raising for the forthcoming January trip is clearly category C. The proposed Timor trip prompting this email thread is category B. The last Kenyan trip in July was category A. Timor is category B because it is approved by Outreach Group (and hence has a "formal minute" in the context of the definition above). The two Kenyan trips are different because the July one had COP funding, while the next January one has no church funding and no endorsement by any church committee.